BCC Minutes 03/17/1995 B (Budget) BUDGET MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:15 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
ALSO PRESENT:
present:
CHAIRPERSON:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of
Commissioners' budget workshop for March 17th. Gee, I see a lot of
green, and I'm sure it's not with envy; right? It happens to be Saint
Patty's Day.
We are at the public comment section of our budget
workshops. And, Mr. Dotrill, I presume we have a lot of people signed
up.
MR. DORRILL: We do, and I'm going to try and get these
in some semblance of topical order just to assist those who are here.
We have some people here from Immokalee, and if it's all right with
them, I think we'll take them first. Several different issues, but
there's some people from Immokalee, and they all need to get back to
work is what I was told, and it's at your discretion to do those
first.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it agreeable that we hear
those from the most distance first?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll do so.
MR. DORRILL: The first one I have then is Ms. Gatto.
And Ms. Ban will follow her, and if I can have you stand by, please.
Ms. Gatto, go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Gatto.
MS. GATTO: Yes. I'm here to voice a concern regarding
the area on School Drive, the South Immokalee Community Park. For
several years now this park has not been maintained aesthetically or
equipment-wise for the area of School Drive. As a result school-age
children who are in abundance in that area have no positive choices
for recreation, and as a result of that there has been numerous
incidents of vandalism in the area and crime and violence.
I'm requesting that funding be allocated to redo South
Immokalee Community Park so that there is adequate equipment and so
the children who are basically unsupervised between the hours of 3
p.m. and 7 p.m. while their parents are working have some positive
choices and some organized supervised activities after school.
In addition, I'm requesting that there will be extra
funding for patrols, and that includes unmarked cars so that there is
some supervision from the authorities as well in this area to curtail
the crime and violence that has been occurring.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So basically two points, one has
to do with parks and rec, and the other has to do with the sheriff's
budget?
MS. GATTO: Yes, that's correct.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Olliff, is there
anything -- what is the plan for this park?
MR. DORRILL: Specifically the South Immokalee Park --
and you need to get the board oriented a little better. I'm not sure
they're all familiar with that park or its location.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm afraid I'm not.
MR. OLLIFF: Actually, that's -- it is south Immokalee.
If you -- if you go into Immokalee on Immokalee Road, the residential
area -- the road then sort of splits the community. It's that area
south and east of Main Street once you get into town. And there is an
area there that's largely residential.
There are three different locations that the county has
been looking at for either improving parks or building new parks in
that area. All of those unfortunately are in that neighborhood size
park, and it's -- we've been working with the long range planning
department as part of their Immokalee master plan to find out where is
the best and a good location.
But, in fact, in this year's budget we actually have
$30,000 to replace the play equipment. We had targeted that
particular park, South Immokalee Community Park, but there was a
question of the residents as part of that master planning process if
that was the best place or whether they wanted to do it at a new
location. So we do have something planned for this year in that
community in terms of play equipment.
MR. DORRILL: You said the east, though. Did you mean
to say east? Is this like behind the Seminole Gaming Palace, or is it
on the west side, the southwest side of town?
MR. OLLIFF: That particular park, southwest side.
MS. GATTO: It is in close proximity to the Seminole
Gaming Palace.
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is where -- the Immokalee
Childcare Center used to be in that area. MS. GATTO: Yes, it still is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It still is until they get a new
one opened.
MS. GATTO: It is directly behind the Immokalee
Childcare Center.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. That's where I thought it
was. We do have $30,000 in the budget for equipment -- MR. OLLIFF: Fiscal year '95.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that's what you're looking
for? Upgrading of the equipment at the park?
MS. GATTO: Equipment and a possible part-time
recreational director to organize games and activities so these
children not only have adequate equipment, they're also being
supervised.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How large is that park, Mr.
Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: It's probably 2 acres --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's not a big one.
MR. OLLIFF: -- in size. Generally what we've done is
-- a policy across the county is -- we probably have a dozen parks
that size, that 2-acre size, and those are usually unmanned,
unstaffed, just neighborhood-type parks, whether it's Poinciana or
Aaron Lutz or any of those type of parks. And we currently don't have
plans to provide any recreational supervised activities there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is typically a walk-to
park?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems like this lady --
forgive me. I didn't get your name -- should participate in this
Immokalee long range planning process to try to be sure that that
park's interests get represented adequately. It sounds like that's a
place you should spend some time.
MR. OLLIFF: As well as I think our parks and recreation
advisory board, it's a good place to start. They have Immokalee
specific representation, and they like looking and trying to develop
plans for how to have a better -- especially recreationalizing
programs. I'll talk to you and staff right after this meeting and
tell you when their next meeting is.
MS. GATTO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ban.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Ban.
MS. BAN: I'm from Step by Step, and I'm working right
behind Kathy at Immokalee Childcare, and our concerns are also with
the same kind of program. With the recreation program it would be
really good for the kids if we could get something going not only just
for recreation, but possibly working in conjunction with the
university or maybe Edison College where you could get students coming
in working with the children, supervising their activities for
possible credit through that university, and then maybe having a
part-time director or assistant director that could supervise.
But these children need to have a lot of positive
influences and role models in their lives. Right now with them being
unsupervised it leaves too much room open for vandalism in the
neighborhood, and it's taking the police department away from things
that they really need to be concerned with.
I would like to say something going on in that area, if
it's in another area that's not close by, it's not going to do the
children any good because they're not going to have access to the
facility. Now, they've got the park there, and there may not be too
much land, but there's enough to get some programs going and even if
you could put up a building where they could have tutoring too.
I know the Star program in Fort Myers, and they've done
a lot of activities with the students, and it's really helped. If we
could get something going like that in Immokalee, I think it would be
a very positive aspect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think part of our problem here,
though, is that historically we don't have personnel at these parks.
They're considered neighborhood walk-to parks.
Mr. Olliff, can I ask you a question, though, because
she brought up an interesting concept of working with the college.
Does Edison College or the University of Southwest Florida have
recreation major programs?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't believe so. I believe the closest
recreation major program is at Gainesville. I don't believe any of
the local colleges have anything like that. We -- we usually -- and,
in fact, it's odd. For some reason we've developed a relationship
with the University of Iowa. They keep sending students down here
that they want -- for some reason they've developed a respect for our
park program. They send kids down here out of their rec program to
intern. We currently have one working for us now, but we've not been
contacted by any of our local, state colleges, but we can certainly
make that effort and call them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say why don't we
put a letter out to the local colleges to see if they have a
recreation major program, and we might be able to offer some
additional credits or something to these students, because isn't the
recreation manager out at Immokalee now -- isn't she a recreation
maj or?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And possibly because of that we
could qualify a course.
MS. BAN: What about education?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to say even
Vo-tech with the childcare kinds of programs and education majors.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. OLLIFF: We can look at a couple of things. In some
cases if -- if you have a participant fee in terms of after school
type programs or even summer camp programs, in a lot of cases we have
a contracted person who will come in, and the participant fee will
actually pay for their full salary, so there are some other things we
can look at there in terms of providing some programming.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other thought that I had is
that you might contact some of the private companies. I happen to
know about Girls Incorporated. I don't know if they have done
anything in Immokalee, but they do these after school kinds of
programs that do tutoring. I'd be happy to put you in touch with that
organization.
MS. BAN: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: And I also think the YMCA has been looking
to increase their profile in Immokalee also.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think there are several options
here to address the problem without having to add full-time staff,
that we can find a way to solve it.
MS. BAN: Well, I know with education courses there's a
lot of different courses that we are required to take. And all of
them are working with children, and we have Phys.Ed. classes. We
have, you know, like just different education classes that we would be
able to work with the children hands on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Mr. Olliff will take care
of that and get back to us on it. Next, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Thomas.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to note Mr. Thomas has
on a green tie today. He knows what day it is.
MR. THOMAS: Erin-go-Baugh. Good morning,
Commissioners. I am Fred Thomas, the Chamber of Commerce president
for the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. That's the hat I'm wearing
today.
We have been endeavoring on several years to increase
the business viability of the community of Immokalee thereby
increasing the tax base and putting more people on the front of the
cart instead of riding in the cart. We tried through the enterprise
zone application process with -- through the Immokalee Foundation to
get some funds, which politically we were iced out of that. There is
another concept that's on both the state and the federal level that
you were made aware of yesterday, and that's the enterprize zone that
is sun-setting, and the new rules allow it to be established on a
community-wide basis which makes a whole lot more sense, because
there's -- the way it was located before, it was not good business
sense in terms of relocating businesses to the Immokalee community.
Under the new rules it should be pointed out that an
enterprise zone council needs to be established. That council needs
to be staffed, and we need to begin to market not only the airport,
but Immokalee as a viable community. We're beginning to feel the
effects every day of NAFTA and the increased competition we're getting
from especially the Mexican market, which is our present window of
opportunity that we are having to deal with. And if things go the way
people predict that they're going to go in Cuba, we're really going to
be in a world of trouble because they're right in our same window.
It's not like they just share part of it. They're in our same window
as it relates to agriculture, so we need to begin to be concerned
about diversifying our economic base. We can only do that through
marketing.
We can only do that through setting up various kinds of
programs that gives incentives to businesses who do not know anything
about Immokalee. Now, it is true that the Immokalee Foundation
through its horse trials and other activities has put us a little bit
on the map. But unless we take advantage of that and do some
marketing, we're not going to be able to do the job that needs to be
done. That takes staff time.
I was very concerned about some of the confusion that
was generated yesterday in your meetings trying to figure out who's
doing what and how it's doing and what have you. I'm saying to you
folks you need a person -- I don't care which department that person
is in -- but a full-time staff person to worry about the economic
development of Immokalee.
Now, in the coast you all may not be concerned about any
growth. You may not want any business. But if this community is
going to survive and get past NAFTA, you're going to have to diversify
the economic base or help to diversify the economic base. We can't do
it alone. We haven't got a city out there. We haven't got city
fathers. We haven't got any other way to generate resources to make
things happen. We need to go after the enterprize zone hard and heavy
because the enterprise sent us to bring business here. Then we need
to have somebody to market that.
I think your airport director is doing an excellent job,
and the smoking mirrors that Greg Crothers (phonetic) uses to convince
the world of how much we're doing for affordable housing in this
community is absolutely amazing when you get down to some real things
that are happening in some other communities, okay. So you need to
award that. You need to give them the tools to work with, and we
could bring more money into this community. We just need to have the
time and effort of some professional talent to make that happen.
