Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/20/2007 B (Budget) September 20, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 20, 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 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ BUDGET AGENDA Thursday, September 20, 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, Chairman, District 2 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Page 1 September 20, 2007 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Advertised Public Hearing - BCC FY 2007-08 Budget A. Discussion of FY 08 Millage Rates and Increases over the Rolled Back Rates Discussed B. Discussion of Further Amendments to the Tentative Budget Discussed; Motion to take money out of the UFR to fund Supervisor of Elections shortfall due to special election - Approved 5/0; Motion to use $37,500 from UFR for payroll processing by the Supervisor of Elections - Approved 5/0 C. Public Comments and Questions 1) Roland Fondessy on Property Taxes 2) Chuck Mohlke on upcoming election in January 2008 D. Resolution to Amend the Tentative Budgets Resolution 2007-258 -Adopted w/changes 4/1 (Commissioner Henning opposed) Page 2 September 20, 2007 E. Public Reading of the Taxing Authority Levying Millage, the Name of the Taxing Authority, the Rolled-Back Rate, the Percentage Increase, and the Millage Rate to be Levied Read into record F. Adoption of Resolution Setting Millage Rates Resolution 2006-259 - Adopted: Motion to approve the Dependent Districts' millage - Approved 5/0; Motion to approve the Balance of the millage - Approved 5/0 G. Resolution to Adopt the Final Budget by Fund Resolution 2006-260 - Adopted: Motion to approve the Dependent Districts budget - Approved 5/0; Motion to approve the Final Budget for the Independents - Approved 4/1 (Commissioner Henning opposed) 3. Adjourn Page 3 September 20, 2007 September 20, 2007 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Board of Collier County Commissioners' final budget hearing, and the date now is September 20,2007. We'll stand at this time for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Commissioner Fiala. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item # 2A DISCUSSION OF FY 08 MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER THE ROLLED BACK RATES - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Commissioners, your agenda is on the visualizer right now, and we're moving to paragraph number two, the advertised public hearing for Collier County BCC FY-200712008 budget. And first will be a discussion of the FY-'08 millage rates and increases over the rollback rate. And, 1'11 turn this over to Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners, the members of the public. For the record, Michael Smykowski, the Collier County OMB director. I'd like to welcome everyone to our final budget hearing for the Collier County government fiscal year 2008 budget which begins in October, 2007, and runs through September 30, 2008. At this hearing tonight final decisions will be made regarding the tax rates in the final budgets, but the public will be afforded an opportunity to speak tonight before those votes are taken. From an administrative standpoint, there are agendas in the hallway as well as speaker sign-up slips. You must register if you Page 2 September 20, 2007 wish to address the Board of County Commissioners regarding the county budget, and I will have some introductory remarks that Mr. Mudd talked about that are required in statute, followed by -- item 1 C on the agenda is the opportunity for public comment. Speakers will be called by name by Ms. Filson up at the front. So if you're interested in speaking, again, you will need to fill out a speaker -- a speaker form, and Ms. Filson will call the names. With that, we'll move to item 1A -- excuse me -- item 2A on the budget which is a discussion of the FY-2008 millage rates, funding the budget, and increases over the rolled-back rate. This year the legislative session was dominated by discussions about property tax reform and property tax reductions. And in late June, early July, the legislators finally voted on a package of tax reform. Based on their decisions, Collier County fell into the category of having to reduce their millage below the rolled-back rate by 9 percent. And what is the rolled-back rate? That is a somewhat esoteric discussion, but essentially what it means is, over time property tends to increase in valuation. And just to give a simple example, if you had a house valued at $100,000 and we levied one mill in taxation, that would generate $100 in tax revenue. In the subsequent year, if that single home doubled in value to $200,000, to generate the same $100 of tax revenue, you would, in effect, roll back the millage rate or tax rate from one mill to one-half mill to generate that same $100 of tax revenue. And Florida law requires us to identify the rolled-back rate and express our millages that we will be adopting tonight. The percentage increase is not over the millage rate that was adopted for fiscal year 2007, roughly one year ago from today, but rather from the rolled-back millage rate itself. Overall, the aggregate millage rate is decreasing; 9.18 percent at the very bottom. That's a weighted average of all of the various taxing Page 3 September 20, 2007 units that are administered by Collier County government. The one that draws the most attention, where the bulk of County government services are provided is the first one on the list, the general fund, which is where the bulk of county services are provided that are supported by ad valorem taxes. Last year's millage rate was 3.579. The rolled-back rate was 3.4582. The proposed millage rate is 3.1469; a decrease of9 percent. The Board of County Commissioners was very clear. In July they set their tentative millage rate, which was used in preparing the truth in millage -- truth in millage notices that were sent to each property owner in Collier County prior to these hearings so that they would understand the implications to each individual property owner resulting from changes in both the tax rates and the increases in valuation. And homestead properties this year increased 2 and a half percent. Are there any questions or comments? If not -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one question on that page, if I -- if I may ask it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: About halfway down it talks about Goodland and Horrs Island Fire MSTU, but Horrs Island didn't -- it annexed into the City of Marco Island. Do we still service them? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, not Horrs Island. That was the official title ofthe MSTU when it was re -- when it was created. I don't believe we've amended the MSTU just to change the name, but no, Goodland -- Horrs Island, is now served, I believe, by the City of Marco Island -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- as a result of that change. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So this is really serving Goodland only. Page 4 September 20, 2007 Item #2B FY08 MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER THE ROLLED BACK RATES - DISCUSSED That will move us to item 2B, discussions of further amendments to the tentative budget. Page 1 of the general fund, there was a net change of $2,452,000. It reflects the updated clerk FY-'07 budget forecast. We had initially included an estimated turnback of $25 million. The revised turnback is in excess of $30 million resulting from the additional interest earnings being higher than budget. In addition, pursuant to the resolution the board adopted recently relative to the interest earnings, we have budgeted the interest earnings directly in the general fund rather than within the clerk's budget itself since that money is money of the Board of County Commissioners from Board of County Commissioners funds. The change in the clerk budget reflects fee revenue that was included in his September 1, 2007, budget submittal. It's a major decrease because, again, the interest revenue is being budgeted in the general fund rather than in the clerk fund 011. The rest of the changes identified on this page, and they include planning services fund, 131, there was -- the board recently approved an environmental resource permitting program at the board meeting of September 11 tho So we've incorporated that change into the adopted