The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 09/06/2007 B (Budget) September 6, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 6, 2007 Budget Hearings LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PELICAN BAY BUDGET AGENDA Thursday, September 6, 2007 5:05 p.m. Jim Coletta, Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Vice-Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO 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 PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING HERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Hearing A. Executive Summary - Fiscal Year 2008 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Page 1 September 6, 2007 B. Public Comment C. Resolution Approving the Special Assessment Roll and Levying the Special Assessment against the Benefited Properties Within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit 3. ADJOURN Page 2 September 6, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET AGENDA Thursday, September 6, 2007 5:05 p.m. Jim Coletta, Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Vice-Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO 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 PROCEDlNGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - BCC - Fiscal Year 2008 Tentative Budget. A. Discussion of Tentative Millage Rates and Increases Over the Rolled Back Millage Rates B. Review and Discussion of Changes to the Tentative Budget C. Public Comments and Questions: Page 1 September 6, 2007 D. Resolution to Adopt the Tentative Millage Rates E. Resolution to Adopt the Amended Tentative Budget F. Announcement of Tentative Millage Rates and Percentage Changes in Property Tax Rates G. Announcement of Final Public Hearing as Follows: Final Public Hearing on the FY 2007-08 Collier County Budget Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:05 p.m. Collier County Government Center W. Harmon Turner Building (F) Third Floor, Boardroom Naples, Florida 2. ADJOURN Page 2 September 6, 2007 September 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Board of Collier County Commissioners' public budget hearing for September 6,2007. We'll begin this meeting as we begin all meetings, with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. Commissioner Coyle, would you be kind enough to lead us. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mudd? Item #2 (Of the Pelican Bay Budget Agenda) PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET HEARING MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll start out, it basically has two parts. The first part will be the advertised public hearing for Pelican Bay Services Division budget hearing, and that is on your visualizer right now. You did -- the executive summary is out there, and Mr. John Petti, who's the Manager for Pelican Bay Services Division, will present. MR. PETTI: Good afternoon. My name is John Petti. I'd like to introduce our Chairman, Coleman Connell, who will be doing the presentation. MR. CONNELL: Thank you, John. Good evening, Commissioners. David Branson is our budget chairman and unfortunately has some health problems or he would be here tonight to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you move the mike just a little closer, sir. Thank you. MR. CONNELL: Sure -- to present this himself. Page 2 September 6, 2007 The budget has been a subject of a number of public meetings during which, of course, the public has had its opportunity for input. The total amount which this budget proposes to raise is $3,736,000. That is some $107,000 or 11 percent below the 19 -- or the 2007 number. The reduction can be traced to an increase in the carryforward, which I guess is probably quite obvious. This resulted from discontinuing a planned landscaping project scheduled for the side of the berm. Weare requesting an assessment per equivalent residential unit of $330.04 for maintenance, and $45.38 for capital reserves to fund capital projects. This results in an assessment of$375.40 -- .42 per ERU. That is approximately $47.57 less than the fiscal year 2007. If you have any questions, Mr. Petti and I will attempt to answer them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any questions by the commissioners? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Coleman, when I -- the information I have here, it says that your special assessment is $329.25, and then another 404, I 00, which equates to $53. -- $53.05. MR. CONNELL: Those numbers were taken directly from the budget which was supplied to us by the county. I'm not so sure I can explain the difference, but I'm confident of the numbers that I'm glvmg you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can someone from the county explain the difference? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can't. I mean, these numbers-- we don't make these numbers up. We get them submitted to us from the Pelican Bay Services Division. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a $1.2 million difference, if I understand this correctly. Page 3 September 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And you're supposed to approve this. You can't approve this tonight based on the information that's just been provided. Your executive summary and your backup documents does not support the speaker's comments. And that's what normally happens tonight, you approve their piece and they don't have to come back the next time. Weare in a dilemma at this particular juncture. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The person that put this together, Barbara Smith, is he (sic) here present. MR. CONNELL: No, she is not. MR. PETTI: Mr. Chairman, the numbers that they have are correct. The numbers that we have do not take into account some carryforwards. MR. CONNELL: Apparently the numbers which were given to me were from a preliminary budget. Obviously the county numbers are correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How -- okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The problem is that we've already read into the record the testimony with the incorrect numbers. Could we possibly get this reread into the record with the correct numbers, especially for everybody that's viewing this, so that we have -- we have a true and accurate -- MR. CONNELL: We'd be glad to? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what we have before us? MR. CONNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you do that now, sir? MR. CONNELL: Not as I stand here. It's going to take a moment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no problem at all. What we could do is, that with the permission of the commissioners, we could move forward to the next item and come back to you shortly when you're prepared. MR. PETTI: Thank you. Page 4 September 6, 2007 MR. CONNELL: Thank you. All right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, too, if! may. Ms. Filson, I understand we have some speakers. At what point in time do these speakers come forward to address the commission? MS. FILSON: I believe when the county manager presents the next issue, they'll request the speakers come up. Is that correct, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: We will go down the advertised public agenda when we go to the next item, and I believe that the board -- the board just tabled the Pelican Bay item until the speaker can make sure that we -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion to be able to table this item? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. MR. WEIGEL: Actually, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that I think you're taking a recess on this particular hearing, call it the Pelican Bay special district, and so if you would call a recess until -- to be called shortly thereafter, your motion will suffice, and then you can go on and start your new agenda, which is on the county generally. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't need a motion and second for a recess? MR. WEIGEL: No, you do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You do, okay. Do I-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion for recess for this particular item. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas that we recess on this particular item. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 5 S,eptember 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Item #IA (Of the BCC Budget Agenda) TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER THE ROLLED BACK MILLAGE RATES - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this would bring us to our next piece on your agenda, which has to do with the county budget. It's the BCC fiscal year 2008 tentative budget, and I'm going to -- and you'll notice public comment, and comments and questions are the third item. I'm going to turn the microphone over to Mr. Smykowski as he goes through a discussion of tentative millage rates and increases over the rolled back rates. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you do that, would you take a moment and activate the speakers on the dais here. MR. MUDD: How's that, sir? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's great. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: All set, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we are. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, the County's Budget Director. I'd like to welcome the members of the public, and obviously the staff. Page 6 September 6, 2007 This is the first of two of public hearings on the Collier County government fiscal year 2008 budget, which will begin on October 1, 2007, and will run through September 30,2008. As I indicated, this is the first of two hearings. The final hearing is two weeks from tonight, September 20,2007, at which time final tax rates and budget decisions would be made at that -- at the final hearing on September 20th. There are agendas for the benefit of the public. There are agendas in the hallway. There are also speaker sign-up forms. You must register if you wish to address the Board of County Commissioners regarding the county budget. Following some introductory marks that I will make regarding the tax rates and changes to the tentative budget that was initially released in mid July, there will be an opportunity for public input. That, as Mr. Mudd indicated, is item 1 C. And speakers will be called by name. I believe Ms. Filson will be calling the speakers. If you just want to raise your hand, Sue. For the benefit of the public, if you wish to speak, you need to fill out a form, provide it to Ms. Filson, and she will call the speakers at the appropriate time. The first substantive issue required by statute is a discussion of the tentative millage rates and the increase over the rolled-back millage rate. The rolled-back millage rate is an interesting concept. It basically adjusts for the fact that over time, property value tends to increase in valuation. So the actual millages and the percentage increases expressed thereto are a function of the rolled back rate, which is the tax rate that would generate the same amount of money as the prior year with the exception of new construction that is added to the tax roll. For instance, if you have a house valued at $100,000 and levied one mill, that would generate $100 from tax revenue. If in the subsequent year that house were valued at $200,000, the rolled-back Page 7 September 6, 2007 millage rate would be one-half mill to generate that same $100 of tax revenue, and that is how the percent increases are expressed from year to year. It's interesting, on page -- item lA, page 2, is a listing of all the individual millages. Typically I would be walking through a -- increases over the rolled back rate. As we all know, this year the state legislature and the legislative session was dominated by discussions relative to tax reform. The county commission in July set its tentative millage rate, which, for purposes of the tax notices that went to each property owner within Collier County, is, in essence, the worst-case scenario for them for the taxes that would accrue to their property based on the millage rates adopted not only by Collier County government but also by each of the respective jurisdictions, the municipalities, the school board, and the independent fire districts and independent water management districts. It's much simpler this year because the county commission in July set its tentative millage rate and adopted the full rollback provisions that the legislature intended this year, which, in essence, was a 9 percent below the rolled back rate for not only the county general fund, which is the principal operating fund, but also for all the various MSTUs. There is an exception with the fire districts. They were only -- were only forced to roll back to 97 percent of the rolled back rate. So those reflect only a 3 percent reduction. There's one reflecting an increase near the bottom, Caribbean Gardens, 220. That is voter-approved debt, and that was exempt from the rollback provision because this is funding bond debt service payments for the acquisition of the zoo property itself. This is much simplified from years past where we were discussing each of the respective units and percent increases typically from the rolled back rate. In this case the overwhelming majority of Page 8 September 6, 2007 them, with that exception, are decreases from the rolled back rate. Again, the board adopted the full rolled back provisions that the legislature intended this year up front in its July approval of the tax rates that were used in preparing the TRIM notices that went to each property owner in Collier County. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Halas has a question. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You discussed the zoo whereby it didn't have to have any rollback. How about Conservation Collier where the citizens voted themselves to tax themselves to purchase property? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. There was a rollback within. We went back and forth with the Department of Revenue. We did not -- the initial thought was we were going to have to roll back an additional $400,000 beyond what is in the package tonight. As a result of our discussions, negotiations, and their policy deliberations with the Department of Revenue legal staff, it was determined that we did not have to completely roll back, as a portion of that was voted debt service millage, but a portion is also operating millage. That piece had to be rolled back. The piece -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The operating portion. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Gotcha. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's the 1.5 (sic)? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is the .1588. On this page 2, Conservation Collier fund 172. Mr. Mudd, if you wouldn't mind pointing to that. We levied .1811 equivalent for operations. That had to be rolled back to .1588, reflecting the 9 percent below the rolled back rate, but then you also see about four -- four lines down from that Conservation Page 9 September 6, 2007 Collier debt service -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- the equivalent debt service, you levy exactly what you need to make your bond principal and interest payments. In essence, your mortgage payments on that property. So that piece -- there is a slight reduction because of the change in the -- in the debt service requirement, but on the operations piece, you were forced to roll back on the full 9 percent. But again, it was -- it was less than we originally thought we were going to have to as a result of our discussions with the Department of Revenue. And I will tell you, we had them in quite a quandary because they weren't sure how to interpret this, and they're kind of making policy as they go implementing the new legislation because this was dropped in their lap in early July, just as it was in ours. So as we had questions on their end of interpretation and trying to make policy decisions and work with their attorneys for their interpretation of the rule, it was quite a challenge. While there is a rollback, it was less than we otherwise thought it would have been as a result of our discussions with them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Michael. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Michael, could you explain why we have an aggregate millage reduction of 9.18 percent but yet taxpayers will not be getting a reduction of 9.18 percent in their taxes? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The aggregate rate is in a weighted average of all the millages adopted by Collier County. Obviously, what will happen to each individual homeowner is going to be a function of the valuation of their property as well as -- you know, while Collier County rolled back in this case the full 9 percent, Collier County represents about -- in FY-'07 dollars, of what was actually Page 10 September 6, 2007 levied amidst all the governmental jurisdictions, we were only about 40 percent of the total tax bill. So there are a whole host of other governmental jurisdictions. Notably the school board, the water management and Big Cypress Basin, independent districts, if you live within a municipality, either Everglades City, City of Marco Island, or City of Naples, as well -- depending on which independent fire district boundary you may live in, to varying degrees, you know, they may not have adopted the full rollback. In fact, three of the five independent fire districts, based on the information I have, kept their millage rate constant, so there was no change to their millage. And so you -- obviously, if the county is only 40 percent of the total bill and other organizations may not have rolled back to that degree -- and that's, again, compounded by whatever the valuation of an individual's property was. It's going to vary property owner by property owner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The school board, have they had a rollback? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, the school board did. In fact -- bear with me a second. I'm getting to the visually challenged stage myself, so I'm going to stand and look closely. What this shows is a comparison of the millage rates that were adopted in fiscal year '08 for the municipalities, the school board, the water management, the mosquito control districts, as well as independent fire districts for fiscal year '08 compared to fiscal year '07 and the variants thereto. With minor exceptions, the municipalities had millage rate reductions with the exception of a few debt service millages. The school millage was reduced about two-tenths of a mill, the water management reduced slightly, and the independent fire districts, again, as I indicated earlier, three of the five kept a millage rate Page 11 September 6, 2007 constant. East Naples and Big Corkscrew reduced their millages. So there's about 300-plus combinations depending on where you live in Collier County as to which fire district you fall into and which county MSTU s you fall into. So there are, like I said, 300-plus combinations depending on where you live in the county of various millages. So it's going to vary from property owner to property owner. But, again, we're here relative to the county millage, and the county millage was reduced to the full extent that the legislature was requiring over us, unless we opted out with a supermajority or a unanimous vote. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was -- somebody told me that we've had layoffs and anticipated layoffs for this coming budget that we're about to adopt. Is that true or is that just a rumor? MR. MUDD: No, that's not -- that's not a rumor, sir, that's true. And the layoffs were our temporary hires and those employees, and we basically talked about that at the workshop that we had in June. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: It was just the temps. Any temporaries that were general fund or in that particular regard, we gave them a two-week notice, and we let them go, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay. So part-timers -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and temporary? What about -- are you going to be able to keep up with the AUIR with this budget? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's what we're going through right now in the '07 AUIR, and they're going through that right now with their analysis in laying that particular issue. One of the things that will help us is, based on the changes to the population -- remember DCA told us that during the high season we were a little bit too aggressive with our numbers, and they came in Page 12 September 6, 2007 with a modified algorithm, so to speak, on how to calculate that. Those projections have gone down, and so the decrease in population increase over time for, as far as a projection is concerned, will also help us because we won't need those particular facilities as soon as we had anticipated in our zero -- I'll call it our '07 AUIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my understanding the staff prepares the AUIR, the board adopts it, and that's based on what the upcoming budget is. So we did our AUIR in January or February for this budget. Are we going to be able to stay up with that AUIR? MR. MUDD: The AUIR that was -- that was done, the one that was finished that you approved, we are going through the financial feasibility discussions with the DCA because it was one of the -- one of the dings that we got on their ORC Report. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: We believed at that time that we were financially feasible. The actions that the board took at the end of June whereby we didn't decrement transportation and/or stormwater in their particular budgets led me to believe that, pending some unforeseen problem in the future in the legislature where if the -- a lot of legislatures -- legislators are saying right now that they want to go back and do more tax reform. Outside that outcome, which we don't know yet, we're okay with the AUIR, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're going to meet our response times for EMS? MR. MUDD: We are waiting -- if you remember what the board's direction was to staff on that particular item was to hold on any future growth items on EMS until they had finished their study that will be done here in October whereby we could give ourselves credit. We had the new ALS agreements that were done. You were going to finish the last two on Tuesday. They're part of your agenda. Our ALS engines increased from the five that were promised in Page 13 September 6, 2007 the five different fire departments to a total of 14 now. So that will -- that will significantly increase the amount of assets that we have to answer calls that are going to be guaranteed. So I believe when that gets incorporated into the study, we will see a -- we'll be okay on the EMS side of the house. But I don't want to -- I haven't seen the preliminary study results yet either, sir, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's coming up. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last question is, the board under your guidance, approved a resolution for the library system and -- in charging part-time residents, seasonal residents or whatever, for the use of that facility. Prior to the adoption of that resolution, on the website it stated that the groups or the not-for-profit organizations that use the building now will not be charged for room rental. It will be ongoing. And now, from what I understand, that has a different philosophy. Do you know anything about that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here comes Marilyn. MR. MUDD: Ms. Matthes is here to answer that particular question, sir MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. And what we said was that we were not going to charge the groups who had already booked the meeting room as nonprofit organizations. Any new bookings we would charge. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How much is that really -- how much are you going to collect from that? How much do you anticipate? Or how much do you anticipate them going someplace else? MS. MATTHES: The estimate for the budget purposes, that part of the estimate, was 10- to 15,000 dollars annually. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. MATTHES: We also put a component in to charge Page 14 September 6, 2007 commercial establishments who have never been able to use meeting rooms, and that's a much higher figure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it was a total of 40 million -- or $40,000 for-- MS. MATTHES: Right, for those adjustments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- grabbing all those. I mean, my personal feelings, I would like to see the board adopt a policy that the existing users, not for profit, be able to use it for that use. It's not really a whole bunch of money. And one in particular, I don't know if the others received emails, who's the Girl Scouts. You know, we -- I mean, these groups go back into the community and I'd hate to turn them away for not -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Have you worked out something with the Girl Scouts? MS. MATTHES: We have. Actually, with all of the scouting organizations, and we're going to make them exempt from those, probably with a partnership with our Friends of the Library. Our Friends activities are also exempt because they support our operation. So if the scouting groups are partners, then they're also exempt. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. So then the Girl Scouts -- I totally agree with you. We're trying to keep kids active and busy, and wholesome, healthy activities rather than out in the street or sitting in the mall or something, so we don't want to jeopardize any programs because of charging even a minor amount. Let's face it, Girl Scouts, how much money do they have anyway? So I'm glad to hear you've worked out an agreement. So in other words, say, for instance, I start a new Girl Scout troop? MS. MATTHES: Any scouting organizations, Brownie, Cub, Girl, Boy Scouts, all of them are covered. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, great. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, now I know my cookies Page 15 September 6, 2007 are not going to be cracked when they're delivered. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Before we move into changes to the budget that have occurred, I do want to talk about property valuation issues because -- and there may be some folks in the audience tonight who, you know, may have an issue with the valuation of their property. The ad valorem tax bill is a function of two things; the millage rates that are adopted by each of the respective governmental bodies, as well as the valuation of the property established by the property appraiser. Just a few quick bullet points here. The property appraiser is required by law to assess properties at 100 percent of market value. The best indication of market value is the value of similar properties sold prior to January I. In this case it would reflect 2006 market activity, and market conditions for the -- moving forward from January 1 would be reflected in next year's valuation. So if folks here or in the public have any questions as to the valuation of their property, the initial recourse is to contact the Property Appraiser's Office at 774-8481, and you can speak with someone as to how they arrived at the valuation of your property. If you wish to appeal the valuation and file a formal petition with the Value Adjustment Board, or V AB, the deadline is tomorrow, September 7th. So we wanted to kind of make a public service announcement just for the benefit of any taxpayers who might find themselves in that situation. There is a filing fee of $15 per property, and the burden of proof is on the property owner to provide information such as comparable sales to, you know, show that the property appraiser's valuation is too high. And the Value Adjustment Board application forms are available at the Property Appraiser's Office or online, I believe. But, again, the filing deadline is tomorrow, September 7th, I Page 16 September 6, 2007 believe, at five o'clock. So if any folks find themselves in that situation, tomorrow's the day by which they must file or the valuation will stand as prepared by the property appraiser. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just make a comment. I'd like to emphasize that. There is absolutely nothing that we can or will do at this meeting which will change the property assessor's valuations. So if someone has any concerns about their assessments or their taxes, they're going to have to deal with the property assessor, tax assessor, with respect to that issue. We cannot deal with it here today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But, of course, with that said, too, anyone that's signed up to speak under public petition tax-related issues, feel free to still come up and talk. Item #IB (Of the BCC Budget Agenda) MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to IB on our agenda, which is review and discussion of changes to the tentative budget. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 1, under IB, there's a summary of changes to the proposed FY -'08 budget. I'll walk through those in brief fashion trying to summarize what the major changes have been. Beginning with the general fund, the net change to the fund total is $400,000. We were rebudgeting the payment to the City of Naples for the Pulling boat launch project which was not going to occur in fiscal year '07. Obviously with today's newspaper article about the city giving that title to that property back to the Pulling family, I guess it would be in doubt that we would actually be making that payment at all. So we may be able to actually move that money back to reserves, Page 17 September 6, 2007 but that was one of the changes. And obviously it predated the newspaper article this morning and that action taken by the city. We also increased tax collection fees by $50,000 based on the actual millages adopted by the various governmental bodies. The county is required by Florida law to pay the tax collection fees for the county, the municipalities, and the school board. So based on the final actual millages rates adopted by each of those units and the final valuations as of July I, we analyzed that in the budget office, and we've needed an additional $50,000. This was offset. The Naples CRA payment was reduced by $279,700 to reflect the actual millage rate adopted by the board, and the sheriff transfer was reduced by $31,400 based on the actual budget reductions that they provided to us recently. Sheriff -- the next fund that had a change was $31,400, and that was line item detail that was provided by the sheriffs budget as to how they were going to make those reductions. The property appraiser's budget reflects a net reduction of $19,700, reflecting budget changes approved by the Florida Department of Revenue. The tax collector's budget was received on August 1st, so in the mid-July release of the tentative budget, the tax collector's budget was zero. The actual budget is slightly in excess of $22 and a half million, of which a little over 11 million is in excess fee distribution back to the taxing district. So his revenue exceeds expenses by $11 million, and that will be refunded back to -- in proportion to the actual funds collected back to the taxing districts. Our pollution control fund was reduced $71,400, reflecting a change based on an actual contract amount in water -- in revenue from the South Florida Water Management District. The reduced contract funding will be offset. They're going to just simply change the sampling quantities from monthly to quarterly to reflect the lesser Page 18 September 6, 2007 funding from the water management district. We're moving into the capital area, and these changes are largely a function of board policy decisions that were made at the July budget -- not budget -- the July board meeting in which the board may have approved capital projects that differed in dollar amount from what we had estimated. F or instance, the board approved an expansion study connected with Connor Park on July 24th for 15,000 and a feasibility study for the Vanderbilt fishing pier. So as a result, those will reduce FY-'08 budgeted carryforward because we will be paying for those studies in fiscal year '07. In addition, that were three capital projects that were approved by the board on July 24th. And based on the actual amounts of the contracts approved by the board, we reduced the budget to make the budget match how much was actually approved by the board on that date. Capital project 301, there's no -- no net change. We had forecast loan proceeds for the emergency services complex and the 800 megahertz upgrade. Those loans have not been drawn yet. We're managing our cash flow, and we don't want to borrow until we absolutely need to for those projects, so we reduced our forecast revenue, which has the effect of reducing money carrying forward into '08 and simply rebudgeted those loans in FY -'09 -- or '08. We will eventually need to draw that money, but we are managing our cash wisely. Because once you borrow that money, you will begin incurring interest expenses that must be paid monthly. So we're just trying to manage that closely. The CDES capital fund. The budget had a, frankly, an error in it for a million four that was budgeted in capital outlay that should have been budgeted in reserves. The change simply moves the funds to reserves to rectify that situation. In roads, 313, there's some grant and intergovernmental revenue Page 19 September 6, 2007 that will not be received by September 30th, the close of the fiscal year, so we're simply rebudgeting those funds again in 2008. No net change to the budget. But, again, we -- any changes whatsoever, we'd bring forward to the board in these resolutions. Road impact fee district 331, on June 26th, the board awarded a construction contract for CR 951. The forecast for 2007 was understated. As a result, we updated the forecast, and as a result, we offset additional expense with a decrease to budgeted reserves in fiscal year 2008. In the impact fee district 333, we revised the capital project expense for the CR 951 to Davis project, and also there was a change in forecast impact fee revenue. Impact revenues for transportation is doing fairly well. It was 500,000 better than initially forecast, so we updated that forecast. Funds 334, 336, 338, all reflect changes to project forecast, and with funds being -- simply being rebudgeted in fiscal year 2008. Similar situation in 339, but also, again, there was an additional half a million dollars adjustment upward in the impact fee revenue collections forecast in this fiscal year. The EMS impact fee fund 350, initially we had forecast commercial paper loans for construction of EMS stations. Obviously in some cases -- in fact on Tuesday we're being asked to approve a commercial paper loan to purchase the land for one of these stations. So obviously if we're just purchasing the land on September 11 th, we're not going to have construction done by September 30th. So we're simply rebudgeting those for construction projects because they will not be underway by the close of the fiscal year. Same thing for the Golden Gate library and south regional library. Again, we're monitoring our cash very closely there, not wanting to borrow funds earlier than we need to. In addition, we have a million dollars in state grant funds to be received in fiscal year '08. They were originally forecast to be Page 20 September 6, 2007 received in 2007. So we're simply rebudgeting those. And the government facility impact fee for the BCC fleet facility and the courthouse annex, that borrowing is going to be deferred until 2008. Again, you have bond proceeds that's funding the courthouse annex construction. A piece of it would be funded with commercial paper, but we want to spend down those bond proceeds before we would borrow any additional funds. County water/sewer operating funds. There's a -- no net change, but we're reducing the transfer to the debt service fund and offsetting that with an increase in the transfer to the sewer user fee capital fund. That's 890,000. And the last page, page 3, the water/sewer debt service fund is very complex, and we're -- we accepted and received loans in August, 2007. So, again, rather than the initial estimates that were used in the budget, the budget reflects the actual amounts approved by the board in those actual loan documents. And on June 26, two water projects were moved from an impact fee fund to the bond proceed fund, changing the debt service allocation between user fees and impact fees. So when we did that, we made the corresponding change in this case to the debt service fund to reflect which fund will actually be making the repayments on those projects. It's -- you know, ultimately it's one big pot of money for sewer cap -- water and sewer capital projects, but we're trying to stay on top of the appropriate fund. If it's not impact fee eligible, we want to use user fees to repay the debt service. If it's impact fees, water or sewer, we want to reflect the correct amounts for the repayment of that principal and interest. The corresponding change to the next two funds is the result of those two projects that the board approved on June 26th. 415, again, that's, again, moving projects out of the impact fee fund into the bond proceeds fund. And then finally the last one of that, Page 21 September 6, 2007 there's -- a $76,100 budget amendment was approved by the board in absentia for additional project money for the Immokalee taxiway construction. So the net change to the budget, the largest of which is the receipt of the tax collector's budget submittal, is 41,630,500. Again, they're largely dictated by capital project fund changes and decisions you've made at the June or July county commission meetings in approving capital projects. If there are no questions, that would move us to 1 C, which is the public -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second, please. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Before we go into lC -- I think that's where we're going to take speakers? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Item #2 (Of the Pelican Bay Agenda - Continued from earlier in the meeting) RESOLUTION 2007-219: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND LEVYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT- ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we go back and address the Pelican Bay budget if they're ready for present -- presenting that budget so we can move out of the -- off the agenda, if my fellow commISSIOners agree. MR. SMYKOWSKI: John, are you squared away? John Petti? MR. CONNELL: Thank you, Commissioners, and I apologize for the delay and the interruption in your meeting and take full responsibility for it. Page 22 September 6, 2007 MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest then that you recess the current hearing and reconvene the Pelican Bay hearing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this time we'll recess the current hearing and reconvene the Pelican Bay portion. MR. WEIGEL: With a motion and vote to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do I hear a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Halas and second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MR. CONNELL: Thank you. Going to the point which needs to be corrected, we're requesting an assessment per ERU of $329.25 for maintenance or operations, and $53.05 for capital reserves. This results in an assessment of $382.30 per ERU; $40.68 less than the previous year. That should agree with the numbers which you have before you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the executive summary and the resolution are consistent as well, so we're squared away in that regard. MR. CONNELL: Thank you for your patience. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second, sir. Page 23 September 6, 2007 Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the -- you're breaking down your projects by projects. What is your total carryforward; do you know that? MR. CONNELL: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then, and more importantly, what is your carryforward for capital improvements? MR. PETTI: Please give us -- John Petti. We're translating between how we present to the public at Pelican Bay which doesn't understand the accounting standards for the county. We try and put it in laymen's terms. So we're converting that over now to the county's formula for what must be put into this budget process. Which I'm going to tell you, I've been in this -- I've been handling government for a long time, and this is intense. It is difficult for me. Thank God I don't have to do this on a day-by-day basis. I don't know that I could, but -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: John, I can help you. MR. PETTI: We're going to defer to the standards ofthe county in the first response, which says -- and Mike is better able at addressing the separation, but I believe it is the $1.8 million carryforward and change as defined by the county standards. We look at it a little bit differently because we try to break it down by what projects got carried forward. How much carryforward money was it based off efficiencies of operation or the cancellations of certain systems. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a long-term carryforward or is that a recent -- MR. PETTI: We do not keep large reserves, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? MR. PETTI: We do not keep large reserves. Two years ago when we were evaluating annexation, we took our long-term reserves and we rebated them back to the people of Pelican Bay not Page 24 September 6, 2007 understanding -- or not knowing what they wished to do and not knowing what would happen to those funds should annexation occur. I just want to make sure the people of Pelican Bay got the money back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're -- MR. PETTI: Weare not rebuilding a large reserve. We have a financial policy in place that says that there is a long-term issue. We would do so through a funding mechanism and we would work with the county on obtaining such funding versus trying to tax and build a reserve for a possible eventuality. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, 25 percent is your reserves. You got a 25 percent -- your total budget is 4.2 million, right? MR. PETTI: Yes, sir, COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you got 1.8 -- well, even more than 25 percent -- reserve. Is that mostly capital? MR. PETTI: That's mostly in capital projects, sir, that we are carrying forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I'm assuming those are long-term carryforwards, as I can see from -- well, I can't see '06. MR. PETTI: They're a year or two old in some cases. There's an east of berm project in there. That's approximately $400,000. We have a long-term landscaping program that have seven segments to it. That's been around for three or four years as well, and we have two more pieces of that coming forward. Hopefully that addresses it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: If it's any consolation to you, that budget gets scrubbed by that citizen advisory panel, and this is probably the fifth or sixth iteration of that that I've seen, and in between there there's also probably been multiple reviews by the citizen advisory group in conjunction with Mr. Petti that I haven't seen. So they watch their pennies very closely and only assess what they absolutely need Page 25 September 6, 2007 to year by year, and that's watched very closely within the citizen group that works with Mr. Petti. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I want to thank you very much. I think you did an outstanding job, and thanks for taking the time to make sure that everything -- that all the I's were dotted and T's were crossed and that we come up with the right amount of -- number. And I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? MR. MUDD: I'm just going to ask Ms. Filson, are there any public speakers? MS. FILSON: Not for this item. MR. MUDD: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you. MR. PETTI: Thank you. MR. CONNELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, sir. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, you may move to adjourn the Pelican Bay hearing and reconvene the regular Collier County public hearing. Page 26 September 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we don't need a motion for that. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do, okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'll make a motion that we reconvene to public comment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second by Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: To adjourn the Pelican Bay meeting -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion we adjourn the Pelican Bay -- MR. WEIGEL: -- and reconvene the-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and reconvene the -- MR. WEIGEL: -- the Collier County public hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the Collier County Board of County Commissioners budget hearing. MR. WEIGEL: Fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you second that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 27 September 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you. Item # 1 C (Of the BCC Budget Agenda) PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to lC, which is public comments and questions. MS. FILSON: Commissioner -- or Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, I have six speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FILSON: First one is Tom Sansbury. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom, we welcome you up here, and what we're going to do is we have three minutes per speaker. MR. SANSBURY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here. MS. FILSON: And he'll be followed by David Schimmel. MR. SANSBURY: The number of times I've appeared before you, I think this is the first time I've ever been first, so thank you very much. I'm here tonight to talk about the planned growth unit that Collier EMS -- that we work with very closely for Ave Maria. Just to give you a very quick history is that in the development of regional impact for Ave Maria, we worked closely with first -- with EMS, with the sheriffs department and with Immokalee fire to ensure that we would have adequate emergency services for students and the residents of Ave Maria. The first of those commitments was the construction of an interim emergency services station that would be ready when the Page 28 September 6, 2007 students and the first residents come in. That facility, which consists of a modular unit and bays for an EMS truck and a fire truck, had been permitted and will be ready for occupancy probably around the first of November. We've worked closely with Immokalee fire. They have assigned a fire unit for that facility with the sheriffs department. Sheriffs department, we have provided facilities in the university and will be providing facilities downtown, and they've assigned a unit. We were informed, oh, about three weeks ago by EMS that the growth EMS unit which we've planned to be placed at Ave Maria had been put on hold in the particular budget. Presently Ave Maria has contributed approximately 10 -- 13 million, excuse me, dollars in total impact fees to Collier County. Of that, about 90,000 of that is EMS impact fees. We project that in the next year there will be another -- an additional $150,000 in impact fees. We have presently in the daytime around 2,000 individuals daily at Ave Maria with our students and the people that have moved in right now; probably 750 in the evening. By year end, full-time residents should be up to about 1,500, and we see that increases in the vicinity of 1,500 to 2,000 annually. We have added already to date about $200 million to the Collier County tax rolls with property values at Ave Maria. And we respectfully request that the EMS unit that had been planned be available to Ave Maria when we have the interim facility coming online approximately November 1st. And I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have some questions on that. Who would be the proper person to answer it? I'm just curious, with 2,000 people there, what this means as far as what our requirements for service are within the rural areas, how far we're going to be off. And also, too, I'd like to know, the money that they're paying in Page 29 September 6, 2007 impact fees, how far short is it of really meeting the need of the cost? MR. MUDD: That's significant, that I can tell you already. But Mr. Page or Mr. Summers can come forward and talk about that. They can talk of the cost of a unit plus the manning of it. MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page, Emergency Medical Services. Commissioner, the unit that Mr. Sansbury is talking about was part of the FY-'06 AUIR. The cost in impact fees for the unit itself would be about 185,000. Another 60- to 70,000 for equipment, and then the personnel cost, of course, would be coming out of the ad valorem dollars side. This -- we have two units currently in Immokalee. It's about seven miles away. It's about a 12-minute response time for EMS; 13 minutes, I think, for fire. We've had eight medical calls so far this fiscal year out there, but it's just beginning to open up, and we realize that. Some of the things that we talked about conceptually with Immokalee fire was putting one paramedic/firefighter on my side, he provide a firefighter/EMT, and maybe having a quick attack unit. That was one option. And we're also waiting for that consultant's study to come back to take a look at, to see what they would recommend. But right now the call volume's not really there to support even moving the one item in Immokalee, one of the two units out to Ave Maria. That's certainly an option, but there are a number of times where, on any given day you may have three or four units stacked -- or responding to Immokalee for different calls. So I also wanted to let you know that the Big Corkscrew area, we have a station out there. That's actually 13 miles away from Camp Keais Road from where that new entrance would be. One of the other options that I was talking to Mr. Summers about -- and he's had more experience with this than I do -- but with working with college students and providing them the classes and the training Page 30 September 6, 2007 and possibly some of the equipment, so maybe if they wanted to have their own volunteer group to help supplement that void in the meantime, that's certainly something we would be happy to participate m. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I realize that we're into a tight financial year, and I think the Ave Maria also realizes that situation. MR. SANSBURY: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, I do think we need to come up with some clever and innovative ways that will be cost efficient to be able to meet the need on a temporary basis. And I'm sure we can do it outside of the present budget constraints that we have. And I'd like to, as we go into that, talk to you more about it. I think you've got some wonderful ideas there and I'd like to hear how they're going to be followed up on. MR. PAGE: I certainly will. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any others? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to add to that. You've outlined some opportunities to address some of the problems. I guess the real issue is, when do we make a decision to choose among those alternatives and what is the impact? And what support do you need to get that accomplished? I would hate for us to delay too long evaluating alternatives when population is rapidly increasing in Ave Maria. It would seem to me that we should come up with some solutions and lock in on those and start doing something within the next couple of months. So it would be helpful to me, and I'm sure to the other commissioners, if you could give us not just what you're evaluating, but what you recommend and what you want to do as quickly as possible. MR. PAGE: Yes, sir. The consultants that are doing our level of service standard study, they've been out to the site now in the last Page 3 1 September 6, 2007 couple of months. I don't think we've had a medical call out there. But they've been out to the site. We're waiting for that report to come back. They'll certainly have their recommendations, and at that point we'll be able to share those with everybody, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: When are they going to have the recommendations? MR. PAGE: No later than mid October is what we're hearing. I should have some preliminary information for the manager to look at within just a few weeks here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's look at it in a different way. Is there anyone who has any doubt that we will have to provide emergency medical services to Ave Maria? MR. PAGE: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We all believe that to be the case. If there are 6- or 700 people there now and there are going to be 1,500 to 2,000 there later this year, it would appear to me that we need to move fairly aggressively in making that decision, and I would be willing to bet that you and Mr. Summers have sufficient grasp of the need and the situation to make that decision without waiting too much longer for a consultant's report. So I, at least, would like to encourage us to move as quickly as possible in finding a way to address that issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the short term, would it be at all possible to see what might be done as far as a trade between the Immokalee Fire Department and whatever entity that's out there to make sure there's enough qualified people at that fire department that can stabilize an injured person in a meaningful way while an ambulance comes from a distant location to be able to meet the needs. That might serve in the short term as you work toward the long-term solution. MR. PAGE: Well, if! felt that Immokalee fire was going to be able -- and I'm not sure.d Page 32 September 6, 2007 Mr. Sansbury, has Chief Alvarez indicated he is going to be able to staff that in November? MR. SANSBURY: Yes, sir, he has. He -- and their district chairman, Mr. Cruz, also has committed to have a vehicle there as soon as the interim service facility -- interim facility is available. MR. PAGE: Then this could be settled very quickly. At that point if we just swap out the personnel, we're there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great. And of course, the necessary equipment, whatever they would -- MR. PAGE: No. I have enough reserve equipment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. So I think we're already working towards a meaningful solution. And I'd like to be kept personally up to date on it and also reports come back to this commission when you reach a final direction. MR. PAGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. SANSBURY: Thank you, and we will work with Mr. Summers and Mr. Page on making sure this happens. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Schimmel. He'll be followed by Pat Barton. MR. SCHIMMEL: Am I already out of time? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. MR. SCHIMMEL: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Dave Schimmel, CEO of the David Lawrence Center. I've had an opportunity to meet with almost of all of you regarding why I'm here tonight, and that is to request support for Collier County's public Baker Act receiving facility. I'd like to share a brief statement with you and then share some facts with you. The David Lawrence Center's crisis stabilization unit and Baker Page 33 September 6, 2007 Act receiving facility is the only one of its kind in Collier County. The Baker Act was a law that was created back in the '70s which allowed people suffering from a mental illness who might be a danger to themselves or someone else in the community to be evaluated. So we operate an involuntary facility where physicians, clinical social workers, and law enforcement officers bring people to us 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We currently have 20 beds. And the law mandates that the Baker Act occur, but, Commissioner Coyle, it is an unfunded mandate. The current bed capacity at the center is 20 beds, and we are at capacity or over capacity almost every day. We have made a decision to make sure we can take referrals from law enforcement, which means we have stopped taking referrals from area emergency rooms and we frequently have not been able to accept children. We've had to send them to other counties, which, of course, does not make anyone very happy. In order to continue this important essential community safety net service, we're appealing to you to help us expand the unit by 10 beds. We need operational funding of $1.2 million so that we can continue to meet the needs in the community. A couple of facts I'll share with you. Baker Act services are an essential safety net function in the community. It is the only resource. There are no Baker Act facilities in private hospitals. There are actually very few private psychiatric beds. And the number one referral source is law enforcement, and we have encouraged the Collier County Sheriffs Department to bring people to us because we would rather they be in a Baker Act facility and be treated as opposed to being incarcerated and locked in the criminal justice system. Those kinds of things can cost us a tremendous amount of money. Operating above capacity compromises the effectiveness of care and can create dangerous situations, not only for our staff and the Page 34 September 6, 2007 consumers, but the community at large. It's an interesting dilemma we're in. The Department of Children and Families Services says we cannot refuse anyone yet the agency that licenses us, the Agency for Healthcare Administration says we cannot exceed our licensed capacity. So we have to take all comers, but we can't go over 20 or 22 beds. We're allowed a 10 percent leeway. So we're in a real dilemma, and the only way we can get the support -- at this point we've explored every option. We will continue to try to get support from the community. We will continue to lobby the legislature, but we have not been successful in getting money from the legislature. So we desperately need your support so that we can move forward with this expansion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, the money you're asking for again is how much? MR. SCHIMMEL: Operational money. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be able to just operate? MR. SCHIMMEL: To be able to operate. We will make the commitment to go out and find the funding to build -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ten beds. MR. SCHIMMEL: -- and renovate, but we need the ongoing operational money. At this point the Baker Act unit costs us about $4 and a half million a year. To expand it's going to cost us about $6 and a half million a year. We're asking you for 1.2 of that, and we will try to go out and find other sources of revenue to make up the difference. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you would need this every year; is would be a recurring -- MR. SCHIMMEL: It would be a reoccurring operational expense. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schimmel, what happens in the case where you're at capacity and either the hospital or the sheriffs Page 35 September 6, 2007 department brings a patient to you, you can't accept it, what happens to that person? MR. SCHIMMEL: Well, we've got a -- we've got a six-bed kids unit, and recently what we've done is we've stopped taking children, tried to get them to Lee County where they may have capacity, and we've used the children's beds for adults. It's a fine line because we're almost at capacity every day. The biggest sufferer right now are the hospitals. We have actually told the hospitals -- they will call -- because doctors will do these Baker Acts to try to get people into care, and we will tell the hospitals, we just simply cannot take them. You will have to stay in the emergency room sometimes for four and five days until we have an openmg. As I mentioned earlier, our commitment has been to law enforcement. We do not want to give law enforcement the signal that we don't -- the deputies cannot bring people to the Baker Act receiving facility. So that means people keeping a couple of beds vacant on the weekends, for example, so that we always have room for law enforcement referrals. Law enforcement referrals are the highest percentage of admissions that we have to the Baker Act receiving facility. So at this point, we're trying to make sure, Commissioner, everyone is safe. If you're in a hospital emergency room, you're at least safe. But by not being able to accept those people, it puts the David Lawrence Center out of compliance with Florida Statute 394, and that's a situation that we can't continue to be in month after month after month. So ultimately we've got to find a way to expand. As you know, Senator Saunders has been very helpful trying to get money out of the legislature. Weare not going to get any money out of the legislature this year or next year. As a matter of fact, they may take some money away from us this year or next year. And it's Page 36 September 6, 2007 unfortunate, but this is a problem with counties all throughout Florida, and the only solution has been that local governments have stepped up and tried to provide some assistance, because these are our people, these are our citizens. And I'd rather treat them than see them incarcerated and not get the treatment that they need. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, a question, if! may. Is there any possibility -- realizing that this is a matter of health, safety, and welfare -- and I realize that our budget is extremely strapped this year -- is there any possibility that we might see some turnback money from one of the constitutional officers that would enable us to possibly assist in this endeavor? MR. MUDD: Sir, I don't know what that's going to be yet, but we received the clerk's budget on the first -- it was Friday, excuse me -- and it basically shows us that our projection that Mike had for interest income for the '08 budget, Mike has -- Mr. Smykowski has it for $20 million and the clerk has it coming in at 10. So we have to figure out exactly what's going on with our interest income as we run through that. Right now, if you look at your budget on the page -- and this is IB, number 4, your capital outlay for general fund, you have about $3.7 million UFR money that's uncommitted. And on your 111 account, you're at around 3.2 million that's uncommitted that's sitting there. I need to get at the bottom of what the issue is with our interest income, figure out why there is that shortfall, try to get that rectified. I believe -- to answer your question, Commissioner Coletta, I believe you will see additional dollars turned back by the constitutional officers, and that happens at end of October. And you'll see -- you'll see some money in that particular outlay, too. So we're looking at everything we can in order to try to get that thing resolved, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. MR. SCHIMMEL: Commissioner, we know that it would take at Page 37 September 6, 2007 least a year for us to be able to break ground and do expansion, but in order to do that, we're looking for some sort of commitment that we'll have the money to be able to operate. So this is not money I'm asking for tomorrow, but this is money I've got to find a way to secure if we're going to continue to operate this public receiving facility. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got to understand that our revenue stream is a very uncertain thing at this time. We know where we stand at this point in time, but it could change almost at a moment's notice. MR. SCHIMMEL: That's the world that we live in in community mental health as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I believe that there was a special session. It's been postponed. It's been kicked down the road for maybe a couple weeks or so. MR. MUDD: To the fall, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And originally it was for $1 billion to be cut out of the state budget, but I think now it's closer to 2 billion and maybe even higher. So we don't know what kind of mandates are going to be pushed onto us, unfunded mandates, to take up the slack when they start cutting the budget again in Tallahassee. So I understand your concerns, but we have some concerns that we may have to address later on down the road. MR. SCHIMMEL: Yeah. I certainly understand the issue. If we can't operate this, this will become a community problem though. Somebody will have to take these Baker Act patients in. And it is such an unprofitable business, I don't see many people that are going to want to do that. So we appreciate any consideration we get. We've always appreciated the support we've gotten from the Collier County Commission. Page 38 September 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go away yet. Commissioner Henning, I don't know if! cut you off before you were finished. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine, that's fine. And I don't have any questions for Mr. Schimmel, but this will -- if you look at your bigger cities like Washington, D.C., and right across the street from the White House, you have all that -- those people that should be housed that's a problem to society. We need to find a way on a regular basis to make sure that these people are housed and treated because it becomes a bigger problem. And my perspective is, is that we need to make it a commitment to David Lawrence that we're going to do whatever we can to do our -- do our share. And it has to be, County Manager, an ongoing commitment. So, you know, turnback money, I'm not sure that that's going to be an ongoing commitment. MR. SCHIMMEL: Thanks, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nope, nope, nope, nope. Commissioner Coyle? MS. FILSON: Sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, the problem that we have is that we don't know what our funding sources are going to be, and we're not going to know in October or November or December. There will likely be a referendum in February, early February, that will threaten to cut our funding even more drastically. So I don't know how we can promise any funds before that particular vote is taken. How flexible are you? When do you need the money? MR. SCHIMMEL: Well, it's going to be a year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHIMMEL: We want to try to line up the operational Page 39 September 6, 2007 commitment now so that we can proceed with fundraising and building a building. And as you know, we're already going through a rezoning process for a piece of property to try to accommodate expanSIOn. So it's -- that's the issue for us is, we live in the same world you do. I mean, we have been retrenching and cutting for the last two years, and we expect to do that for the next two years. But this is an essential community services that's not going to go away, and if we don't do it, someone else is going to be here talking to you about probably more support in order to do it, because the hospitals are not going to do it. I don't believe the Collier County Sheriffs Department wants to run a Baker Act receiving facility. I may be wrong, but I don't think that's a business that they want to be in. And so we're going to -- I don't want to have to come back in a year and say, folks, we've been driven out of business; we no longer can be a solution provider for the county. And that's what we're trying to avoid. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I fear that we're both being driven out of the business, county government included. The state legislature has mandated some fairly severe cuts. They're supporting even stronger cuts, and that doesn't even address their own shortfalls in the budget, and they're in a quandary how they're going to address that. They will likely address it the way they've addressed so many other things, require that it be done and then force the local governments to pay for it with no funding sources identified. So, you know, we can't take money for highways and transfer it. We're legally prohibited from doing that. So our pool of money to solve these problems is relatively small. So unless we can solve the problems in Tallahassee, we can't solve them locally. And that's one of the problems we're struggling with. And we're not going to know how that's going to turn out until at Page 40 September 6, 2007 least February. MR. SCHIMMEL: I share your frustration with the state legislature. I guess what I want you all to understand is, the problem won't go away. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. SCHIMMEL: If David Lawrence goes away, the problem's not going to go away. The sheriffs department is still going to have to pick up these Baker Act patients and take them somewhere. And we're trying to do the responsible thing and plan for the growth of this community. And I know if you have the money, you'll help us with it. I understand the dilemma. But as a responsible healthcare provider and planner in this community, I need to alert you that this is a real crisis and it's going -- it's going to get worse before it gets better if we can't add more beds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think we do understand that. I think our only alternative is to try to preserve as many dollars in reserve as we possibly can. And then once things begin to get sorted out in Tallahassee with respect to what budget cuts are going to be needed and what forced mandates are placed on local governments, then, perhaps, we'll have a better understanding of how we can allocate that money. And, unfortunately, we don't have control over that and we don't even know when the decisions will be made. But if you don't really need it until sometime next year, that gives us time to work on it. And I certainly understand the severity of your need and I understand why it's necessary. Ijust don't find that we have the authority or the resources to make a commitment today, but we might be able to make a commitment in February or March. MR. SCHIMMEL: I appreciate that, Commissioner Coyle. And you know, again, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but these our constituents; these are local people. Folks in Tallahassee are not going to be too concerned about whether or not they get service. But they Page 41 September 6, 2007 are Collier County residents, and we either serve them in an appropriate facility or they wander the streets or they end up in jailor they end up costing us more money someplace else. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand. MR. SCHIMMEL: I appreciate you giving me 13.29 -- 13 minutes and 29 seconds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means the next two times you appear here you don't get to speak at all. MR. SCHIMMEL: The buzzer went off at one minute and I thought I had three minutes, so. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did have three minutes, but the rest of it was our time. Meanwhile, we do have Commissioner Fiala that would like to ask some questions or comments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment. Very simply, we need to bite the bullet and do this. We need to make this commitment because this is not going to go away. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree, too. And I tell you what, I think this is an item that we need to keep alive at least to that point in time till we get the money or the turnback from the constitutional officers, then we can make a decision at that time. Even if the money gets placed in reserves for a year from now, the worst that can happen is that we're going to be cut back even more in the coming year. That reserve would at least get you started if we couldn't come up with any more funds to be able to try to cover a little bit of the gap, is about all I can suggest at this time. Is there some agreement on that to just -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- keep the idea alive? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's amazing that as tight as the money is and as many things we need to do and want to do in our community and things that people are looking for, whether it be roads, which are very important, or the libraries, or whatever we're doing, Page 42 September 6, 2007 this, too, is important, and we found a way to do the others. We must find a way to do this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Being that the situation's so -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Being the situation is so uncertain, Commissioner Fiala, I think that we should give direction to -- just a nod to the county manager that we do still have an interest in this and that we want to keep this idea going forward. Okay. We got three nods? MR. MUDD: I'm not taking it off any list. I mean, it's not -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. It's just to be able to make sure we haven't removed it from a list, that we're still -- MR. MUDD: Oh, no, sir. We're not going to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. We do have one more commissioner. I didn't want to ignore you, Commissioner Halas. Please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that our fellow commissioners up here understand the impacts that are being placed upon us. The governor is very conservative up -- and obviously his mindset is that there's going to be a lot of areas where we're going to have to address user fees. So I understand that we have to take care of health, safety, and welfare issues, but if we don't have enough money, then there's going to have to be other areas that we look at as far as instituting user fees maybe in the future. So I just want everybody to understand that this isn't over with yet until we find out what's going to take place up in Tallahassee. And if we have a special session that later on they're looking for another $2 billion in cuts that are going to be made by the state, I can assure you that we're going to be getting an awful lot of unfunded mandates. Page 43 September 6, 2007 So I just want to bring this up to my fellow commissioners that this is the direction that the legislature at this time in Tallahassee is directing is that, if we're going to cut taxes, then we're not going to have the free lunches that we've had before, that we're going to have to figure out other ways of making sure that we address the problems in our community and who is going to pay what. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. MR. SCHIMMEL: Thanks, Commissioner Coletta. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Barton. She'll be followed by Ron Wallace. MS. BARTON: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for allowing us some time before you this evening. I'm here as an advocate for mental health. My name is Pat Barton. I know all of you. I serve currently, and have for the past four years, on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Corporation Board, which was established by the state legislature, and we look at literally all expenses, all programs, all issues related to substance abuse and mental health and make recommendations to the legislature. It's been a rather futile four years, I might add. Mental health funding has not basically changed in the past two decades. But our recommendations, I think, are solid, and we have looked around at the state at what works, what happens, best practices. We've visited facilities. We've held public hearings and we meet regularly. I'm going to leave with Mrs. Pilson (sic) the -- our last year's report. We're putting this one together. But I just want to address a couple of brief comments to you. Mental illness is the second leading cause of disability in the United States. One in four families is affected by this severe and persistent mental illness, meaning one out of four families, someone is taking medication. My family is one of those families. There is almost no insurance. It's almost virtually not there, coverage for people who Page 44 September 6, 2007 suffer from mental illness. Some families have the means to pay, some do not. The costs of non-treatment are huge. You will find these people disproportionately among the unemployed, the uneducated, the uninsured, the homeless, incarcerated, the very ill, and, of course, the hopeless. Who pays for this? Well, we all do in various ways, and I know you know that. But the good news is that treatment does work, and the success rates for such disorders as Schizophrenia, depression, panic disorder, are better than those for many other diseases, such as heart disease. We just don't get treatment as early and as quickly as we should. Some argue that in this state that this is a state problem, but when Florida ranks 48th in the nation -- that's at the bottom in our nation in per capita funding for mental health -- we have a serious, serious problem in our state. It's embarrassing. It's shameful. Then we need to look locally because of that for help for our children, our elderly, our families, and our neighbors, for they are our people. We either pay now for timely, quality care or we pay later for more expensive and long-term treatment or incarceration. It makes good economic sense to deal with this here locally. Other counties in our state are doing this to some degree. In fact, our neighbors, Lee County and Broward County, have some really good programs going that didn't happen overnight, but they made it a priority and they work on it. And I'm glad to hear that -- you know, that you're receptive to looking toward the future, that we might be able to do more for the people who live here. So I do definitely urge your support for the David Lawrence Center's request. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. BARTON: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ron Wallace. He'll be Page 45 September 6, 2007 followed by Gary Cholewinski. MR. WALLACE: Ron Wallace, Director of Construction Management for the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. Commissioner Fiala wanted to address the last speaker, and I -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to add -- you don't -- you didn't know I had my little button on. That's all right. I just wanted to add, I think one of the -- one of the biggest things that hit us, our State of Florida, is when the state started pulling back funding for mental illnesses and closing down facilities to house them. Those people then had no place to go but into the woods where they're living now, but they still have the problems. There's just no -- there's just no help for them. And I think the David Lawrence Center is there to maybe help them get a fresh start or at least a foot on the ground and move forward because the state has not done that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue. I'm sorry I interrupted you. (Applause.) MR. WALLACE: Again, Ron Wallace, Director of Construction and Management for the City of Naples. I'm here at the request of the Naples City Council and the city manager to follow up on previous funding requests that we had made to you for three different projects in the city, one being Fleischmann Park, the other being Sandpiper Street, and the third is the Gordon River Greenway. When I was here before you at your last budget meeting, you had graciously agreed to at least consider using Conservation Collier money to look at the green way construction. We would hope that that's still the case. We would also respectfully request that you give any reconsideration to the other two projects. In light of the previous speakers, I know that there are a lot of requests and there are a lot of Page 46 September 6, 2007 needs out there. I obviously can answer any questions. I know you've received the information prior. We spoke about it prior. But, again, we're here just to reiterate that we would request your consideration. And if you have you any questions or issues on what we propose, I'd be glad to answer it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to get an update on where we are with respect to Fleischmann Park funding. It seems to me that we did allocate funding for Fleischmann Park improvements because we have such a large number of county residents using that facility. Where are we with that? Can you update me Ron, or somebody else? MR. WALLACE: Dave Likens, the director of community services, is here. I know we did set aside, Mr. Smykowski had mentioned, money for Pulling Park. I don't know that any money has been set aside for Fleischmann. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WALLACE: Is that correct, Dave, or -- MR. MUDD: I don't remember any money being set aside for Fleischmann. You set aside $700,000 for Pulling. You did it at 300,000 one year, and then there was increase in costs up to $400,000 the next time. David, am I missing anything? MR. LIKENS: No, Mr. Mudd, that is correct. I think there was a total of $700,000 commitment from the county towards the Pulling project in total funding from that side. I think it was a 50 percent match with the city. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. LIKENS: In terms of Fleischmann, I know that we got some support, or received some support from your Parks and Rec. Page 47 September 6, 2007 Advisory Board for, I believe, a $2 million commitment towards Fleischmann. Now, I don't believe the city has received any of that funding. I think it was just a funding commitment that was recommended by your advisory board for your consideration at a previous meeting. And we've already expended, I think, a little over $6 million in the first phase of improvements to Fleischmann Park. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's talk about the Pulling Park. Is the recent development with respect to the Pulling property in any way involved with the amount of money that the county has committed to providing you for the Pulling Park improvements? MR. WALLACE: Yes. The -- I actually have a graphic of the Pulling Park here I could put up on the screen if that would be helpful. I think I can do this real quick, if you want. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Why don't you use this microphone. MR. WALLACE: I don't know how clear this is, but this was the layout for the entire parcel. The property which is known -- was owned by Mr. Pulling, which was part of the settlement agreement, was everything south of this line. So this -- this area up here is all still part of the park and is owned still by the city. The yellow line is a 60- foot access easement that was granted as part of the settlement agreement. So the city's plans, which are going to vary obviously from this plan, of which you contributed to the boat launch facility and the construction of the park, the city's plan is to build a road, entrance roadway, and then develop this into some type of passive park along the river. The Gordon River Greenway connection will come across the river here and tie in at the airport, and there's potential for some type of boat launch facility, probably a rowing club, kayaks, that sort of thing. So it is our intent to still redevelop this. And as far as the funding that you've committed, the funding you committed was actually for Page 48 September 6, 2007 this design, which will be modified and will not have quite the extensive launching facility that you see here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you still need all of the funding that the county has approved for the Pulling Park even though you're sort of cutting the total area in half'? MR. WALLACE: I'd love to say yes, but it's probably misleading. We have not complete -- we haven't decided what we're going to put here and we haven't -- so we obviously don't know what that's going to cost. The way we had set this up in the interlocal agreement was a 50/50 share. This 1.4 million included all of the work that was going to be done there. I'm assuming what we build is going to be considerably less than that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WALLACE: And the million dollars that we talked about for the greenway crossing, that's still valid. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if we were to say, look, our prior commitment to you is still valid, the funding that we committed to the Pulling Park improvements, and if we gave you the flexibility to use it for Fleischmann Park, would that be of any value to you? MR. WALLACE: Yes. There has been considerable improvements in Fleischmann Park. The city has spent, I believe, close to $4 million on renovations already. And our community service department, which is parks and rec., is funded through our general fund, which, as you know, is one of the areas that's probably taken some of the biggest hits. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the commissioners would agree that providing funding for either Pulling Park improvements that would benefit county residents or providing -- or letting you use some of that funding for Fleischmann Park that benefits county residents, does that solve the problem for you? Does that give you more Page 49 September 6, 2007 flexibility? MR. WALLACE: Yes, it does. In fact, and we still plan on developing a park that is for city and county residents at this site. And at this point, you know, it may be -- it's difficult to say what the cost of that's going to be, but this will tie into the greenway and the pathway plan, and obviously any additional money could be allocated towards Fleischmann. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then what I would do is just ask my fellow commissioners if they would consider the possibility that we continue to pursue the funding of the greenway project with Conservation Collier funds and the other funds that we have committed to you for Pulling -- the Pulling Park could be used by you for either Pulling Park or Fleischmann Park. Would that be of some value to you? MR. WALLACE: That would be extreme -- of extreme value and very appreciated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, it doesn't increase the cost to the county. It merely gives the city a little more flexibility in view of these most recent developments to fund the areas where it would receive -- it would provide the most benefit to both city and county residents. So I would ask my fellow commissioners if they would have any objections to that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, related to Commissioner Coyle's comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Related to this project. I'm not raising my hand to go to the bathroom. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I -- no, I'm sorry, but Commissioner -- right at the moment Commissioner Coyle has the floor and he's looking for comments related to his question whether we'd be willing to or not. Page 50 September 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we take care of that first then come back to you or is it directly related to his question you'd like to be able to talk -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to talk about the topic at hand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. Then Commissioner Halas, we'll come back to you when Commissioner Henning's done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see any parking for vehicles and trailers at this facility. MR. WALLACE: Yes. This was the design that was -- thank you. This was the parking for the boat launch facility, which was for the cars and obviously the trailers. This was the parking for the rowing club, and this was intend to be open -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WALLACE: -- space. What happened though as a result of the settlement agreement and the property reverting back to Mr. Pulling is that now this will have to be redesigned so that we accommodate parking up in this area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Parking for boats and trailers or MR. WALLACE: Most likely the -- ifthere is a launch facility, it will be for canoes and kayaks. It is, from my understanding, Mr. Pulling's intention to build a boat launch and storage facility on his property . COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And if I remember correctly, you were going to have a launch facility for the boating or the general boating originally. MR. WALLACE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now that's changed. MR. WALLACE: Yes. Page 51 September 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: In my mind that's really what we need in Collier County is more launching facilities and parking facilities. You know, we got parks, county parks. So I'd -- you know, if you put parking in there for the general public for trailers and stuff like that, yeah, but we're funding the county's -- or the city's park system and we have our own park system. I think it's more beneficial to take the two park systems, put them together and have a Collier County park system for all of the residents. MR. WALLACE: I think one thing that's worth mentioning and one of the reasons why this settlement agreement was handled the way that it was is that the reason the Gordon River -- the Gordon River Greenway -- or the reason for this location is because this provided an origin and a destination, instead of just dumping out somewhere where it was previously located was coming out somewhere on 41. Here if we turn this into or add a parking lot so people can actually drive in, families or the like, and you can get onto the greenway in this location or you can end up in this location, you wouldn't necessarily have to be a resident somewhere out in the county or in the city that would have to ride a bicycle all the way to access the greenway, or if you were a rollerblader or a jogger. It gives you an origin and destination. So I think it made the whole greenway concept, or at least the connection, much more viable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I'm not talking about the greenway. MR. WALLACE: No, but that is the intention of this park. That's what it will serve. It will serve now more as the greenway connection than it will as a boat launch facility. That's the way, at least, it's being proposed at this point. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay, fine. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Page 52 September 6, 2007 Commissioner Coyle, we've already got this money allocated for this project. And so I just got a clear understanding, that we're not adding any funding. We're just moving the funding around, making it more versatile for the city; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's absolutely correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I myself have some concerns. I mean, Commissioner Henning is right. There is a need for boat launching facilities. We're -- we've got a shortage of that. Of course, being -- it is what it is. And the truth of the matter is is, you know, you're trying to make the best use of the facility that's there. I would have -- my only reservation would be, is that it would have to come back for some sort of final approval. I'd hate to think that we're turning over the money sight unseen for a product that we don't know. We don't know how many parking places there are going to be, how they're laid out. But I don't have any problems with coming up with a budget line with the idea that we get to have some oversight on what's going to take place. Does that raise any kind of problems with you, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so. I think we have to understand that whatever the city does with their portion of this property or whatever they do with Fleischmann Park serves both city and county residents. So it really makes no difference where they put the money. Both facilities are open to county residents on an equal basis with city residents. The city residents are not paying less to use those facilities than anyone else. So everyone is on the same basis. So improving the facilities either here or at Fleischmann Park is in the county's best interest because the county people use both of those facilities. And since we've already allocated the money, we can afford it, the city is planning on it. I'm merely saying, let them use it in Page 53 September 6, 2007 a way which is -- which will serve the greatest number of residents of the county. And I think that they can certainly come back to us with plans and keep us apprised of that. But we've already approved money for this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not that we're going to give them any more money. We're just giving them a little more flexibility in view of this change in the Pulling property. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problem with it. I've been one of the biggest supporters for corroboration between the city and the county when it comes to parks. However, with that said, we don't see a final plan here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the only thing I'd like to see is the parking facilities, that they're adequate to be able to take care of people from outside the immediate area. And I'm sure that would come to us for final approval for -- to be able to make a judgment call. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would have no problem with that. But I would at least hope that we would let the city understand that the funding we've already approved for them is still there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I've got no problem with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments on that? Oh, we have additional speakers; however, we are running past that hour and a half that we agreed that we would take a short break for the stenographer. What we're going to do before we -- oh, I'm sorry. Were you through with your presentation? MR. WALLACE: Yes. No, I was just -- I was asking if this was public record, if I needed to leave the diagram now that's it's been shown. Page 54 September 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You do now. That's okay. We can-- or else we can make a copy of it. MR. WALLACE: No, that's fine. I don't need it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But with that, we're going to take a short 10-minute break and we'll be right back. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is -- are you ready for the next speaker? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Are they ready for us? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't know who it is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Come on up. MS. FILSON: Gary Cholewinski. I think that gentlemen left. Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Gary's not here. MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Gary Page. He'll be followed by Katherine Leib Hunter, and then the last speaker has indicated he doesn't want to speak, so you have two left. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Kathy isn't here either. MS. FILSON: She left as well? Oh, so then Mr. Page will be your last speaker. MR. PAGE: Hi. Thank you very much. And I don't think I'm related to Mr. Page that's in the emergency service. But, you know, the Page family tree is fairly slim, so if you go back far enough, you don't know but obviously his side of the family got better tans. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're out of time. MR. PAGE: I'm just concerned with a couple of things. I own several properties around here, houses, and lots. And I don't have any complaint about valuation as far as that goes, like I would have to talk to the appraiser's offices. I just wanted to express to you the fact that the lots that I own Page 55 September 6, 2007 don't get any additional services. They don't get mosquito services that I know of or streets, nobody drives there, nobody does anything. And property values keep going up and I pay more taxes. I don't get anything for it. So I'm just expressing that to you. My lots, I don't get anything more. Okay. The other thing is, I live on Michigan Avenue. I have a couple houses on that street. And it's bounded by Goodlette Road and 41 and north of Creech Road. And that entire area is all urban, or suburban, whatever you want to call it, and it's all septic tanks and has been so forever, and that's like a not very good health situation. And I imagine if you were to check runoff in the Goodlette Canal or something and check bacteria readings, it -- a lot would be from septic tanks. And when I bought my first house there in 1993 and I checked with the county planning department, I said, well, how long before this area's going to have septic tanks, and they said, oh -- or, you know, sewers, and they said, oh, absolutely within 18 months. Well, that was in 1993, so -- I'm just saying, you know, as modern as we are and everything, maybe some day if we could plan to have sewers instead of septic for the safety and security and welfare of everybody. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, is that your district? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's whose district, Commissioner COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know anything about it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yes, it is yours. Do you want to comment? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I don't value properties. I don't tax properties. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But no, as far as the issue of sewers versus septic tanks. Page 56 September 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope. MR. PAGE: You like septic tanks? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they're properly installed, there are septic tanks all over Collier County that are working properly. MR. PAGE: I understand that, but they're not typically packed in the way that they are between Goodlette Road and 41, north of Creech Road, 50-foot lots, 50-foot lots, 50-foot lots, septic tank, septic tank, septic tank. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that belong in the city or the county? MR. PAGE: And the Twin Lakes area and the water draining into the Twin Lakes and the other lakes and ponds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion? MR. PAGE: It's just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The gentlemen back there with the white shirt, hands up, I'm sure you could talk to him and give you kind of like a cost estimate and stuff like that. I think there's a process for valuation and if your neighbor has buy-in. I can tell you that I'm on a septic system. And ifmy neighbor wanted septic (sic), I'd tell him to go move into an area that has it because it's very, very costly to have a sewer system hook up. MR. PAGE: I don't have any problem with septic tanks. I just have problems with them all so close together. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. PAGE: In such a suburban area. And it's like -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's several areas like that. MR. PAGE: You understand what I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. PAGE: I mean, out in the middle of nowhere, sure, septic Page 57 September 6, 2007 tanks work great, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just to give you some guidance, they did a recent study for Golden Gate Estates, what it would cost to run the sewer line into all the different the residences, and out there you have much greater distance you have to go, but still, it was over $100,000 per house. MR. PAGE: Oh, my goodness. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I mean, I can tell you right now, this has been a very big issue. Go to Marco Island and ask them how they feel about it. East Naples about eight years ago, nine years ago, they went through this whole thing. You'll find that you're in the vast minority of the people that want it when they find out -- everybody wants it but they don't want to pay for it. It would be probably 30-, $50,000 per house. And at that point in time, it becomes, you know, gosh, we're doing fine with our septic tanks the way they are. You may have the day come when the Department of Environmental Protection will mandate that you be hooked up, and at that point in time -- I don't know when that would be. But in any case, don't be afraid to come here and talk to our county staff. They can give you some guidance. Don't be afraid to ask for a community meeting. Maybe there's other people in your neighborhood that feel the same way. MR. PAGE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate you being here. MR. PAGE: Thank you. Tell the other Mr. Page keep working on that tan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we will. And that concluded the public speakers. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Item #ID (Of the BCC Budget Agenda) Page 58 September 6, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-220: THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE- ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to ID, which is a resolution to adopt the tentative millage rates, and I want to make sure that you understand that you're not adopting the resolution. Mike's just reading them, because you need two readings of them. You will adopt the resolutions on the second reading. We adopt them tonight? I stand corrected, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We have a resolution to adopt the tentative millage rates. The rates are consistent with what you adopted in July as the maximum tax rate for both the general fund as well as the MSTU s with an aggregate millage rate with a decrease of 9.18 percent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to adopt. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to adopt by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record indicate that it was unanimous with the four people that were on the dais. Commissioner Page 59 September 6, 2007 Halas had to leave for moment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye, okay. It's unanimous, 5-0. Thank you. Next? Item # 1 E (Ofthe BCC Budget Agenda) RESOLUTION 2007-221: THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would bring us to a resolution to adopt the amended tentative budget. It would be incorporating the resolutions that the -- that I walked the board through at the very beginning under 1 B. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we need to -- before you adopt this resolution, as I mentioned to you before, what we received on 1 September for the clerk basically showed is that we were $10 million short in our interest income for FY-'08. And depending on what turnbacks are going to be at the end of October from the constitutionals, that will help us in that particular regard. There is some uncertainty on my part and on staffs part in the fact -- to the fact that the interest income is short because of the principal amounts because we're basically spending money out of impact fees for roads, and Norman's got a pretty aggressive road program going on, or if some of that interest income is being diverted to pay certain salaries for the clerk. I plan to bring to this board on Tuesday some clarifying language based on a resolution that you passed in May of 2002, and that's resolution 2002-227. At that particular time, when you passed the resolution, it was pretty clear that the interest that was garnered from commissioners' funds, that that interest was going to be returned to the Page 60 September 6, 2007 Board of County Commissioners, and that clarifying resolution on Tuesday will basically state that particular position if the board desires to approve that or not. But I want to make sure that you know about this particular instance and where we kind of sit, and we found out about the budget and the issues on Friday at close of business, and we've been trying to get some resolution. Michael? And the other piece -- the other piece is that we need to clarify that -- I had mentioned earlier that there are some -- at the workshop there are some costs that you, by statute, have to pay in the clerk's budget. The letter that I wrote to the clerk on 9 May basically said that -- you basically told the board that everything that's on this tentative budget they have to fund, and by statute, that is not the case. There are -- there were two elements in that budget that, by statute, you have to fund. One is the clerk's cost to the Circuit Court, and that's to the tune, on that chart, at $157,700, and the other one is the clerk's cost, or the board's cost through the Clerk for the County Court, and that particular figure is $147,100, and that will need to be changed on your particular -- on this particular next motion in order to incorporate those particular two fees in there, because those are statutorily our -- your obligation in order to fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But we do believe we can offset a small portion of that 68,500 out of the court IT fund because these are court-related expenses. So the net would actually be 236,300 that I believe -- that would meet our statutory obligation relative to Clerk of Circuit Court and Clerk of County Court. This is the post Article V residual that you are forced to pay by statute. I see Ms. Hubbard nodding her concurrence. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could I have a copy of that September 1 st letter, and when you bring back the resolution, can -- Page 61 September 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: The September -- the September 1 st letter, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, from the clerk that you received on Friday. MR. MUDD: You're talking about his budget that we asked for that he has to mandatorily basically file with himself; yes, sir, I'll try to get you a copy from the clerk's office. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, he said he sent one to you, correct? He sent you a letter? MR. MUDD: No, sir. Never sent me a letter. We got a copy of his budget, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And also when you bring back the resolutions, can you bring back one that has been signed by the clerk? And also can you bring back the -- all the minutes? You said you're going to show us -- you're going to talk about the resolution next Tuesday, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you get one that's signed by both parties? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'll get you the resolution that was signed in 2002, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you also bring back the minutes that led up to that discussion? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They'll be included from that meeting for that resolution. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, even prior to that. I think it was like two meetings before, there was a discussion that led up to it -- actually there was a lawsuit -- and then the clerk came and talked to us. And then one or two meetings after that, or whenever it was, when we had the resolution. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'll try to find it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just think that we need a complete history. Page 62 September 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner -- I'm sorry. You through, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a letter that I received on or about September the 1 st in regards to the clerk that he did receive a letter from me. And when I asked that we have an audit of the expenditures that he spent on the lawsuit that has just been completed, so that -- I don't know if that's the letter that you're talking about. He said he has -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Motion to approve with the changes that were just reviewed by the county manager to reflect increases in funds for the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Clerk of the County Court, adjusted by certain IT grant money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Did -- Mr. Mudd, did we cover everything in that motion? MR. SMYKOWSKI: As long as we're also incorporating the changes that I walked through under item IB, that whole series, fund by fund that I walked through. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion, or second. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you for the clarification. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion maker and both the second agree. And with that, no other comments. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 63 September 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that the vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Henning being the dissenting vote. Item # 1 F (Of the BCC Budget Agenda) TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX RATES - PRESENTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, that brings us to IF, announcement of tentative millage rates, percentage changes in property tax rate. Your general fund is a decrease of 9 percent below the rolled back rate, the proposed millage, 3.1469, and the aggregate millage rate is 3.8838; a decrease of 9.18 percent below the rolled back rate. And the announcement of the final public hearing will be on Thursday, September 20th, two weeks from tonight, beginning at 5:05 p.m. in this county commission chamber. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you need a motion? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, I do not need a motion. That's just an announcement for the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- general public so they're aware of when -- and final decisions, final tax rates will be adopted and a final budget will be adopted at that hearing. And with that, our business is concluded, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, is there anything that you have before we adjourn? MR. MUDD: No, sir. We've covered everything. Page 64 September 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners, do you have any comments or anything that you'd like to say at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we are adjourned. **** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL 1ST CTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JIM OLETTA, Chairman ATTEST:. ,<", DWIGIiT'E.BROCK, CLERK ',." ,. .'" _tuG., to'o..1 . s1QnaftM. Oi!l\~i)'. :::rl... These minutes approved by the Board on q '"'65 - 01 , as presented v or as corrected Page 65