Okay, we do the best we can. Now, as we go -- but my primary mission
every day is a job that maintains a bunch of housing units, but I have
to take time away from family and friends to do these other kinds of
things because we have nobody else to do it. Most communities make a
major effort towards economic development, especially when you've got
such a rich jewel to work with out in Immokalee. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dotrill, a
question. This economic -- or this enterprize zone that used to exist
that expired on December 31 entailed almost entirely the airport
industrial park previously?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, both sides.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, Mr. Thomas, you say now it's
being expanded to include 10 square miles? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, one at a time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it 10 square miles or 10 miles
square?
MR. THOMAS: 10 square miles, I believe. Let me -- if
you can visualize Immokalee, you've got the airport on the northeast
side of town. The former enterprize zone worked around and went south
of Main Street over to about Ninth Street.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me finish with my thought.
If the old enterprise zone was going to be almost exclusively to the
airport in which a similar position would have been needed by the
airport authority, and the new enterprize zone is envisioned to
encompass 10 square miles, canwt we -- would it be reasonable for us
to ask the airport authority to pick up a pro rata share of this staff
person if thatws going to be part of their job to market the
industrial park and attract the industry there thatws needed and
between the grants and the airport authority, which hopefully will be
a self-perpetuating fee-based airport, wewll have this position
funded?
MR. DORRILL: I think for the purposes of funding, the
answer is yes. I think for the purposes of marketing properties to be
-- to be developed for industrial purposes, you might be subject to
some criticism that youwve got a county person who has a little
conflict of interest in representing your airport authority and the
land there to the detriment potentially of other private landowners
that might be back to the southwest.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, then youwre saying that
there is -- there would be a bit of a conflict problem?
MR. DORRILL: I said youwre subject to the appearance of
a conflict because youwve got the airport authority paying an economic
development person who also has responsibilities off the airport
property and that there might be appearance problems.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could we enter into a contract
for services?
MR. DORRILL: With the airport authority?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With the airport authority to
provide that service.
MR. DORRILL: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that way we -- we have the
position funded, and that person will be marketing the airport
industrial area too.
MR. DORRILL: That could certainly be an option.
MR. THOMAS: Remember, youwre worrying about grants and
whatnot to pay the money back. Your moneyws going to come back in the
form of increased tax revenues, increased tax revenues. Youwve got to
plant the seed. Youwve got to give it a chance to grow, and then
youwve got to harvest the crop, pure agricultural economics. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Call Mr. Neron next just because itws the
same subject; then wewll move on to the new area. I believe therews a
final speaker on this area.
MR. NERON: Mr. Chairman -- Madam Chairman, members of
the board, for the record Iwm Bill Neron, director of government
affairs for the Economic Development Council. Wewve hand delivered to
each of you this morning a letter thanking you for the decision
yesterday to at least continue consideration of the funding of this
position in the discretionary category. And we are confident that in
June when you come back to consider this further that we can present a
much stronger case as the need for this position.
The Economic Development Council, as many of you are
aware, is -- while we have been doing economic development, we as part
of our new strategic plan are going to be taking a much stronger focus
in the job creation and economic diversity areas. And what wewre
looking for is really a public-private partnership. This is what
works most successfully in other communities. In particular, our
sister county to the north has that ongoing and has had for the last
few years and has had some very excellent results in it.
Traditionally to date I think a lot of our economic
development in this community has been private sector driven, which is
appropriate in many ways. But I think we need to enhance a
public-private partnership, and this is one way to do it.
The enterprise zone we see as a very, very important
economic development tool. Right now when a business, manufacturing
business, comes to us and says we want to relocate to your community,
what incentives can you provide us, because incentives are part of the
game in -- in economic development. Right now with the demise of the
current enterprize zone we have nothing to offer.
With the enterprise zone overlay on the Immokalee
Airport as well as the Immokalee community, coupled with the potential
for foreign trade zone designation, we now have ongoing -- thanks to
your good foresight -- the implementation of the Immokalee Regional
Airport and a business park there with facilities, water and sewer,
and a marketable product. We need to now get out of the planning
stage and into the implementation stage. This position is a vital
part, not only for the Immokalee community, but for a whole host of
other potential opportunities.
We realize, yes, you are in the process through the
Council of Economic Advisors and the planning department preparing an
economic development plan which is appropriate. But while this
planning is ongoing and will soon come to fruition, we hope by the end
of the summer or early fall we still need a position to be geared to
doing some of the implementation efforts that does not contradict but
works hand in hand with a strong public-private partnership.
With that, those remarks, I'll close for the moment and
say we hopefully can come back. We will be back here in June to
present some further information in this matter. Thank you very
much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one comment to Mr. Neron, if
I might, that I hope that the EDC and others in the community that are
interested in this issue, I think -- I think Mr. Thomas is making a
case for the Immokalee increased tax base, and I think that there is
clearly support in Immokalee for industrial development. And we're
spending money on that. We're doing that with the airport authority.
But I think that the EDC has got to take the lead in convincing the
coastal community that what we're talking about here is not growth,
not quantity related growth, but the quality of this community. And
it -- until you do that education, until you make that education curve
in the coastal community, I don't think that you're going to see as
much support for this public-private partnership as is appropriate.
MR. NERON: We totally agree with what you're saying,
but at the same time we have to still move forward while this
education process is ongoing, and we look forward to the opportunity
to bring further information back to you in June.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Neron.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think that's an excellent remark that -- and I
think as our existing businesses in the coastal area that are in the
different industrial and business parks grow and expand and begin to
look for land to put their businesses, they're going to -- they're
going to see that the price of land in Immokalee is a bargain and
maybe not go all the way to Immokalee, but they're going to be moving
farther and farther out, which is going to create a middle-class
situation throughout the county, which is where we're headed. Mr. Dotrill, who is next?
MR. DORRILL: We'll move on. The next speakers appear
to be interested in beach or park program fees, and we'll start with
Ms. Ward.
MS. WARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
I am Harjorie Ward representing as president CABB, the Citizens
Association of Bonita Beach. As you are all well aware of, we are a
bi-county association with members in both Collier and Lee County, and
I am representing these members.
I want to address beach fees, beach parking fees,
admission fees, or any type of fee with regard to our sovereign lands,
our beaches, which are held by the governor and cabinet in public
trust for all of the public and the access including parking which is
necessary to get to these beaches. I believe it's a well-known fact
that we oppose any type of charge for a facility because it is
discriminatory, not just between the haves and the have-nots, but it
is instigated at this time of year by those minority who are fortunate
enough who live on the beach so do not have to pay but like to feel
that the beaches are part of their property and prefer to not allow
the undesirables or the riffraff to use it. And if you do not live on
the beach, you and I fall in that category.
Inland parks, pools, ball fields, et cetera, may charge
for programs which the beach, thank goodness, does not have. But
there's no charge to park at any of your public facilities or in the
parking lot that's outside of this building. Why then should you
discriminate against the beach-goers with a parking fee except to
eliminate the use of the beaches possibly to those who need this
natural resource the most? God gave us the gulf and its beaches, and
man provides a parking lot. But beyond that the infrastructure is at
inland parks, much of which is used free of charge but costs more to
maintain.
Responding to the suggestion that either a sticker
system or -- be used or a varied charged, I'd like to remind you that
the state frowns on discrimination of beach-goers by locale. In other
words, if a state grant money has been received for beach areas such
as on Marco Island or state property itself is involved, such as in
the case of Barefoot Preserve, they have been steadfast, the state
that is, in stating that all beach-goers are to be treated the same.
Since it was proven to the prior board about three years
ago that it costs more to have fees than were derived from them, and
as I understand it, your staff has indicated it would require a
minimum of three dollars just to clear expenses, it seems as though
what we're talking about is only to make as difficult as possible for
anyone but a beach resident to use the beach unless, of course, if
they are very wealthy.
And so, once again, we request that you agree with us
and the vast majority of beach-goers and vote down any requests for
any type of fee schedule. I understand that you should have heard by
phone or fax -- or if not, that you will -- from the Naples Park
Association, the Turnbury Association, the Golden Gate Civic
Association, Willoughby Acres, Bonita Shores, Little Hickory Shores
Association, Landmark Estates; and individuals; Emily Nachio
(phonetic), Brent Snodgrass, Rip Perry and, Vera Fitzgerald.
there's a lot of people who are concurring with the remarks that I
have, and we thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Ward.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask a few questions?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner
Hancock had indicated first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mrs. Ward stated they're opposed
to any charge, and we have already asked Mr. Olliff to take a look at
exactly what you're talking about, state funds used for parks and
whether or not that allows us to place a charge. Something that may
not have -- have shown up in the article is that this board -- the
majority of this board was opposed 100 percent towards charging
residents who have already paid for these facilities to park at them.
So that's one thing I wanted to put out for the record.
Now, if the state says that -- that you can't charge
more for nonresidents and residents, it still stands, I believe, that
this board -- and the majority again said we do not want to charge
residents to park at beaches that they have paid for. So I just
wanted to at least set that straight and also let you know that my
vehement opposition to charging any residents to park at these beaches
stands firm and will stand firm.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to ask Miss Ward a couple
of questions if we could get her to come back up, please. Miss Ward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Ward.
MS. WARD: Oh, sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sorry to make you get back up.
MS. WARD: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Ward, in the county that you
live in, do they charge beach parking fees?
MS. WARD: Yes, but what -- that really has nothing to
do with my being here because I only live just across the line, and
I'm representing people from Collier County as well as people from Lee
County. We are a bi-county association.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand that. I was
just hoping that maybe you could tell us how much they charge in your
county to park.
MS. WARD: It varies according to which particular parks
that they happen to be.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you give us an idea then of a
range? Is it a dollar? Is it two dollars? Is it three dollars?
MS. WARD: Well, in some instances they charge by -- the
newly instigated parking fees -- and many of the places did not have
parking fees until just recently the -- and some still do not have
parking fees. Not every place are there parking fees. Some of them
charge on the basis of -- by the hour, which can be 50 cents or 75
cents an hour. They have parking pass -- or they have passes which
can be purchased which apply to all of the parks, and I believe the
sum for that is like $35.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would that be an annual?