budget. The Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment district had a net change, a lot of it relating to -- there will not be debt service associated with that $9 million loan due to the recent Supreme Court decision. So we rippled through the budget the changes resulting from that board decision. The TDC beach renourishment fund, there were a few projects Page 5 September 20, 2007 that the board had approved in July that were not initially identified in the budget. We simply -- there's no net change to the fund, but we reduced budgeted reserves in FY -'08 to accommodate that project. It was Naples Pier's repairs and maintenance. The Wachovia credit, CRA credit line, again, that is the associated debt service fund that would have been related to the $9 million revolving line of credit for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle, given that that loan was not completed due to the Supreme Court decision. Obviously there will not be a need for debt service at this point in time, so we moved the million dollars of estimated debt service back from the debt service fund into available reserves within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle fund in order that -- restore that fund to the full amount of funds that will truly be available in FY-'08, because unless -- there is talk of a rehearing that's been requested, but until a final court decision is made, Mr. Jackson, I think, will be relegated funding items on a pay-as-you-go basis. So by moving this million dollars from the debt service fund, because there will not be debt service at this point, that will provide a million dollars in reserves within his fund to fund pay-as-you-go projects within the boundaries of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to interrupt you for a minute. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have two lights on. I'm not too sure if the commissioners want to address the item now or if they want to wait till the end of your presentation. But Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that $14.5 million, we can use that to fund stormwater, right? It's not allocated to anything. It's a reduction. Why don't we fund stormwater? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. That money is allocated. We had Page 6 September 20, 2007 banked on a turnback from the Clerk of Courts totaling $20 million. So the general fund was already -- revenue was already predicated on receiving a transfer from the clerk with the change. All we did was change the fund. And there will be no transfer turnback from the clerk, because at this point the interest is budgeted directly in the general fund. So it's just approximately the same net change. It's just the simple fact that rather than the clerk budgeting the interest in his fund and returning it back to the general fund via a transfer, that interest earnings are simply now budgeted directly in the generally fund. But we were already banking on that tumback revenue from the clerk. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're going to invest those moneys, the Board of Commissioners, instead of the clerk now? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That will be interesting. That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That wasn't my question, but I'm still confused about it. I'm not sure I followed the explanation. Is this an actual increase or decrease in the budget or is it merely a transfer from one source or line item to another? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's primarily a transfer from one line item source to another. The transfer from the clerk was reduced, but then we offset that by budgeting the interest earnings directly in the general fund rather than in the clerk fund. And the general fund increased largely due to the updated estimate of the turnback for the current fiscal year that we were in. On September 1st, we received a copy of the clerk's fee component of the budget that also included an interest estimate and his forecast expenses within his budget, and we had estimated initially a $25 million forecast turnback. And based on the numbers submitted by the clerk, it Page 7 September 20, 2007 would be 30 million -- 30.8 million in round numbers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So bottom line, this particular item is not changing the total number -- amount of dollars that we're getting or that we have available in our budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Not by changing the interest earnings. The net change to the general fund, again, is primarily a function of the additional turnback revenue and the -- at this point the UFR balance is just in excess of$5.9 million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So it has increased slightly as a result of those -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me ask two more quick questions. And I guess I really don't -- don't have a strong position on this issue at all, but I would like to ask the other commissioners if it is worth discussing, and that's the allocation of funds for a clerk's employee to be present during BCC meetings. We originally agreed to do that so the clerk could sit here with us on the dais so that if there were any problems with respect to decisions we were -- we were making or any allocations of funds that might not be in strict conformance with the law, that the clerk could be here to provide us some guidance before the fact. Now, that has never happened, and we have the clerk's employee here who, of course, doesn't have the authority to make those kinds of decisions. And I'm wondering if the commissioners feel that it is a wise expenditure of taxpayer money to pay a clerk's employee to sit here on the dais and not serve the purpose for which we asked for that function to be done. So we could save the clerk money. I'm sure he can have other things for these people to do. It has to deprive him of some of the manpower that he could use for other purposes. But I'm just asking a question. Do you think we ought to continue that or not? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to address that, in may, Page 8 September 20, 2007 because I was the one that did the research to find out how many counties had the Clerk of Courts sitting on the dais and pushed the issue to the point where the clerk agreed to do it, and then he attended for some meetings, I forget how many it was, and then he was augmented at times by one of his employees, and eventually the clerk just didn't show up again. And the reason was the same reason you mentioned, Commissioner Coyle, I wanted to make sure the clerk was here at the front where we were making these decisions so that he could enter his opinion in and maybe give us guidance. 1'11 tell you what, as far as the clerk being here, I'd absolutely welcome the opportunity. Less than the clerk, one of his employees being here, they bear a certain amount of responsibility in the fact that they are here bearing witness. And ifhe's got them here, they should be putting their input in or notifying the clerk to be here at certain times. I'd be kind of reluctant to get to the point to say that I don't want even their employee. I prefer to have the clerk. In lieu of the clerk, I'm very content with one of his employees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All I'm saying is we're spending money to do this. If you think it's serving its purpose -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sixty thousand, I think it was. Was that what the item was? MR. MUDD: Sixty thousand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sixty thousand a year to have the clerk sit up here -- or the clerk's representative sit up on the dais. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do they figure that charge? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning's next, then we'll come right to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to figure out what line item that we're discussing here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the same one that you raised the Page 9 September 20, 2007 question on, Commissioner Henning. It's clerk 01 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's $14.4 million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But you'll see that it says allocating funds for a clerk's employee to be present during BCC meetings. And it just raised my interest, and I just wanted to know if -- I would -- I would be willing to leave the decision up to the clerk. If he thinks it serves a general purpose to do that, I don't mind paying $60,000 for it, but ifhe thinks that he can use his employee more effectively elsewhere, then maybe we ought to work together to try to save $60,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me go to Fiala, and then come right back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- I think we've already made that decision by not giving him any money, don't you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I really don't. I really don't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's interesting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I personally would like to require the clerk to be on here by paying that $60,000 and getting the -- what we paid for the performance for it. I think we'd be better served if the Clerk of Court was here rather than making comments after the fact. We've tried to make him part of this process. I think we've done a remarkable job. I mean, they're all levels of this government. The Clerk of Court or his representatives have sat through every process we go through, contracts, whatever, been apprised of everything that we're doing, and I think it's very important that they still be a part of this -- these proceedings. I would love to see him participate rather than staying in the background. You did bring up a very good point. Maybe we could address it in some forum -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not a big issue, so 1'11 just Page 10 September 20, 2007 go off of that one and go to something -- the other one, if you don't mind, because I hadn't finished my questions. I had two more. One had to do with the Wachovia credit line. Tell me, County Manager, is the revolving state loan fund classified as a debt that is prohibited under the court's recent ruling? Or maybe the county attorney can express an opinion, but -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it -- well, first the good news is the Supreme Court acquiesced today and said they'll rehear it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, good. MR. MUDD: Okay. So that's good news. And the date of that is still unknown. I didn't get that in the press release. Based on my read, it has to do with -- it has to do with loans, and even the state revolving fund, the SRB or whatever, is still a loan and it still goes -- and still goes to debt. And I believe it's still covered based on this ruling. Hopefully it will get reheard and that will go away, or at least it will come down with some more detail then it basically prohibits everything. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. That completes my questions then, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That -- I have two questions, too, regarding that particular issue. If they reverse their decision, will we be able to get this Wachovia credit line back again? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And you'll have -- and you have a couple of executive summaries for Tuesday that talk about, number one, the person that we were going to buy the land for (sic) for $3.5 million has agreed to extend the terms, okay, at no loss to us of that $100,000 that's sitting there until after the special election of 29 January, because -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. MR. MUDD: And we talk about coming back with a referendum language to be put on the ballot for that day. And I believe Wachovia Page 11 September 20, 2007 said they'd -- they'd go back, and -- you know, we're going to have to update it to some extent, but they're willing to do that, once we can show some kind of a backing as far as -- what's the word I want to use -- backing for the loan that you're going to basically have. MR. WEIGEL: Collateral. MR. MUDD: Your collateral on that part -- thank you, David -- on that particular issue. And once that's done, I think we're -- I think we're -- we're back on track. And Mr. Jackson has been busy trying to clean it up, so to speak, our particular situation, because of the Supreme Court thing. He's been doing Yeoman work on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Back to the other discussion, the clerk employee present at our meetings. It says just to fund that employee present at the meetings. Does that -- that's only two meetings a month, which boils down $30,000 a meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it says -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sixty thousand for the whole year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. What am I talking about? Excuse me. Okay, 60,000 a year. So what does that come out to? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we take more vacations, it will be a lot less. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But I'm wondering if that also goes in -- I meet with her all the time, and I'm glad that I do because she helps me with the budget items in the agenda, and I can ask her questions that I have a concern about. And I think that's good for her, good for me. And at the same time, I know she meets with you and your staff every month before this. Does that $60,000 also include that or is that -- MR. MUDD: That was included in the amount of money that was negotiated in a resolution that you made with him, with the clerk, and that is in your budget and that is funded for that $60,000, so -- Page 12 September 20, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. I think that that's a worthwhile expenditure. I think that we need to have the clerk included in all of our hearings. And I depend -- even if it isn't clerk, even if it's his representative, I think that's important to our meetings. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you, but I -- once again, I'd prefer to have the clerk here. And of that $60,000 we're spending while his employees are here, they're spending almost every minute of that time with the computer doing office work. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I mean, you know, I think that we've paid a premium price for what we're getting, but it was one of those things where we wanted the clerk here. We thought we were going to have the clerk personally when we first started. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm glad we're having this discussion. I think what Commissioner Coyle brought up bears merit. But I think that I've got some of my concerns answered, because I also meet with the clerk's rep. the day before our meetings, and I always ask that everything that's been -- that's on the agenda has been reviewed. And so I think just that representative being -- from the clerk's office being present when staff has their meeting, I think, helps out, and I think maybe it will assist in building a relationship. So I -- as far as the person sitting here on the day of the board meeting, maybe the 60,000 is well spent when staff has their meetings and that representative's there -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- discussing all the items that are -- because I believe that person is at staff meetings, is that correct, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, every time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that way we get a -- before it Page 13 September 20, 2007 even gets to us, it's pretty-well cleaned up and we know that we're good to go. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, would you comment on how often the clerk comes into the county process when we're making decisions? I know there's many meetings that take place, and there's also a contract review section. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What happens prior to a board agenda, for instance, we -- before we go out to print on the Wednesday, which was yesterday for this next Tuesday, 1'11 have a staff meeting, and we'll go over the agenda in particular every item on that agenda and basically answer any questions from staff. And the clerk's office normally -- either Ms. Kinzel or Mr. Johnssen are in attendance. This last time both were there -- and we go through the issue and we basically talk about any concerns. If the clerk has concerns on a particular item, they address it at that time and the staff works it out. If they can't work out that issue, we'll continue that item till the next meeting and work through that process. So it's turned out to be very good as far as the division staff meeting is concerned, my meeting. They also -- we have a finance committee in which the clerk is a partner with, with -- along with our financial advisor. This last year they've met seven times in their -- because you have some debt items that are going away. You had the Forest Lakes MSTU loan that they worked through, and they work through all those particular issues. That's a very good group, working group. Mr. Smykowski's on it, Ms. Kinzel comes, Mr. Johnssen comes from the clerk's office, Mr. Wides from public utilities, Hal, our financial advisor, is there, and there's probably some more that are in attendance, Mr. Y onkowsky and Susan Usher are part of that group, and they work through all the debt service obligations or payment, repayments of loans. You'll notice that there's two payments of loans where we totally extinguished those this time around. So that's a good group, and they Page 14 September 20, 2007 meet multiple times during the year. And then the clerk's representative meets the board members normally on the Monday prior to the meeting. Whenever we basically talk about finance and it has to do with the business of the county, we make sure that the clerk's representative is included. And I believe a clerk's representative also goes to the Productivity Committee meeting and is there. So they're involved in that particular aspect. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about contract oversight? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That has to go with the contracts that are there that you basically cut, payments to contractors. They have to make sure that it's a legitimate bill that's put by the contractor, and they oversee that along with our purchasing department. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And all this has been put into place in the past six years, in remember correctly. MR. MUDD: No, sir. I think contracting and payments were there prior to six years ago. That was always -- that was always there but it was -- I call it over the -- over the partition, office partition. One group used to just send it over the partition, and there was no communication. That's been resolved, and I believe there's not paperwork -- I believe it's a sharing of information. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I mean, the open communication's been going on for some time now? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The staff meetings and stuff started when I became county manager. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that $60,000 wasn't just to have the clerk representative up here. It was to cover a lot of these other costs, too; is that correct? MR. MUDD: No, sir, it's not. The resolution that was passed by the Board of County Commissioners was basically a fee for -- it was a cost for the clerk to be on the dais, and that's how that resolution went. And I can get you that copy of that resolution, if you'd like, sir. Page 15 September 20, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The resolution said clerk or his representative? MR. MUDD: Off the top of my head, I can't tell you specifically, sir. But I remember what the money was for. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's about $2,000 a meeting. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That sheds another light on it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Anybody else want to make some comments? If so, just push your little light button. If not, we'll continue. Go ahead. We'll continue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, thank you. The last three items are capital proj ect funds, 301; parks capital, 306; and roads, CIP 313. Those changes were all dictated by board decisions that were approved at the September 11 th county commission meeting, where you approved, in the case of 30 1, a budget amendment for the Supervisor of Elections. In addition, the commercial paper loan for 800 megahertz hasn't been executed, so we're moving the funds that were initially forecast in this fiscal year for debt service into reserves. The parks capital, there are three budget amendments for grants, and there was also a change in the boater registration revenues exceeding the forecast by $83,000, so we wanted to capture that. Finally, in 313, the roads capital improvement fund, there were two budget amendments for grants, but the grants will not be received prior to the close of the fiscal year, so they're simply being rebudgeted in 2008. There's also one change. The sheriffs staff provided me the emergency 911 funds, and there's also a wireless e911 fund. That was in your budget package back at the June workshops totaling 6,567,600. At the top of that it shows the revenues and expenses individually for the fund 189, which is the wireless fund, and 199. There was a recent legislative change that requires that in fiscal Page 16 September 20, 2007 year 2008, the new money coming into both the -- in franchise fee revenue from both the wireless and the 911 phone system be budgeted in a consolidated trust fund. So you'll notice, while the appropriations are now spread amongst three funds, the grand total is still $6,567,600. The residual cash in the wireless 189 fund of 1,747,300, and the approximately $2.7 million in the e911 fund, which is fund number 199, will remain in the old funding source, but any new collections are required under -- under the law change to be budgeted in the consolidated trust fund. So, again, the total appropriations, none of the expenses have changed at all in total. Each of the line -- the lines are consistent, however; they are spread simply amongst three funds for fiscal year '08, and we wanted to bring that to your attention. And the sheriffs staff obviously was hopeful to get that change into the adopted budget rather than having to make all those moves by budget amendment. And with that, that would conclude the changes to the amended budget. MR. MUDD: And it brings us to public comments and questions, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me. So it's a big deal to do a budget amendment? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir, but it would require an executive summary and a series of budget amendments for each of these respective funds, and then when they bring forth their budget next year, if it were not in the adopted budget, the adopted budget total would be zero in this consolidated fund 611, so the apples to apples comparison wouldn't necessarily be true. So it's really to the benefit for -- even for next year's budget comparison, to have that change Page 17 September 20, 2007 incorporated into the adopted budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wouldn't it be appropriate now to do the -- instead of doing a budget amendment, to allocate the funds that the Supervisor of Elections talked to you about, the shortfall in her expenditures since the clerk is not going to do her financing? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We can talk about that at any given point, but -- MR. MUDD: I mean, I know of one thing the Supervisor of Elections, the issue that we have to talk about is the Representative Mike Davis special election and the costs of that, and that's some $250,000. And I received that letter -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I don't think the Supervisor of Elections spoke out of turn when I spoke to her this morning when she had talked to you about shortfalls in her budget. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Commissioner-- MR. MUDD: I talked to Mr. Beauchamp, and this is the issue we talked about. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes. I had spoken -- Gary Beauchamp, chief deputy, Supervisor of Elections. Commissioners, good evening. Mike Smykowski, the OMB director, and I spoke, I think it was earlier this week. Commissioner Coletta had spoken to Supervisor Edwards with respect to the clerk doing our accounting, running our payroll and our payable checks. We're -- and he asked us to get bids to handle the -- our functions outside of the clerk's office, and we're waiting on those bids to come in. And my conversation with Mr. Smykowski is, if the bids come in higher than whatever the clerk has quoted us, which is $37,000, if it's over that -- or we stay with the clerk, would it be best to amend our budget now or do a budget amendment later? Mr. Smykowski said it didn't matter. We could do a budget amendment later on for the 37,000. I think that was this week I spoke to you about -- maybe -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: It wasn't this week. Page 18 September 20, 2007 MR. BEAUCHAMP: It may have been last week. I can't remember now. And it was indicated that it could go either way. But rather -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: But in this case the funding is uncertain as to what the bids would be and which option you would choose, so -- MR. BEAUCHAMP: That's correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- so there's a level of uncertainty in that sense. MR. BEAUCHAMP: We know the clerk has quoted a price of $37,000 to continue to do our financial services, our payroll and our payables and investments and filing all the state forms and everything associated with that, so that we know is certain at 37-, and we haven't gotten the bids back on all -- from all the companies that we sent the request out to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good. At least we're aware of it and we don't have to read about it in the Naples Daily News. We heard it right here. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And what Mr. Mudd was speaking about in our conversation today, the -- we were notified by executive order today by the governor to have a special election to fill the vacancy in house district 101. We have estimated the cost of those elections to be approximately 125,000 for the primary election to -- for that position or that vacancy, and also a general election. It appears that the governor's office wants that position -- that vacancy filled prior to January 1 so that that election could not be held on the January 29th primary. We've issued -- issued -- I brought a letter over that Supervisor Edwards had signed to Chairman Coletta and also provided a copy of that to Mr. Mudd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, would that particular item best be discussed when we get to the UFR list where we have some discretionary funds to work with? MR. MUDD: Sir, my recommendation is that you take money Page 19 September 20, 2007 off the UFR list in this particular regard, you create the special project fund with $250,000 in it. As it states in this letter, it's $125,000 per election. One is the primary and one is the regular election. Right now there are three -- there are three candidates that have been registered for, and they're all Republican. If -- and if that stays the same, then there will be only one election. But you set up the special project, and I believe that that money is reimbursed after the election from the state, after we do that, and it comes back into the fund, then it would fall back into -- on your UFR list account, so it -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you need a motion to that effect? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, would be good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala to take this -- these funds out of the UFR money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion. We know at least it's going to be $37,000 to do the Supervisor of Elections' -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Payroll. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- payroll -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're just addressing the money that's going to be needed for the primary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see it right in front of my face, Commissioner Halas. I really appreciate that. But we know that there's going to be at least 35,000 that's going to be needed, or up to 35,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we address it in a second motion, Page 20 September 20, 2007 and we can keep the -- we can just get moving forward with it. We've got to take care of it. We all realize that, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well. That's fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anything else on the motion itself? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing nothing, 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 unanimously. Okay. Now, the 35,000, please help us with this, Mr. Mudd. Once again, this would be from UFR funds, or is this already allotted someplace in the budget for -- MR. MUDD: No, sir, that would be -- that would be out ofUFR funds. And all I -- based on what Mr. Smykowski just told me, we have -- we have no written request, okay. I've got something -- I've got something verbal and -- but if the board wants to put it over there as kind of a -- into a fund to the side based on -- based on a written request from the Supervisor of Elections office detail what it's to be used for, we'll bring that board -- back to the board, and the board will tell us to pull that money out. That's fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to allocate in reserves out of the UFR funds of 37,5- for the Supervisor of Elections budgeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Page 21 September 20, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or payroll checks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Payroll and bookkeeping, okay. Commissioner Henning's motion, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion on the motion? I know I got all the lights off. Okay. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 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 unanimously. Thank you very much. I didn't think we'd have a problem with this. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's proceed. We've got several lights on. Commissioner Henning, I didn't want to cut you short. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to finish? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. I'm done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As long as we're having this special election to fill Mike Davis's seat -- by the way, nobody could really fill his shoes -- but fill his seat, I wanted to ask, if this agreement with the courts doesn't go through for the CRA funding and things have to go to referendum, could we put that referendum on the same ballot? MR. MUDD: Gary, I think you could help us on this one. Page 22 September 20, 2007 MR. BEAUCHAMP: I think on this you would -- any negotiation to add anything onto this ballot would have to be done with the Secretary of State's Office because this is a one-item election that they are funding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And usually it's kind of the reverse. If the county's paying for something countywide or even a partial election, then the state and municipalities try to piggyback on there. So I don't have a definitive answer on that, but I think negotiations for -- to put that referendum item -- and I know Mr. Mudd asked our office about that for the January 29th election -- would have to be negotiated with the state with the Secretary of State's Office. MR. MUDD: And it was pretty tight, in remember, correctly, Mr. Beauchamp, when we talked about the deadline to have the referendum language passed by the board. It was like 14 December in order to get onto the January 29th special election. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes, it's actually the 4th of December because I think, in order to have a referendum, you have to have so many readings of it and it's got to be so many days in between, and you may very well not have that. Because the election is scheduled for the 30th of October, and it may, in fact -- if there is no non-Republican that files for that position, if would not go to the general election, which is supposed to be held on the 20th of November. So you may not have the statutory time required to place a referendum on that election even if you could. Your window may just be too tight there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you. Just stabbing at things, trying to save some money. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we're done. I didn't hear a final answer. Page 23 September 20, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we direct staff to report back to us at their earliest possible time what is possible and what isn't? I mean, you didn't sound definite on it. That's the reason why I felt maybe it wouldn't hurt. MR. BEAUCHAMP: No, I'd -- quite honestly, I'd -- it's definitely a maybe. I don't know what the rules are with respect to a special election. And then the other part of it is, I don't know what your window for notice, hearings, and readings for referendum items are. That's not something -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. MR. BEAUCHAMP: -- that we normally do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. Weigel. He might be able to help us. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And I think an additional question to keep in mind, perhaps you already have it, is the fact that the special election is not a countywide election. The referendum we're talking about is countywide. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was trying to say. MR. WEIGEL: So we have some logistical issues that are there as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I didn't realize that until we started to talk, and realized that he's only elected out of a certain portion of the population. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Right. In this county there's approximately 58,000 people, and this election will be shared with Broward because the district overlaps into Broward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. And my second comment was, I was just figuring out, we were talking before about $60,000 a year, and you said it's for the clerk only to sit here, not anything else, not -- MR. MUDD: That's the resolution that the board passed. Page 24 September 20, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: That comes out to -- well, somewhere between three and a quarter and $375 a meeting. Is that a little high or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's not high, but I don't think it's $375. It's-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Probable 3,000. I think you lost a zero. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Per hour, I'm sorry. It's $3,000 a meeting. $375 per hour. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's sort of expensive. I mean, we should get paid that much, but I don't see that the clerk should. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's why I raised it because it's only for this meeting. It's not for anything else. Item #2C PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the -- where are we now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public speakers. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Public comment. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. The first one is Roland Fondessy. He'll be followed by Chuck Mohlke. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, would you state your name for the record, and you have three minutes. MR. FONDESSY: Yes. My name's Roland Fondessy. I live on 1921 Oaks Boulevard. My question is -- I know you're all working for us, but I've had a house for sale for two years and -- in Olde Cypress, and my real estate person keeps calling me and saying, take it down a hundred thousand, take it down a hundred thousand. I've done that three times, and you Page 25 September 20, 2007 folks say it's worth more now, or your tax people, and I just don't know understand if -- they're saying it's not worth more, but you folks say it is worth more. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle will explain that to you. MR. FONDESSY: Okay. Money man. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He just lied to you. MR. FONDESSY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let me say to you, we don't appraise property here. The property appraiser does that. You would get more accurate information if you talked with Mr. Abe Skinner because we don't do that here. But I can tell you that his appraisals are always based on the prior year's sales data so that if you are experiencing a situation now where property values are going down and the appraisal doesn't reflect that, it's generally because the appraisal is based upon sales data last year which would be higher than it has been for this year. Now, next year you will get the benefit of any reductions in value for this year, but it always lags a year and that's confusing to people but there's no other way to do it that I know of. And Abe Skinner does a good job of appraising these things, and he's very reasonable. If you want to talk with him, I don't know if it's too late yet, but I would suggest you talk with him very quickly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, the date has passed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It has passed, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe last week was the final time to be able to apply for the Value Adjustment Board, but it doesn't mean you still can't get answers -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- as to why it is what it is. MR. FONDESSY: Well, 1'11 come back next year and thank you for the lower rate then. Page 26 September 20, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it is lower. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Chuck Mohlke. MR. MOHLKE: Good evening. If it pleases this honorable board, I wanted to inquire regarding a matter of some importance to folks that will be confronted with an important ballot proposition on January 29th that proposes to amend the Florida Constitution to take away some measure of local control of property taxes. And the ballot language, if I recall correctly, if voters adopted it, would quote, require the legislature to limit the authority of counties, municipalities, and special districts to increase ad valorem taxes. I've been asked on behalf of my colleagues on the Democratic Executive Committee to ask these two questions, in may, for the response of the professional staff or commissioners. First, what is the likely consequences for general purpose county government of the double impact of lessened property valuations in 2007 and the possible passage of the January 29th ballot proposition for your budget next year? And second, the need to create, if you believe it is necessary or desirable, new income sources and fee-based enterprise funds to support the essential service that only local governments can provide, public safety, roads, stormwater management, would be three that I know are of special importance to this board? And 1'11 stand and wait for the response, and thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you will get a great response, because Commissioner Coyle is our expert on this particular subject. MR. MOHLKE: I saw him nodding gleefully as I was asking my question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll go to Commissioner Henning for second opinion. MR. MOHLKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer in so many questions like this, of course, is, follow the money. And so if we start with Page 27 September 20, 2007 property taxes, we have to understand that property taxes are paid by people locally on property they own, and the money is spent by locally elected representatives who are responsible to those voters. In the case of the state government, they derive their money from sales taxes and documentary stamp fees from real estate transactions. So while we are interested in serving local residents and voters and we're concerned about quality of life, the state government is not concerned about current residents. They are concerned about attracting more residents to Florida so that they get more sales taxes and more real estate documentation fees. So they're facing a very short -- well, a shortfall in budget, which is very significant, and they're scrambling to find ways to make it up. If they are, in fact, successful in eliminating property taxes, as they say they want to do, and reducing property insurance costs, as they say they want to do, we will have the biggest land rush in history in a state that doesn't have an income tax, doesn't have an intangibles tax, doesn't have property tax, and has lower insurance taxes. That will generate lots of money for the state legislature to spend, and it will be spent in the way that they always spend it, which is to serve their own political purposes. And Collier County will be hurt terribly in the process. We're already a donor county because the people in Tallahassee believe we're rich and part of our money should go to other counties to pay them for what they need, and they don't really care about quality of life issues that we are concerned about locally. So I would say to you, if -- if the voters vote