MS. WARD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: $35 for an annual fee?
MS. WARD: And it applies to any and all parks for an
unlimited period of parking time. But there are still, Commissioner
Norris, certain areas that are free.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Do they have any system at
all where they give residents of your county a free sticker, or is it
just the $35 is all?
MS. WARD: They -- they have -- to the best of my
knowledge, throughout the county what they have done is they have it
as a blanket amount that everyone is treated the same. In other
words, if they charge people from Collier County or Dade County or
Oklahoma or Michigan or whatever, the same fee is charged to the
residents of the county. There is no -- there is no discrimination
between one or the other.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Ward.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Paret.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Dotrill, what is
that name again?
MR. DORRILL: Paret.
MR. PARET: Good morning, MAdam Commissioner. For the
record my name is Ray Paret, and I am a resident of Collier County.
As Will Rogers used to say, I see by the paper that Collier faces
tough budget choices. Well, a potential four million dollar deficit
for fiscal 1996 for parks and recreation, would it not be nice to have
some money from a source other than the purses of Collier County
residents, a source that I define as passive income? Such a source
existed from 1987 till 1992. It was a user fee called beach parking,
and you all probably know the history of that ludicrous rescission
made by a previous board, some of whom have been swept out of office
and have been replaced by members of this board.
I have in my possession just about all of the car counts
from the first legal pad handwritten count in 1987 done by Bob Leglet
(phonetic) until they were discontinued in November of 1992. We have
updated counts of cars from that point on. Collier residents pay user
fees for many public services. I'd like to confine my remarks
strictly to the park and recreation fees such as tennis, meeting
rooms, ball parks, boat ramps, pools, programs, and et cetera.
We also pay the City of Naples $210,000 per annum to
secure beach parking decals for nonincorporated Collier residents.
Delnor Wiggins State Park charges $3.25 a car. Sanibel, Lee, Dade,
Broward and all of the east coast, there are beach parking charges as
you go north to MAine. In a MAine coastal township two years ago on a
driving trip they had a system whereby only taxpayers could secure a
decal on their car to again pay at a meter conveniently close to the
beach. But it was cold and rocky, Commissioner Constantine.
We need not reinvent the wheel. Good systems are now in
place in areas that will gladly share experience with our staff. At
the last count in 1992 over 80 percent of our beach parkers, and that
is an average, were from out of county. It is time to level the
playing field and ask our out-of-county visitors to help pay their
way. My request to reinstitute, and I emphasize re, the beach parking
fee is a position that is supported by MICA, MITA, MAC, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Board of Realtors. I might add that we do not live
on the beach. The Greater Naples Civic Association has also supported
this position, and I ask you to strongly consider reinstating beach
parking fees. Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate to show my ignorance, but
what's MAC?
MR. PARET: MArco Association of Condominiums. It's not
ignorance. We come up with these gadgets all the time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The others I knew.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MArco has more acronyms than any
other community in Collier County.
MR. PARET: Also, we're not called MArco. We're called
MArkup Island.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MArkup?
MR. PARET: Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't appear to be.
MR. PARET: Thank you for your time.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hueller.
MR. HUELLER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Gil Hueller, and I serve on the Collier County Park and Recreation
Advisory Board. I have served for the past six years on and off, and
I also am a ten-year veteran of the many battles of Tiger Tail Beach.
I spoke here on that fateful day of September 29th,
1992, when a group of people, mostly from Lee County, overwhelmed the
commissioners and persuaded them to abolish beach fees. That action
has cost the taxpayers dearly.
But, Commissioners, I believe there is a way to sustain,
for example, the excellent children's program that park and rec
participates in. I was -- just as a side comment, I was concerned
about this program and -- as an advisory member. And I looked into it
rather thoroughly, and I found out it is an excellent program. It's
run beautifully. Also I understand there's some consideration to
reduce the maintenance -- reduce the maintenance program in park and
recreation. These fellas are stretched pretty thin. I know they are
on Marco at least, and I would strongly advise against that.
Okay. I mentioned earlier that perhaps there is a way
to say some of these things, and I have -- I have a thought that I
want to portray to you. Point one, for the fiscal year '91-'92 when
fees ended, we had approximately 350 cars in three beach parks, or I
assume at a dollar apiece, that would be obviously $350,000 in
revenue.
Point two, for the past two and a half years, from 9-'92
to 3-'95, we had approximately one million five hundred thousand
cars. And, by the way, some of these counts might be underestimated
because there are times when those electronic counter things are
inoperable as a result of needing repair. So these are, I would say,
rather modest figures. But at any rate, in that two and a half year
period we had 1,500,000 cars. At three dollars a car, a $4,527,000
loss to the taxpayers during that two and a half year period of time.
Point number three, consider the fact that we are
experiencing approximately a 15 percent increase in beach parking each
year, also the fact that we -- if we placed meters at Gulf Shore,
Barefoot, and also, let's see, there's another one. Gulf Shore,
Barefoot -- I can't recall what it is.
VOICE: South Beach.
MR. HUELLER: Marco's South Beach, which we've never
charged for before. If we put manned stations at the three major
parks, which are Clam, Vanderbilt, and Tiger Tail, we will have -- and
also, by the way, we will have during this period of time an
additional 300 -- 300 additional parking spaces. Considering all
those factors, I estimate that there could be close to a million cars
visiting our beaches in the '95-'96 fiscal year. Now, 85 percent of
those are out-of-county cars according to the recent count. And at
three dollars per car, ladies and gentlemen, that's a bundle of money,
and I'd like you to strongly consider reinstating beach fees. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hueller, the problem I have
with that is that three dollars a car, at least on the inland areas of
which I represent 85 percent of the county that's not coastal, a
hundred percent of it that's not coastal, three dollars a car will
eliminate the people who have bought and paid for those parking lots.
They won't go. They can't afford to go.
VOICE: They're county. They're county. They go free.
MR. MUELLER: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I've just heard -- I
thought I heard you say -- well, I thought I heard you say for
beach-goers, and that's why I'm --
MR. HUELLER: I might have used that term goers but
out-of-county people -- or 85 percent is out of county. The gentleman
before me mentioned --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I withdraw what I said then. I'm
sorry.
MR. HUELLER: Okay. Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one for Mr. Hueller.
MR. HUELLER: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- it's my understanding that
you're taking 60 days this summer and going on a motor home trip
around Florida?
MR. HUELLER: Yes. I'm trying to find the largest motor
home I can find.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's an inside joke.
MR. HUELLER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to make one statement,
that is we keep talking about funding this four million dollar deficit
with beach parking fees. If we're going to institute beach parking
fees in any way, shape, or form, they should be used to construct
additional beach parking. We're running into every year a crunch that
we get more and more people, and we have the same number of beach
spaces with the exception of 254 we just approved at Lely Barefoot.
So I -- you know, I don't want to fund our other areas with beach
parking fees. But if they are instituted, I'd like to see the
majority, if not all of them, go towards increased beach parking.
That would make sense to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess you must know you have
agreement from me on that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would guess. Okay. Next
speaker, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Carsillo.
MS. CARSILLO: Good morning, Chairman Matthews,
Commissioners. My name is Marion Carsillo, and I'm a Collier County
taxpayer currently residing on Marco Island. I'm speaking today on
behalf of John Norris's Marco Island research team of which I am a
member. By the way, none of the members live on the beach.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be HIRT, Marco Island
Research Team -- HIRT.
MS. CARSILLO: HIRT, yes, we're HIRT. The Marco Island
Research Team respectfully requests the Board of County Commissioners
to reinstate beach parking fees. Our suggestion would be to charge
three dollars per vehicle at all beach parks with Collier County
residents getting free beach passes. This would at least cover the
deficit of running the beach parks, afford some supervision to our
most treasured assets, and maybe even cover the $210,000 that we send
to the City of Naples for their parks.
By the way, I'd like to say if you're talking about more
-- you know, using the revenue for more beach spaces, isn't that --
doesn't that apply to impact fees, buying more? And shouldn't this
money really go to lower the deficit of running the beach parks? But
anyway, I'll continue.
According to Tom Olliff's memorandum to you dated August
23rd, 1994, ad valorem taxes have to cover 4.3 million dollars or 82
percent of the parks and recreation budget for 1994. Every year the
budget grows, and Collier County taxpayers are expected to make up an
ever increasing deficit which is up to approximately five million
dollars for 1995.
We are looking to you to make up for the wrongs of past
commissioners by reinstating beach parking fees to relieve the burden
on Collier County taxpayers. We can no longer afford to ignore this
source of revenue when the state parks, other coastal counties, and
even the City of Naples charges for beach parking. Please reinstate
beach parking fees immediately. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carsillo.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick comment.
Everyone is throwing around the word deficit today. I think you have
us confused with the federal government. We can't by law have a
deficit. We balance our budget each and every year. The article
you've seen in the paper is that if we don't tighten our belts a
little bit, we will have to increase that budget by four or five
million dollars this year. But we don't have any deficit. We don't
have one dollar of deficit.
MS. CARSILLO: I understand you don't like that term,
but I think taxpayers feel that when the revenue you collect does not
cover your expenses, we consider it a deficit. So I know that you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't spend one more
dollar than we collect.
MS. CARSILLO: I know, but you are taking it from the
taxpayers. You are expecting the taxpayers to make up what you don't
get in revenues. So we probably look at it a lot different than you
do technically.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last time I checked, I had a
tax bill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I did too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe I pay them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm the last one to say, no,
we'll just charge the taxpayer. I'm one of you. I'm trying to cut
this as much as we can. And it's been projected -- I compliment our
staff for doing the planning and saying if you don't tighten your
belt, you're going to have to increase somewhere.
And what these five people here are trying to do is make
sure we don't have to do that. But it's -- call it an increase if we
have to have an increase because that's what it is. But there's no
deficit. Maybe that's semantics, but we don't spend more than we take
in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The other part of this that we're
having to deal with -- and I'm sorry the two new commissioners have
kind of walked into this, but we have done, as -- as Mr. Dotrill said,
a capital spending project for parks and museums and pools and all
those things that our citizens in the past and in their plans have
said they wanted. And all of those things take operational funds, and
that's where we are. We've used impact fees to build them, and now we
have to operate them. And we can't use impact fees to operate them.
Often the building project that we put in place is built
before the area is maximized to produce the ad valorem taxes that will
fund it, and that's part of our problem also. We've put the capital
in place. We have the -- the projects built, but there's not
necessarily a hundred percent of the citizens who are going to
eventually use it here yet in order to pay the ad valorem. So that's
the process that we're in, and it's a tough process. Any other
comments?
Mr. Dotrill, next speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carsillo.
MR. CARSILLO: Good morning. Chairman Matthews and
Commissioners, my name is Nick Carsillo, and I am a taxpayer of Marco
Island. As you can see, that an increase, potential increase of
approximately 30 percent in our taxes in the next three years, gets
people's attention, especially mine. You will find more activity if
the deficit number that's involved causes 30 percent becomes a problem
and you don't solve some of these before the budget of -- final
decision in September. As you can see, everybody has a crystal ball
that they bring out to solve the problems that are -- you're
confronted with at this particular time. But there is one crystal
clear thing, and that is there is a shortfall between what Mr.
Olliff's department has projected as your operating costs and the
revenue that you're going to get in from wherever it comes. And that
number is in the area of five million dollars as projected by the
county's experts. So let's assume that that number is what we're
dealing with at this particular point. You've heard, and I'm sure
you're well aware of, that the shortfall is primarily due to mistakes
made by the past commissioners, mistakes that this commission has to
deal with whether we want to or not. They have to be dealt with
because they are not correct.
I've heard mandates as must-do's, and they are
automatically put into and become part of the budget. I've heard
Commissioner Hancock express concerns about running our animal
crematory at a loss. Commissioner Constantine expressed concerns for
providing computers to the public at -- at our library system at a
loss. Our museum operates at a loss. Almost everything discussed at
Wednesday's workshop operates at a loss.
One has to question just what business this county is
in. And, again, a lot of these things are not mandated. They are the
things that Chairman Matthews has just mentioned. They are things
that the people have asked for and want, and I'm sure people are
willing to pay for them when they ask for them. I am, for one.
Now we come to the park services. And, again, I say
that the experts are determining another loss, whatever word you want
to use. These funds, these losses are funded by the taxpayers. Now,
I just ask a basic question of this commission. Is anybody satisfied
with this projected five million dollar operating loss? This -- we're
running a business here, and it's an operating loss by any other
definition. I don't see anybody saying that they're in favor of it,
so basically it's a closed case to a greater extent. If you were
running in any sort of business or corporation operation and you were
faced with a five million dollar operating loss, one has to take
advantage of whatever funds are available to reduce that number,
whatever the amount is.
A partial solution to this shortfall is the
reinstatement of beach fees. One might consider it a mandate, a
must-do from the taxpayers. It's not coming from Tallahassee where
you have to do it. But why isn't it sort of in the mandate category
when the taxpayers say, hey, let's stop this or reduce it to the best
of our ability?
Three dollars per car is the recommended fee with county
taxpayers paying nothing for the use of our resources. You heard from
Mr. Mueller, that the county has lost approximately three million
dollars in revenue since the fees were discontinued in 1992. Now, I
spent 30 years in a major corporation with -- doing mega budgets, and
I can tell you right now that anybody that turns revenue down would be
history and out in the street looking for a job where I came from.
Now, the opportunity is there for this commission to
recover some of the loss that has taken place and reduce the operating
expenses that we intend to incur for the services that we all want
through the parks and recreations. I can see Neil Dotrill jumping up
and down in the corner of my eye right now because he can't wait to
reinstitute beach fees --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Settle down.
MR. CARSILLO: -- therefore, I suggest that we don't
lose any of his enthusiasm now. Take advantage of it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. CARSILLO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a question, Mr.
Olliff. I saw you start to move before I even opened my mouth.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's jumping.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think he's heard enough that
he's reading my mind.
MR. OLLIFF: I feel like a guest of honor here this
morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have you done an analysis yet if
we were to charge three dollars per car for only out-of-county,
out-of-state beach-goers? Would -- would we barely break even, or
would we make any money at all considering the fact that we have to
either put a unmetered honor system in or put in a person to -- to
collect the fees?
MR. OLLIFF: The handout that we provided to you on
Wednesday showed you two different methods of collecting the fees,
either manned or through master meters and parking meters. In reality
we would probably come up with a combination of the two. But under
either scenario -- and our numbers are extremely conservative because
we went back -- the last time we actually charged beach parking fees,
which was fiscal year '91, '92, and Mr. Mueller's numbers are
correct. Our beach attendance has skyrocketed, and that's in part
because we've added a lot of parking spaces. We've been very
aggressive about that. We added 270 more parking spaces this year, so
our beach attendance figures are going up dramatically.
But in either scenario at three dollars a vehicle, it --
it does a lot more than just cover your expenses, and these are our
current real conservative numbers. But at three dollars a vehicle
even with a manned site you would net $330,000 is our estimate, and
with meters strictly you would net somewhere around $575,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure you answered the
question I'm asking, though -- MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that is charging only
out-of-county, out-of-state cars.
MR. OLLIFF: What I'm trying to indicate to you is
because of the growth I think these numbers are so conservative that I
think you could probably rely on these numbers even if you were --
because it's an 80-20 split. I have to believe that these numbers are
at least 20 percent conservative, and I think that you could probably
say that these numbers are probably good for even an out-of-county
count.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So you say that we have a
million visitors a year. You would estimate right now we have a
million visitors a year out of county, out of state.
MR. OLLIFF: No, it's three-quarters of a million using
our parks in total, and if you're talking 80 percent of that number,
you may be around a half a million, a half a million times three
dollars, though, you're up to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. So you're telling me,
yes, it would be profitable to do that -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- but we're still hinging on our
county attorney telling us whether we can or not.
MR. OLLIFF: That's the whole nut of this issue is
whether or not -- and there are also some other distinctions that may
be -- the attorneys seem to be leaning a lot more towards in state
versus out of state. And that may be where they land is what I'm
hearing because the State of Florida may take that position because of
the money that they've provided. They're concerned about state versus
out of state as opposed to our county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any guesstimates on
what the split is, if it's 80-20? What is it when we take out of
state?
MR. OLLIFF: We may have some attendance that's fairly
high from Lee County at Barefoot Beach, and I don't think you would
affect it by any more than 5 percent one way or the other.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Since the state's not going to
help us with five million dollars for the beaches, I'm very excited
about --
MR. DORRILL: The other -- the other policy decision
that you would have to deal with is whether you're going to
differentiate between resident or ad valorem taxpayer. And I will
tell you in talking to the city manager nothing was more troublesome
initially to the city to have people be going up U.S. 41 and be behind
a car from Quebec, but it has a valid City of Naples beach parking
sticker that enables them to park for free for no other reason than
they may own a seasonal apartment. They meet the city's eligibility,
and that's one of the things I've already mentioned to the staff. Are
we going to use resident, and then what is a resident, or are you
going to use for eligibility purposes someone who may own a seasonal
unit and may only be here one month a year or three months a year or
six months a year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But pays taxes.
MR. DORRILL: But pays ad valorem taxes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You'll have another problem with
that too, because we have a great many people who rent who pay their
ad valorem taxes through their monthly rent, so we're going to have to
be careful how we do that.
MR. DORRILL: That's my point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to wage one small battle
at a time, please. One thing I did want to say is someone had
mentioned Mr. Olliff's four million dollar shortfall, and now it's
grown to five million. His entire budget for parks and rec is six
million, so that four million is county-wide. It's not just in Mr.
Olliff's budget so --
MR. CARSILLO: Well, it was the number that was
presented by the -- Mr. Olliff's committee, the other -- Mr.
Brinkerman (phonetic) or whatever his name is that said that he had
six million in budget and one million in revenue, and I'm hanging my
hat on that number.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to -- he's not
bringing a budget that's got four million dollars in jeopardy. I just
wanted to clarify that for his sake.
MS. CARSILLO: Excuse me, but I would like to give you a
copy of this -- this is the memorandum --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hold on. Just a moment, ma'am.
The court reporter needs your name.
MS. CARSILLO: Marion Carsillo, and I mentioned this in
my report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've already -- you've already
spoken, and if you pass the information out '- MS. CARSILLO: Okay. I'll pass it out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. And the court reporter
needs a copy of it as well.
MS. CARSILLO: All right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think your time is up. Have
you finished your --
MR. CARSILLO: I was just waiting for any more
questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have any other questions,
comments?
Next speaker, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: I need to determine whether Mr. Gersonde
had intended to talk on beach parking. MR. GERSONDE: No.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Then we'll move on. The final ones
are under general comment. We'll begin
with Fay Biles.
MS. BILES: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Fay Biles,
president of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association representing
almost a thousand members. Having been a member of a budget team of a
very large university, I can appreciate what you and your staff have
been through this week to develop this preliminary look at the
budget. Compliments to the staff for the work that they have put in
to present their performance criteria.
After listening for three full days may I provide some
ideas on behalf of the taxpayers and our reactions? First of all,
taxpayers are close to a revolt if taxes are increased. I think we
got the message with the congressional elections, and I think people
are getting very, very sensitive to that. And I must say I did hear
some sensitivity to that this week from your comments, and we
appreciate that sensitivity.
In past years we've heard that growth must pay for
growth. I didn't hear that this week too much, and I'm hoping that
that is still the case. We must find every method possible to shift
the tax burden from resident taxpayers to tourists who use our
expensive infrastructure. User fees can pay for service. Please
consider an increase to the tourist tax. We are the lowest in the
state, as anyone who travels to other parts will testify. Every place
I go -- it's up to 17 percent in some places. Then can we use a
broader spectrum of purpose for using those -- those TDC funds
staying, of course, within the state regulations.
We all need to work together, and I'm talking about you,
the commissioners, the staff, the taxpayers, to come up with more
innovative programs that -- and maybe will take the burden off of some
of our -- our lower taxes, let's say.
RECAP is an example. We think it did well. We heard
that this week. It could be enlarged. It could be intensified.
The DOR is another example, and I think it's going to
pay off. The data technology I feel should be instituted right away;
privatization efforts, another creative way; corporate help, as
Chairman Matthews said yesterday, going to corporations in the area
for help. And I must say the TQM, the total quality management
principles, do work. And I've seen them work in many other places,
and they should empower our employees to help solve some of the
problems for good morale, if nothing else.