to approve the state plan -- I prefer to call it a scheme -- in January, the local governments will be virtually decimated, our quality of life will suffer very badly, and in the scramble to recover from this -- the debacle that will result from their decision, we are likely to see income taxes established, more property taxes in the future established, and we'll find ourselves without the protective net of our Save Our Homes initiative because Page 28 September 20, 2007 they want to eliminate the Save Our Homes tax cap. They want to get rid of it. And that, I think, summarizes my opinion on what is likely to happen. It will be disastrous if they do this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Mohlke, I'm sure you trust in, the people who vote make the best decision for what's good for them. Now, you're going to hear the residents all over the State of Florida what a bad thing that it's going to do to local government. In fact, if you look at the projections out, it will actually bring a lot more revenue to government. And I'm sure you can appreciate, just like the others here, if we vote for it and we use the new system, we actually have to pay more taxes, substantially. You've been in your home for 20 years? MR. MOHLKE: At least. COMMISSIONER HENNING: At least. You have a great benefit, and so do I, as the other ones. You know, the unknown is the unknown. We don't know what the legislator's (sic) going to do. But I trust the people. I trust they will make the right decision. And in fact, I will buy you the beverage of your choice if the voters in Collier County vote for this amendment. MR. MOHLKE: In have the choice of where to have my cup of coffee, sir, I will be pleased to accept your invitation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it's in Collier County. MR. MOHLKE: As long as it's in Collier County. In may, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to repeat, with your permission, the second part of my inquiry, which was, can it be foreseen fairly that there will be an interest in finding other sources of revenue, particularly fee-based enterprise funds, that may be targeted specifically to provide the revenues necessary to underwrite certain Page 29 September 20, 2007 essential services? I know it may be premature to ask that question, but it seemed sensible to at least open that door remembering what happened with the 10 mill cap in Florida many years ago. There was a sudden rush in counties that were up at or near the 10 mill cap to suddenly generate municipal service taxing units, benefit units, a great enthusiasm for having small incorporated municipalities with their own taxing sources and a variety of other, to use your phrase, Commissioner Coyle, schemes designed to generate revenue to avoid an arbitrary 10 mill cap. And I thought it would just be important to ask that question for, perhaps, some future response that professional staff or commissioners might like to develop. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, would you like to respond? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we've already started that. The county manager and his staff have been looking at fee-based service just for the cuts this year. There is no free lunch, as most voters know. If you demand things like landscaping in the medians and you demand things like lighting on the streets and highways and you demand a quality community, you're not going to get it without paying some money. And you're going to pay the money whether you pay property taxes or you pay a user fee. The only problem is, that with these poorly thought out schemes, we're going to create disasters that have to be recovered from, and that will likely result in multiple taxation solutions which will increase the taxes that people pay. So it's unpredictable, but we've already started looking at that. We have user fees now that -- our parks and recreation people are going more to user fees to the extent we'll let them do that. We haven't quite recognized the seriousness of this issue yet, but when we Page 30 September 20, 2007 do, I think you'll probably see more of that sort of thing. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, on the subject -- Mr. Mohlke, there's another section of the answer you just got from Commissioner Coyle. It had to do with MSTUs. MR. MOHLKE: Yes. MR. MUDD: The legislation had just passed for tax reform this first year -- and I talked to the commissioners about a 16- inch pie, okay. And if you decided you wanted to increase an MSTU, you'd have to decrease something else in that pie in order to come out with the same -- with the same shape. This new tax law basically said, if you're going to create an MSTU, you've got to find cuts in your existing tax base, either existing MSTUs, general fund, unincorporated general fund, in order to fit them in. So it makes it very difficult to take that avenue to increase as they did in the past with the 10 mill cap. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing that -- I think as this unfolds, this year was the first year we really had to make some drastic cuts. If that amendment is passed January 29th, as Commissioner Coyle said, it's going to have some devastating effects. And I think at that time the citizens need to have outcry to the legislature and say, get this train wreck fixed or you're going to see more taxes, user fees, and stuff of this nature, and I don't believe that's what the citizens really want. And so I think that as this scenario unfolds -- and, of course we know that we have a special session that's just going to be -- going to be convening here very shortly, and the state, again, is looking at about a $2 billion cut. I am sure that there's going to be some unfunded mandates, additional on top of what we've got, that are going to come down here to the counties. That's going to take away our revenue on things that need to be addressed here in the county, and that money is going to be going up to Tallahassee. Page 31 September 20, 2007 MR. MOHLKE: Commissioners, that's very responsive, and thank you so much for the time you were able to devote to that question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you for being here this evenmg. MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson, that's it, is that correct? MS. FILSON: That was the final speaker. Item #2D RESOLUTION 2007-258: TO AMEND THE TENTATIVE BUDGETS - ADOPTED W ICHANGES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to resolution to amend the tentative budgets. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would amend the tentative budgets and would incorporate the changes that I outlined in the summary under item 2B, as well as the changes the board made relative to the Supervisor of Elections from the UFR list as well. There were two motions relative to that. MR. MUDD: And the sheriff 189, 199. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that -- those were part of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the resolution to amend with the changes approved on page 1 and the changes to the sheriffs budget and the changes to the Supervisor of Elections' budget. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that one. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that motion sufficient? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We just want to be clear that that also incorporated the sheriff changes that I outlined. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MUDD: He said it did. Page 32 September 20, 2007 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas. 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. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And let the record show that the vote was 4-1, with Commissioner Henning being the dissenting vote. Item #2E PUBLIC READING OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY LEVYING MILLAGE, THE NAME OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY, THE ROLLED-BACK, THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE, AND THE MILLAGE RATE TO BE LEVIED - READ INTO RECORD MR. MUDD: We're under E, which is the public reading of the taxing authority levying millage, the name of the taxing authority, the rolled-back rate, the percentage increase, and the millage rate to be levied. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, in your notebooks you have a millage resolution under item 2E -- well, actually it's 2F is the resolution setting the rates. That's the resolution from which I'll be reading. Page 33 September 20, 2007 And Jim, could you put that on the overhead. MR. MUDD: This one? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Okay. Mr. Mudd will be, for the benefit of the viewing public, placing the list of the various funds and the associated millages from which 1'11 be reading. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this, you're required to read the list itself. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, absolutely. You are required under Florida Statute to read the taxing authority levying the millage, the name of the authority, the rolled-back rate, the percent increase, and the millage to be levied. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. First is the general fund 001, the rolled-back rate, 3.4582; the proposed millage rate, 3.1469. It is a decrease below the rolled-back rate of 9 percent. Water pollution control, fund 114, the rolled-back rate is .0308 mills; the proposed rate is .0280 mills. A decrease of 9.1 percent. The unincorporated area, general fund 111, the rolled-back rate is .7609 mills; the proposed millage rate is .6912. A decrease of9.2 percent. The Golden Gate Community Center, fund 130, the rolled-back rate is .1634; the proposed rate is .1487. That is a decrease of 9 percent. Naples Park Drainage, fund 139, the rolled-back rate is .0075; the proposed millage rate is .0068. That is a decrease of9.3 percent. Victoria Park Drainage, fund 134, the rolled-back rate is .3934 mills; the proposed is .3580 mills. A decrease of9 percent. Naples Underground FP&L, fund 135, the rolled-back rate is 0, as there was no levy in the prior year. There is no proposed FY-'08 levy. MR. MUDD: Mike, the Pine Ridge Industrial Park you skipped over. Page 34 September 20, 2007 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Pardon me. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, fund 140, the rolled-back rate, .0482; the proposed rate is .0438. That is a decrease of 9.1 percent. Golden Gate Parkway Beautification, fund 136, the rolled-back rate is .4315; proposed is .3927. That is a decrease of9 percent. Naples Production Park, fund 141, the rolled-back rate is .0259; the proposed is .0235. That is a decrease of9.3 percent. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, fund 143, the rolled-back rate, .4773; proposed is .4343. A decrease of9 percent. Isle of Capri Fire, fund 144, the rolled-back rate is 1.5420; the proposed rate is 1.4957. That is a decrease of3 percent. Ochopee Fire Control, fund 146, the rolled-back rate, 3.8132; proposed 3.6988. A decrease of3 percent. Collier County Fire, fund 148, the rolled-back rate is 2.0037; the proposed rate is 1.9436. That is a decrease of 3 percent. GoodlandlHorrs Island Fire MSTU, rolled back, .8093; proposed, .7761. That is a decrease of 4.1 percent. Radio Road Beautification, fund 150, the rolled-back rate is .2286; proposed, .2080. A decrease of 9 percent. Sabal Palm Road MSTU, fund 151, the rolled-back rate is .8188; proposed, .7451. A decrease of9 percent. Lely Golf Estates Beautification, fund 152, rolled back is 1.8416; proposed, 1.6759. A decrease of9 percent. Hawk's Ridge Stormwater pumping MSTU, fund 154, rolled back is .1250; proposed, .1138. A decrease of9 percent. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU, the rolled back is 3.6; proposed, 1.2468. A decrease of 65.4 percent. Immokalee Beautification MSTU, fund 156, the rolled-back rate is .9466; proposed, .8614. A decrease of9 percent. Bayshore Avalon Beautification MSTU, the -- fund 160, rolled back is 1.5957; proposed is 1.4521. A decrease of9 percent. Haldeman Creek Dredging, fund 164, is a new proposed millage, Page 35 September 20, 2007 so the rolled-back rate is O. That's a tenth of a mill. Rock Road, fund 165, is also a new proposed levy. The rolled-back rate is 0, and that is 1.5 mills. Conservation Collier, fund 172, the rolled-back rate is .1745; proposed is .1588. That is a decrease of9 percent. Parks GOB debt service, the rolled-back rate is O. There is no proposed levy. Caribbean Gardens, fund 220, the rolled-back rate, .1446; proposed, 1.5. That's an increase of3.7 percent funding debt service on the loan that was used to acquire that property. Forest Lakes Debt Service, fund 259, the rolled-back rate is O. This is a new levy; proposed is 2.7532 mills. Conservation Collier Debt Service, fund 272, the rolled-back rate is .0664; proposed, .0654. That's a decrease of 1.5 percent. Collier County Lighting, fund 760, rolled-back rate is .0961; proposed is .0874. That is a decrease of9.1 percent. Pelican Bay MSTBU, the rolled-back rate is O. There was no levy in FY-'07 and there is no proposed levy in FY-'08. The aggregate millage rate, which is a weighted average of all of the proposed tax levies, rolled back is 4.2766; the proposed millage rate, 3.8838. That is that a decrease of9.18 percent. That concludes item 2E, Mr. Chairman. Item #2F RESOLUTION 2007-259: SETTING MILLAGE RATES- ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the millage resolution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, on that resolution, a strict Page 36 September 20, 2007 reading of statute requires you to approve the dependent district, which includes pollution control, your two Conservation Collier levies, and your Caribbean Gardens levy by separate motion. So if -- we'd need a motion setting the millage rates for the dependent districts, and that would then be followed by a motion for the balance of the millages to be levied. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So your motion, Commission Henning, first motion covers -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a motion to approve the dependent districts' millage rate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the motion by Commissioner Henning for approval, 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: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the balance of the millages on our agenda. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that cover it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Page 37 September 20, 2007 Henning and second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all of 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 #2G RESOLUTION 2007-260: ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET BY FUND - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: Now we would need a resolution to adopt the final budgets by fund. Again, the dependent districts with a separate motion, please, and then the balance of the Collier County funds for fiscal year 2008. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the resolution for the dependent funds. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Page 38 September 20, 2007 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 #2G RESOLUTION 2007-260: ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET BY FUND - APPROVED COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the resolution of final budget for the independent funds. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. 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. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Henning abstain -- not abstaining, in the opposition. Page 39 September 20, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: With that, we are finished, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're adjourned, unless you have something else, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: No, sir. I just want to make sure that the board -- that the board is aware, Mr. Smykowski, in the budget book on the first page, basically wrote a letter to the board on September 18th with the recommendation that we not do the UFR list because of the special session. We've taken care of the Representative Davis special election already tonight, and then we've got the impacts of the January 29, 2008, special referendum. And we need to see what the turnbacks are at the end of October. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:16 p.m. Page 40 September 20, 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL nM~(fian ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~:~t~ a~ to ~~.) c, 0.( . S1onatur. onlo These minutes al2Proved by the Board on \ 0 -03 ~croo-' presented v or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 41