Should the board be listening to staff? I think it's
very easy to slip into micromanaging sometimes if we let those end
runs take place. Should not your decisions be confined to public
service areas, your constituents, leaving the management decisions to
the county manager? Accountability is good, but I -- we felt -- we
heard that very often; that's his job.
The other innovative idea, can creative transfers be
made in budgets? We did that at the university level many times. For
example, Marco Island gets very little in parks and recreation funds,
and if you'll pass those up and down, they can see that. If you'll
look at that chart, you'll see that our -- ours is very, very, very
small. We would like to, of course, get more. Equity analysis would
show us that we need more, but then we would like to say that those
beach fees will help Tiger Tail, which is getting worse, by the way.
All of you commissioners have been out to see it. It is getting
worse. It is not getting better.
It is also time that we'd like maybe to transfer some of
those funds to bike paths which we need very much on Marco. As you
know, we had a death, and we had two serious accidents, and so
transferring funds maybe from one to the other and getting permission
to do that.
Electronic distribution of the agenda I thought was an
innovative idea, laptops for the commissioners for data technology.
That improves the service to the public. I just feel we can't remain
20 years behind in technology. We live in an information age, and I
think all of us have to get up to power on that.
Please eliminate programs as you feel fit but not
compromise worthwhile and essential programs. The management can come
back to areas that have cut -- that can be cut or for good management
purposes and options that you select to meet your budget goals. John
Lunsford was wrong in his article the other day. Nobody asked for a
10 percent cut across the board. It was said if you had to or
hypothetically what would you do.
Hopefully the guidelines will include an equity
analysis. We hope that our taxes will go down, that ad valorem taxes
will not be increased. We feel very strongly that beach -- restoring
beach parking fees is one way of getting some effect.
And I'll finish. Tom's Olliff mentioned the -- his
figures and facts were probably on the conservative side. They are.
One chart showed 70,000 cars coming into Tiger Tail. It's really
177,229 for 11 months, so we really need that desperately. We hope
you'll do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a question --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Biles.
MS. BILES: Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's not to you, Fay.
MR. BILES: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that I wouldn't like to talk
to you more, Fay.
MR. BILES: That's all right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a question that I've just
been beating around. And, Hike, I'm going to address it to you
because I think it's just a lack of experience going through the
budgetary process. But what I don't quite understand is every year we
have -- I'll just say it -- thousands of new residents, new taxpayers,
new dollars being created by new homes and new condominiums that are
being filled. It would appear to me with a growth rate of 6 percent,
7 percent -- and these are new units being filled -- that when we
start talking about a four million dollar funding difficulty next
year, is that taking into account the new taxes that are anticipated
to be generated in the upcoming year from units being filled, or is
that based on the existing static units, static tax base that we have
this year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, it assumed a growth base on -- the
three-year ad valorem report that I prepared assumed two and a half
percent growth in -- attributable to new construction, which was the
actual experience based on last years. So we have accounted for that
to the extent possible.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess it's up to me to do the
research, but it's just how we can get two and a half percent growth
and still have to look at possibly raising ad valorem is something
that I'm wrestling with. But I just wanted to clarify that, and I'm
sure I'm about to get some help from my comrades up here but --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Comrades? Colleagues?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Colleagues, whatever.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Comrades.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think part of the answer lies in
what we've been talking about for some time now. The amount of
capital projects that we've built required a -- a substantial increase
in the amount of dollars it's going to take to operate them. It's far
greater proportion of increase in operational funds that we're going
to have to do compared to the simple growth of the county. I think
that's probably part of the answer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've built the facilities, and a
hundred percent of the population to use it is not yet here. But we
have enough population to require the facilities, so we're on the
short end of the curve now. It's not a great place to be. Mr. Dotrill, next speaker.
MR. DORRILL: We'll be on to Mr. Gersonde again.
MR. GERSONDE: Good morning. My name is Jeff Gersonde,
and I'm the diving coach for the Naples dive team at Barton Collier
High School. And in order for our program to grow, we've initiated a
fund raising effort to have a second low board put in at the Golden
Gate community pool, and we raised approximately thirty-nine hundred
dollars towards this end, and the county -- the county contributed
eighteen hundred for the purchase of the board itself. So basically
for an eighteen hundred dollar investment the county is getting a
$5,000 piece of equipment.
And one of the things that our team is concerned about
is the lack of a 3 meter at the pool. Therews not a 3 meter within 70
miles of Naples, and in our U.S. diving activities we have the
opportunity to compete 3 meter against some of the best teams in the
nation over on the east coast. And we -- we are going to continue our
fund raising efforts, and weld really look for the commissionersi
support in obtaining a 3 meter for the pool and expanding our program
in that way.
One -- Iive drafted a letter for you addressing this.
And one of the other concerns we have is the kids have a lot of
trouble getting college scholarships without this experience since it
is a college event. And also college teams that come down here for
Christmas vacation are unable to bring their diving teams because the
facilities just arenlt adequate for this, and thatls our concern, and
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can appreciate your dilemma. I
was a diver in high school, and unfortunately I landed on the board
more than in the water, so that didnlt last very long.
VOICE: It shows.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was that?
VOICE: I said it shows.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iim going to take $10,000 from
Marco and give it to your diving team.
The problem with this is that although it would benefit
a few -- a few of the divers who are looking to go on to collegiate
level and they need the 3-meter experience, community-wide welre
turning down six and seven thousand dollar requests for things that
are very important community-wide. And to look at a $10,000 line item
to help a handful of people is difficult.
What I would suggest is you mentioned something about
bringing winter teams down here to train. Therels a revenue
associated with bringing those teams to town. The revenue that is
generated additionally from that, if that can go toward the -- the
improvements that were -- in other words, if we can see a balance
there. In other words, itls not $10,000 out of our pocket for a
handful of people, but the revenue it generates more than makes up for
the expense. Thatls something I would ask you to take a look at
because I donlt think welre going to be able to just say, golly, here
we go --
MR. GERSONDE: Welre not looking for just a basic
$10,000 contribution. We are willing to make most of the money
ourselves. Welre just looking more for the lines of the cooperation
in getting the board actually put in as far as insurance and just
getting permission basically if we raise most of the money ourselves.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, is that pool area
sufficient, deep enough, insurable, safe, E, all of the above?
MR. OLLIFF: E, all of the above. It was designed for a
3-meter board. It was designed for a second slide. It was designed
for several expansion features. We do have certain college teams that
rent the facility usually during the wintertime, not usually at spring
break. Those revenues just go right back into the general fund as
part of what we consider overall department revenues.
And a project like that one -- I havenlt seen a
department line item budget submitted yet, so I donlt know whether
theylre actually going to submit anything in that regard or not. But
that would be, I believe, an impact fee funded type improvement, a
capital improvement budget item for you to see. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, what would be the
associated liability with a 3 meter?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe we're self-insured in that area,
and I'd have to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I'm afraid of.
MR. OLLIFF: I would have to talk to Jeff. We would
survey other areas.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Most of the pools that I dove at,
the area was closed unless it's a professional team practice. You
didn't let the general public go off a 3-meter board just for safety
reasons.
MR. OLLIFF: No. We wouldn't do that.
MR. GERSONDE: Some of the pools do allow that, and some
of them don't.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, how many more
speakers are there?
MR. DORRILL: Eight.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eight more? Let's do two more,
and we'll take a break.
MR. DORRILL: The next one is Ms. -- I believe it's
McGard or Gard, Elaine. Then following this lady we'll have Mr.
Reid.
MS. GARD: My name is Elaine Gard. I've become active
in the East Naples Civic Association. I have a suggestion. It's only
a suggestion. I don't know a lot about infrastructure of the county.
We have a problem in east Naples, a big problem with transients and
street people.
The best I can describe it to you, if you call a pest
man into your home, he will tell you to go out at night, and you will
find where the pests are. They come out after dark. My question
today refers to the lighting program. I've canvassed my
neighborhood. Some of the other people are working in their
neighborhoods to see about lighting, and we were told at a meeting
depending on how you put this on the docket and the voting and all, it
could be 24 to 30 months. Well, I personally don't want to live for
24 to 30 months in the dark.
So my suggestion would be -- it was suggested that we
all -- or group together and go to FP&L and put lighting on our
properties and share the expense street-wise. I'd like to know at
this time in lieu of the problems in east Naples if there's any way
the county could do that to get a leg up and get us in the light and
still strive for the -- a different alternative.
MR. DORRILL: Two different issues. One is if we go the
traditional taxing district concept for older subdivisions that did
not have lights installed originally, I don't know that it would take
24 months. We could pursue a mechanism to allow the board to advance
the funds necessary to install the lights because you can't establish
a taxing district until January of each year. And if we were going to
do that, we could not establish -- and I don't know what your
neighborhood is, but we can't establish a new district officially
until January 1 of 1996. We won't actually get the tax money from
your home until October, November, or December of January 1996. There
is a mechanism to allow the board to advance the money to get the
lights installed, and then we would have to tax you a little more to
repay the debt that it took to install the lights.
The other mechanism, people can call today and have
Florida Power and Light put a street lamp on the nearest utility pole
or adjacent or within their property or utility easement in their rear
yard, and then you personally pay the expense associated with that
street light on a monthly basis as part of your own personal power
bill. And so those are the two mechanisms that are there, and I don't
know what neighborhood or community in particular, but we're more than
willing to assist in that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you have any idea what the
expense is on the monthly bill?
MR. DORRILL: I don't, but I'll look to Mr. Archibald to
help me with that for a personal light that may hang off a pole in
your rear yard.
MS. GARD: Well, I'm currently doing that. I do have a
light. But what we're not getting in our neighborhood is total unity
support of the whole east Naples -- MR. DORRILL: I understand.
MS. GARD: -- and we've gone to some of the meetings,
and the problem areas seems to be from Thomasson to 41. So although I
am separating a specific neighborhood, I'm trying to help eliminate
the crime problem just as an alternative until we get on our feet to
do something more constructive.
MR. DORRILL: I understand. Mr. Archibald, can you
answer the individual light question?
MR. ARCHIBALD: If, in fact, FP&L can just simply
install a fixture on an existing pole, the cost is approximately $125
a year. The problem we're running into from a standpoint of a
district concept is that FP&L typically has to do the design,
typically orders the material is now different than in years past now
requiring an up-front surcharge to be paid. So not only is the cost
of creating new districts much, much different, but the time lag for
FP&L to respond has been anywhere from 6 months to 18 months.
there's a series of issues from a district standpoint that have to be
dealt with.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would -- what would be the -- can
you tell us what it would cost if we created the special taxing
district? Is -- do you have a ball park idea of what it would cost to
add to people's tax bills on an annual basis? I mean do we have some
experience with another community that we could use for comparison
purposes?
MR. DORRILL: We do. I don't know whether the answer to
that is as quick as stated to you this morning.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Typically what we do is do an in-house
design or an in-house layout to determine the number of lights that
are necessary and do a cost breakdown based on the actual needs
recognizing that they vary from area to area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what I'd like to do is to
get that analysis done so at least we could take it to the community
and -- and see if there is support for this special taxing district.
And then if there is, then pursue this advanced mechanism that Mr.
Dotrill is describing. Because if the community is willing to pay for
it, then we ought to support that and provide it. So I'd like to '-
I'd like to ask you, please, to -- to undertake that study.
MR. ARCHIBALD: We can do that. I do need to know the
location so -- MR. DORRILL: Your neighborhood is in the vicinity of
the Avalon Elementary School?
MS. GARD: No. I'm off of Bayshore on Barrett.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
MS. GARD: About the center of Bayshore between 41 and
Thomasson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Mr. Archibald, why don't
you work with the lady and figure out the best dimensions for the
district.
MR. DORRILL: We -- her -- she's talking about a
particular street probably.
MS. GARD: My request is for the whole area.
MR. DORRILL: I was going to say we ought to look at a
general neighborhood area because if we're down there doing one
street, then they're all going to point and say we want the same.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly. So if you would look at
the geography of the natural boundaries around the area and come back
to us with an analysis of the cost.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I'll meet with you right after this
meeting.
MS. GARD: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: We're on to Mr. Reid, and he will be the
final speaker before the brief recess.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning.
MR. REID: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning.
MR. REID: I have provided copies for --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could you state your first name
for the record?
MR. REID: Douglas W. Reid, R-e-i-d.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. REID: And I've provided enough copies for my letter
to Mr. Dorrill for each of the commissioners plus the court reporter.
I'm a private citizen resident of Collier County. I'm a member of the
Genealogical Society of Collier County and a volunteer in the library
for that group. I'm also a member of the Friends of the Library.
I'm here today to express my concern for impending
budget cuts for the library. Last year I volunteered 111 hours in the
library in 7 months assisting patrons in the genealogy collection.
Two weeks ago the Naples Daily News did a nice feature on our work.
The article prompted over 120 people to sign in at the genealogical
room alone in the week following the appearance of that article.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Reid, I'm sorry to
interrupt, but just as I read ahead in your letter, it mentions how
the newspaper indicated we are looking for a 10 percent cut, and that
was inaccurate. If your comments are based on our proposed 10 percent
cut in the library, at no point did any of us suggest that. Mr.
Lunford's column was inaccurate in that measure.
MR. REID: I'm just going on the basis of what appeared
in the paper on I believe it was --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I can appreciate that.
My point is that article in Mr. Lunsford's column was inaccurate, and
that's not what we are proposing. You can continue on --
MR. REID: Oh, I'm not basing my response on what Mr.
Lundsford said.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. REID: It was the news article that indicated the
cutback in the library budget and specific discussions with respect to
the library and the parks and recreation department. If that is
wrong, then the paper should step up and correct it. There was an
item in today's paper indicating the same thing towards the end, so
I'm not qualified to debate the paper's work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me just say what
the departments were asked were hypothetically if you had to cut the
budget 10 percent, where would you do it. No one was specifically
ordered to cut their budget 10 percent.
MR. REID: I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're looking from their input on
where they feel in the departments are -- are the fat they perceive.
That's --
MR. REID: And so far, as I understand it, the only
departments approached on that basis have been the library and parks
and rec.
MR. NORRIS: That's not accurate either.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hanager's agency got hit with the
same question yesterday.
MR. REID: I'm just here as a private citizen based on
what's been put out there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. REID: I have no agenda. I represent no group other
than myself.
I'll move on. Earlier in the week the commissioners
voted support for a two million dollar idea by Mrs. Daniels for a
one-time event. Thursday's paper indicated that the commissioners
were singling out the library and parks and rec. If that is
incorrect, my letter stands corrected for the record.
But if that's so, there's something seriously wrong with
the thinking going on in this building. The area -- this area is one
of the highest growth areas in the country. New library facilities
have been built, and more are planned. Why are you not providing the
funds to maintain and grow the insides of these facilities as has been
stated earlier this morning? The joke is that if you move to Naples,
please bring a book for the library due to the stated policy of the
county to hope to achieve 1.05 books per capita. The Florida mean is
2.65, and the American Library Standard is above 8 volumes per
capita. The BCC should be embarrassed by this fact alone.
I fail to comprehend the logic of cuts for two divisions
with greatest impact on voters and residents. The commission has no
trouble spending huge amounts on new offices for themselves. The
commission regularly votes for funds to hire consultants often to
restudy an issue yet again. The county government has hired staff to
do work, yet consultants are hired to do the same work. If you can
justify maintaining an apartment in Tallahassee, how can you deny the
books and the library services to the voters of Collier County?
It appears that someone needs to speak with you as a
friend of the library, small F, friend of the library. It's
incongruous that to solve a budget crunch you would target the library
to cut when the growth of the community demands an increase in
support. Fairness demands all departments be expected to sustain a 10
percent cut to achieve a four million dollar savings you seek.
It is important to realize that the county budget for
the library is augmented by thousands of hours by volunteers and the
support of the friends of the library. Cutting the library budget is
a real slap in the face to your partners as well as the taxpayers and
voters.
In February of '95 alone 107,000 visits were made to the
library. Cutting the budget tells these visitors your priorities are
elsewhere. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of comments. Just
to reiterate, the 10 percent that appeared in the paper is not
something we've said we're going to cut 10 percent from the library
budget. That's an inaccurate assumption. Secondly, as far as denying
books for the library services, we're currently at 1.10. We've
proposed to increase that to 1.15. We've increased each of the last
three years point 05 because we realize our numbers are deficient.
We've put in an extra $250,000 for that purpose each of the last three
years. So I think we realize that problem is there and are attempting
to address that problem. I think it was Mr. Jones himself said the
other day, if you said, okay, let's this year try to jump it up to 2.0
or 2.6, he couldn't do it. But if we do it incrementally, which is
what we've done for three years and are continuing to propose to do
this coming year, then they can make that a reality. So rest assured,
we do know we're deficient in books and are trying to address that.
MR. REID: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We realize that. Any other
comments?
MR. REID: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Let's take a -- how
about a 15-minute break or nearly so? Come back at quarter of. We're
recessed.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the budget hearings for
the Board of County Commission, March 17th, 1995. Excuse me, can we
get some quiet over here in the corner? We're in the midst of our
public comment section on our budget hearings. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Slow news day.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Apparently.
MR. DORRILL: Our next speaker will be Barbara Jones.
Ms. Jones. Following Ms. Jones we'll have Ms. Dunmire.
MS. JONES: Good morning again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MS. JONES: I'm kind of -- Barbara Jones, and I'm here
on behalf of the Kelly Lake subdivision to emphasize for public record
and to add a little to our letter of March 6th which I sent to the
commissioners and many of us signed. Also Elaine Gard and I have been
working together, so some of this follows from what she was saying.
In that letter, by the way -- I'm assuming you have seen it -- we
mention more manpower for code enforcement, and we're pleased to see
in the paper, if that's correct, that you are considering or planning
that.
Also two of the items that we mentioned, the bridge,
Haldeman Creek Bridge on Bayshore, this -- by the way, just so you'll
have a picture, what I'm really discussing is the area on Bayshore
between 41 and -- and Thomasson which, as Mrs. Gard explained, is one
of the worst areas apparently, so we've come to understand, that they
are planning on putting a fence around that which may help keep the
transients out; and the field on Van Buren, which has looked so awful,
and again where transients have been behind the bushes every night
practically, apparently they have been cited. The owner has been
cited, so that's something positive. And also we'd like to thank
Commissioners Norris and Hac'Kie for their recent efforts -- well
probably not just recent, but that we've noticed recently for helping
For a long time east Naples and particularly our area
have felt like the poor neglected stepchild in the county. We are
besieged by vagrants, trash, slum landlords, drugs, prostitution.
This is still going on in practically every neighborhood. But now
that the citizens are working with law and code enforcement to clean
up east Naples, we feel that it's time for the commissioners to do its
part with money to support these efforts.
In particular it would be a real help to have regular
patrol cars from the sheriff's office. They've done as much as they
can, but we have to call every time, every time with the same
problems, same places. Perhaps more sound meters for noise problem.
Apparently they have one or two, but only one -- one that stands up in
court. I think, you know, if there were more of them that were
available -- the other thing is that our substation apparently is not
really manned on weekends, and this is when we have most of the
problems.
Planting the medium -- the median, I'm not sure where
the responsibility lies entirely, but it would certainly help to
beautify that part of the street. And we would hope that the
commissioners would encourage the sheriff's department to be more
aggressive in pursuing -- prosecuting transients whose chosen
life-style interferes with that of responsible citizens, and they have
been interfering considerably. That's -- I think that's it. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MS. JONES: By the way, maybe Commissioner Norris could
tell me what the status is on this law that -- that we hear about
that's in the works to -- so that the sheriff's office will have more
power to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The no-can-be ordinance. Do you
want an update on that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If -- with your indulgence, Miss
Chairman, the ordinances are drafted, ready to go. There's no point
in acting on the ordinances until we have a facility available to
transport people to because that's the critical point that the courts
have held. You must have a place, an option for the people. You
can't just arrest them and throw them in jail.
MS. JONES: I see.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But they're ready to go.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the project, that's moving
forward.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The process is in progress and --
and all we need to do at the appropriate time when the facility is
ready to be operated is we'll just at -- simultaneously we'll -- we'll
bring the ordinances forward to -- to determine if we're going to
enact them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're talking about the homeless
camp Reverend Mallory '-
MS. JONES: Yes, I understand that. I just wonder why
when people are camped out on someone else's property they can't be
prosecuted.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, because we don't have an
ordinance in place right now that allows the sheriff to arrest people
camping on private property that extends county-wide or for the urban
area. And we can't enact such an ordinance until, like other cities,
we have an area in which the homeless can exist, and that's -- trust
me, that's part of the problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a chicken and an egg.
MS. JONES: I notice the City of Naples downtown doesn't
seem to have homeless. I've walked along a lot of the streets. Do
they have a place to put them?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it's called the county
line.
MS. JONES: Exactly. Well, there we are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sorry, but that's what I
understand is where they -- where they put them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted to let you know too that
I've got your -- I have your letter with me. I'm going to keep it in
front of me because the one item that's directly on our agenda is the
business about more manpower for code enforcement. That did come up
in yesterday's discussion.
The other three items that I see on here all have to do
with the sheriff's budget, so I'm going to have this letter in my hand
when the sheriff's budget comes up -- MS. JONES: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so thank you for sending it to
us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. CLARK: If I might, Mrs. Chairman, for the record,
Dick Clark, code enforcement. A little update on perhaps this speaker
and the previous speaker.
The transient problem is becoming an increasingly
volatile problem as far as encroachment on -- on people's rights in
this county as -- as the speakers are stating. The Gallman estate
just paid $48,000 to obtain a piece of property. We do have citing --
citations already to cite, and we have cited several of those people
who support those transients to choose to live that life-style.
Unfortunately, that is correct; we do not have custodial powers to put
those people in the sheriff's custody. And most of the people that
we've cited to the court obviously fail to appear, and they probably
end up in Lee County, which is probably just as well. And there are
arrest warrants out for them, but unfortunately there's enough of them
to take their place, the property right across the street from the one
we just cleaned up, and the taxpayer will bore the -- bear the cost of
it. Many of them have moved just across the street, and that one now
will be cleaned up, probably a ton of beer bottles, wine bottles,
trash and litter and so forth and as the speaker mentioned underneath
the bridge on Bayshore where defecation, urination, indecent exposure
-- and the restaurant owner nearby has experienced all of the
unfortunate circumstances of that. And we are working on -- on that
program too, but we'd like to comment that the citizens certainly have
really become involved in this and are enhancing this community a
great deal. We'd like to thank them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
MS. DUNHIRE: I'm Viola Dunmire. I'm with the civic
association in Golden Gate and homeowner's association, and I'm here
speaking on some of our neighbors and our concerns about our taxes
being raised and revenues that we hope would be able to be created in
areas that we feel should be looked at. The problem that Mr. Clark
had just spoke here about transient and so forth, it's too bad we
don't have a work camp for them to clean up the messes they make. But
the thing that I'm bringing here is if you're going to raise our
taxes, I hope that you'll look into the fact that a lot of tenters are
renting, and I know you say that there's taxes being taken through the
landlord for the -- but these people come in, and they rent. And what
they do is they make problems for more police, more fire stations
needing fire monies. We need -- for libraries, everything else,
schools and that. And I think it's about time that tenters are looked
at as people that are in a community only when the taxes they are
paying as representing their community is when they get interested in
their community. And I think that people that are renting should be
taxed in the sense that in a town that I come from, when you rent, you
pay a tax. It's called a -- some call it a head tax. Others call it
a privilege tax that supplements their over amount that they generate
of expenses to the community. I wonder if you have ever looked into
that as a fact that they could add to it because what they do is they
come in, and they add more expenses, and then they leave. And there's
nothing generated by them. And you'll hear the comments that, well, I
rent because I don't want to pay property tax, and I don't want to do
this or that. And they get all the amenities of everything else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm -- I feel very
comfortable in saying that multifamily rental property is probably
appraised on a given site at a much higher value than a single-family
dwelling that would be on that same piece of property. So I -- I am
an advocate that tenters do pay ad valorem property taxes through
their rent payments.
MS. DUNHIRE: All right. But what about -- what about
when you see a tenter, and he brings in two or three families in with
him?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's up to the landlord to
clean that out, ma'am. I don't think our laws allow that.
MS. DUNHIRE: But is there any pressure put on them?
Then we end up with a lot of people with a lot of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a code enforcement
question.
MS. DUNHIRE: True, but how can they -- they even check
into it without invading their privacy? If there was a head tax or a
tax where everybody is paying, then -- then everybody would be -- I
mean, let's be fair. Fair is fair.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. I don't think that --
that's available to us under Florida statute at all.
MR. DORRILL: Florida constitution precludes that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't have that remedy
available to us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The federal constitution prevents
a head tax as well.
MS. DUNHIRE: Well, what about the development tax for
developers? We have so many developers making more and more problems
for our community. They add more and more -- all of your coast --
your malls and such, and then they wind up being deserted after
they're just in an area. Then they move on to another area. Why are
we not trying to get them to slow down and not load this county with
so much tax problems? And there we are again with these sitting
idle. These are sitting idle, and they're not being used.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I feel very comfortable in saying
I don't think there's many building or shopping center owners who want
their buildings to sit idle. They usually have quite an investment in
them, and they -- their intention is to get their investment back in
the form of rents or sales. So --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they pay taxes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition they have their tax
bill every year, and whether they have people in it or not, their
assessment is the same. Their tax bill is the same. And if the tax
bills go delinquent, well, the county has a new site for a homeless
camp.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But anyway, the questions that
you are addressing are economic questions, and I'm sure the landlords
or the owners of that property don't want it to be that way just as we
don't.
MS. DUNMIRE: Well, I hope that you can come up with
more revenue for -- instead of raising our taxes more.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the first time we spent
public money on private property we would have quite a problem.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
MR. DORRILL: We appreciate your comments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, though.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Baker. Following Mr. Baker we'll have
Ms. Varner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just while he's coming, one
quick thing. Mr. Clark and his crew do clean up. But there's more
than one family. We have a code ordinance that doesn't allow more
than a certain number of people per square feet, and I know we have
enforced that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's also one concerning
unrelated adults living together. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: For the record my name is Richard Baker.
I'm representing the Greater Naples Civic Association, and I've spent
this week here at the workshops most of the time with Brad Estes who
was not able to be here today. But in having sat through most of the
-- of the sessions this week, we've also tried to wade through I
think it's now about 2 inches of paperwork that has been generated by
the various departments in county government. We realize the board is
facing a daunting task to digest what has been developed and
presented. But having listened to the discussions between the members
of the board and staff representatives, I am amazed you have absorbed
as much you have demonstrated. I'm really -- I'm really impressed.
The sessions -- or the decisions which have to be made,
however, are very important. But basically they are simple and direct
and are based on two elements: First, what services do the residents
of Collier County need and want and are willing to pay for; and,
second, how cost effective can the county government be managed to
deliver the maximum level of services possible and still stay within
the cost limits set?
The first element, what the residents want and will pay
for, is nebulous at best. Collier County is often referred to as an
affluent county, but many residents definitely do not fall in that
category. They are struggling just to make ends meet financially.
It's also sad that Collier County residents want and expect more
services than those of other southwest Florida counties. But I ask
where is the factual data that sustains that position. Judging by
what I've heard in this room during this week, I feel confident that
the commissioners are truly in touch with their constituents and know
what level of services they want. It is largely dominated by, is it
really necessary, what will it cost, and are we getting our money's
worth. I hope the commissioners continue to listen to their
constituents because I'm convinced they'll continue to hear the same
message.
GNCA, the Greater Naples Civic Association, the
organization I resent -- I represent, has been monitoring the county
budget process for several years and has submitted comments to this
board on a regular basis. In our report last year, prior to the
adoption of the present budget under which we are now operating, we
made several observations. We noted that per capita taxation had
declined from $403 per person to $379 over the previous 2 years and
that 6 out of 16 of the county divisions and agencies had actually
requested a decrease in their budgetary needs. That was most
encouraging. On the other hand, we commented that the rate of tax
increase exceeded the rate of inflation over the previous ten-year
period, even adjusted for population growth and state and federally
mandated programs. That was not encouraging.
Since personnel costs are the major component of the
budget, they are the principle cause of the problem. As a result, we
ran a comparison of our employee costs versus those of four other
southwest Florida counties; Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee.
Collier ranked highest of the five counties in salary costs per
employee. Our average salary cost of $40,845 was 20 percent higher
than the remaining four counties' average of $33,990.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: County-wide the average was
40,000 something; is that what you just said?
MR. BAKER: That's correct, ma'am. Collier County also
ranked number two of the five counties in number of employees per
1,000 residents.
County government cannot be run like a profit-making
business. There is no bottom line or profit which is a controlling
factor in business. Lessons can be learned, however, from certain
aspects of recent management techniques used by well-run business
organizations. Examine how many large American corporations in the
last five years have not only contained but have trimmed their costs
substantially and in doing so have found that their productivity has
actually improved and their competitiveness has been enhanced. How
did they do it? Their boards of directors, just like the County Board
of County Commissioners here, decided the dollar figure of costs which
had to be reduced and directed their CEO, just like our county
manager, to make the decision as to where those savings would be made.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Davis, can you wrap it up?
Mr. Baker, I'm sorry.
MR. BAKER: Yes, I think the time started before I
started speaking, if you don't mind.
We've all seen the often spectacular results that have
occurred in some of those businesses, and now even the federal
government has gotten the message and is trying to do the same. It's
what the people are demanding.
I would be remiss not to mention the constitutional
officers. Their spending makes up 47 percent of the budget, a very
significant amount. The sheriff's budget alone is 36 percent of the
total county budget. As you know, the board has the authority to
examine these budgets except for the tax collectors, I'm told, and has
the power to appropriate only those funds they consider necessary.
I suggest the board examine these budgets closely and
insist they meet the same standards which have been set for the rest
of the county government. It's not an easy task to contract. It's
much easier and more pleasant to enlarge. But the issue must be
addressed, and I saw you taking the first steps in that direction
during these sessions. Please, don't lose that momentum.
The people of Collier County are no different from those
in the rest of the country. They're insisting on more bang for the
buck. Don't disappoint them, please. GNC wants to continue to work
with the members of the board and the staff in a non-confrontational
manner. A number of our suggestions have been listened to adopted,
and we appreciate that. We are proud of our county. It's our home,
and we enjoy living here. We want to make sure it continues to be a
great place and that we can continue to afford to live here. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment, Mr. Baker.
The Greater Naples Civic is always -- when we're a little out of line
is always not shy about pointing that out to us. I appreciate --
MR. BAKER: That's what we're trying to do right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate equally as
much, though, the fact that when you see us headed in what you
perceive to be the right direction that you also take the time to
point that out as well, and it --
MR. BAKER: We're very proud to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It makes it easier to take
the criticism when you hear some of the other side on occasion as
well, so thanks for both of that.
MR. BAKER: And as we've always said to each of you
individually, we'll never try to blindside you. Anything we come up
with we'll discuss with you before we make an issue of it. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have no idea how comforting
that is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Varner and then Mr. Sommer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Varner.
MS. VARNER: Good morning, I'm Jane Varner representing
the Taxpayer Action Group. In -- I'm going to speak to you about road
impact fees. In March of 1992 there were two hearings regarding road
impact fees. At that time an in-depth study of our road system was
done by the Tindale Oliver consulting firm, and I believe the study
cost approximately $250,000. According to their report the county had
a deficiency of road funds, and it was patently obvious existing
impact fees were too low to cover costs of future roads. TAG took the
position that growth should pay for growth and that the roads
necessary to be built to concur with new construction should be paid
for by those incurring the cost and not by additional ad valorem taxes
levied on the existing homeowners and businesses in the county. The
study recommended that road impact fees for a single-family unit
should be approximately twenty-one hundred and forty-one dollars to
cover the future capital costs. Only the existing deficiencies should
be attributed to the present population. TAG concurred with their
opinion.
However, the board of commissioners, past board, adopted
road impact fees of only $1,379 per single-family unit, and that left
us approximately $761 short of the recommended amount needed per
standard unit. Though the debate involved a number of facets, there
seem to be no real refutation of the study. What seemed to be the
determining argument was the threat of possible lawsuits. It should
be noted, however, that this fee increase that was adopted was
somewhat lower than most of the fees charged by our neighboring
counties.
The present proposed increase in our ad valorem taxes
appears to be directly related -- not all of the increase -- to our
phenomenal growth and prior board's failure to set impact fees at a
proper level. I spoke with Mr. Archibald, and we agreed that the
issue is very complex. He also offered to supply us with materials
which we'll be reading. However, until then and for now the situation
still seems to lend itself to some simple questions. If a
sophisticated firm such as Tindale Oliver concludes that the impact of
a single-family home on Capital Road costs approximately $2,141, and
if a county adopts a fee $761 less than that, wouldn't that deficient
amount have to be sought from some other source? And would it be fair
that the other source would have to pay someone else's incurred bill?
If the county had not been allowed in the interim to
avail itself of an extra 5 cent gas tax, from where would we be
getting these additional capital funds? From ad valorem taxes? Is
the function of ad valorem taxes to pay for road maintenance, and
might there be a future time when ad valorem taxes will be needed and
used for capital road expenditures?
TAG believed in 1992 that the road impact fees were set
too low, and we believe future problems with funding would be
inevitable. We warned that it would only be a matter of time when the
county would have to raise ad valorem taxes to assist with our roads.
However, we did not foresee that we would in the meantime be laden
also with an additional 5 cent gas tax, which is only delayed but not
precluded a time when the county would look to ad valorem taxes.
Obviously our road impact fees are insufficient, and we
don't see things getting any better, so we feel you should revisit the
Tindale Oliver study and raise the road impact fees to some amount
that resembles realism. And we ask in particular that you resist
passing on the costs of future growth to our present residents who, by
the way, often feel like victims of growth and not its beneficiaries.
Would you please comment?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock
is ready to comment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jane, I have a question for Mr.
Archibald on the Tindale Oliver report. There are obviously two
functions. One is expansion of existing roadways. The other is
creation of new roadways, and the third is maintenance of existing.
Did Tindale Oliver lump any maintenance cost whatsoever into their
assessment of the per single-family impact fee calculation?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No, they didn't, and that was consistent
with case law. As we unfortunately recognized, impact fees in regards
to roads are not driven by state statute. They're driven by case law,
and that case law, although changing, really restricts the degree to
which we can apply certain factors and develop fees.
The study that was done -- by the way, I believe it cost
about $85,000 -- that cost reflected a great deal of research relative
to developing a range of fees. And since this occurred a number of
years ago, for the board's information, the decision was made to
accept the fee schedule that most represented the share that new
growth, in fact, would pay or should pay. Part of the dilemma -- and
let me try and provide an example. Part of the dilemma we face is one
in which when a concurrency requirement exists when a roadway is
deficient, and we need to increase the capacity of that roadway
segment, we can't provide a quarter of a lane or a third of the lane.
What we have to provide and build is a full lane, so we end up
building surplus capacity. And the Tindale Oliver study was trying to
relate that surplus capacity with new growth, and as a result, they
actually developed a range of value to be considered.
After long, long debate the final decision was to accept
a methodology that upon calculation ended up with the fee schedule we
use today. So, yes, it is somewhat complicated, but we don't have a
lot of options because we are, in fact, constrained by case law in
this area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In your professional opinion, is
the amount we currently charge for roadway impact fees adequate,
sufficient, and would you recommend it continue, or would you
recommend it increase?
MR. ARCHIBALD: From a road perspective and from a
funding standpoint, I certainly would like to see it increased. But
from the standpoint of equity, the study attempted to indicate what
the fair share was, and that's the fee structure we use today. That
fee structure is updated, and I believe an updating of that is planned
to be presented to the board in the near future.
MR. DORRILL: I was going -- you have directed a review,
an update of all impact fees. We've already transmitted information
to you on all of those with the exception of roads and utilities, and
those are going to be done at the beginning of the summer.
MS. VARNER: Hay I ask, Mr. Archibald, you did support
the Tindale Oliver report when they put it out; right? Yes, I -- we
did too, and I guess I still don't understand that if they said
capital costs would be in the neighborhood -- they did have, you know,
a range, a little range of $2,100, and there's still a -- there's
still a deficit amount there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Varner, I'm not sure that
this is the proper forum for the discussion that you're wanting to
take on because we're -- we're talking about our -- our budget '- MS. VARNER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- not a capital improvement
element.
MS. VARNER: But what I'm asking is the maintenance now
seems to be -- does that be -- does that become a part of ad valorem
taxes, road maintenance?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume it is.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Road maintenance will always be funded
in part by gasoline tax.
MS. VARNER: I thought it was gasoline taxes.
MR. ARCHIBALD: And it will also be funded in part by a
combination of ad valorem tax and sales tax. And if we go back a
number of years, we'll see that that was the position the county was
in. So we're going back to an allocation of various revenues,
primarily gas tax, sales tax, and ad valorem tax.
MS. VARNER: Could I ask just one question? How much of
our gasoline tax --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Excuse me.
MS. VARNER: -- is going to maintenance?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. It's my position --
and I'm not sure whether this board agrees with me or not -- but this
discussion belongs in our impact fee review meeting, which is probably
not too far in the distance. I understand --
MS. VARNER: All right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Mr. Hargett has already done
some analysis on that. And I -- I think that rather than get
ourselves in a dialog between you and Mr. Archibald and ourselves
occasionally interjecting, that I would rather carry this discussion
on then.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a suggestion. Maybe Ms.
Varner and Mr. Archibald sometime between now and then can get
together and get some of those questions answered so that we know --
MS. VARNER: All right. And I'm sorry. I didn't know
how much of this overflowed into our budget with the ad valorem taxes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You brought some good points,
Jane, but what has been prepared -- and Mr. Dotrill can tell you how
to get a copy it of the impact fees. This discussion would be very
appropriate at that time.
MS. VARNER: All right. I do appreciate it.
MR. DORRILL: She also has some pertinent questions
concerning maintenance, which is the road and bridge fund. And you
are going to see a change this summer. And we would be delighted when
the line item budgets are prepared if you want to see the revenue mix
for the road and bridge maintenance activities, we'd be happy to show
all of that to you well in advance of it being workshopped here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's just that the main impetus
of her discussion was to raise impact fees, and this is not the forum
for raising impact fees at this point in time. That will come at a
later date.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And then your final speaker this morning
will be Mr. Olds. Mr. Sommer, good morning.
MR. SOHMER: Good morning. For the record I'm Bob
Sommer. I'm a Collier County taxpayer, and I'm a member of the
Taxpayer Action Group of Collier County. I'm going to have to read
this because I think I'm going to go over my 5 minutes.
The Taxpayer Action Group wishes to thank the board and
the county manager and his staff for this opportunity to present some
specific concerns regarding the budgeting of the county's 10-year
transportation program. Now, my -- am I in the right ball park with
this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I wasn't listening.
MR. SOHMER: When I'm talking about the 10-year
transportation system program and budgeting for that, am I properly
sent here?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't -- I don't think so.
We'll be doing the capital improvement element in June. This is
program priority budget where we talk about the programs and the
operating expenses associated to them, namely FTEs or --
MR. SOHMER: Well, let me continue on, Bettye, and then
you can tell me if I'm in the wrong -- wrong place here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. You've got 5 minutes.
MR. SOHMERS: My concern stems from reading in the
Naples Daily News that there is a possibility you will raise taxes 29
percent in the next three years partially because there's not enough
monies available for road work needed to be done in the county. We
believe this problem has its beginnings when the commissioners then
back in -- in 1993 decided to put a 5 cent gas tax on the books. TAG
believes that if you want to see clearly how to approach solving your
present budgeting program, you will have to review what happened in
1993.
I'm told that some commissioners do not maintain
complete files because of the volume of paperwork and thus rely on
records department for that function. For your convenience I have
here a packet of executive summaries, memorandums, and other data for
each of you so you can revisit 1993 without bother.
As an example, let us quickly return to 1993. In
January 1993 the county signed a two-year deal with Westinghouse
Communities of Naples to do preliminary design work and engineering on
the Vanderbilt Beach extension road project. That summer the
commissioners passed a 5 cent gas tax for new road construction. They
listed the roads to be included in the package, and I'll recommend --
on recommendation of staff the commissioners agreed that the ten
million dollar Vanderbilt Beach extension was not one of the roads to
be included.
After a wake-up call, the commissioners shot off a
request to Tallahassee to okay an amendment to our growth management
plan to get Vanderbilt Beach extension back on the list. Then the
assistant county manager was instructed by someone to manipulate the
transportation budget and turn a 48 million dollar deficit into a 10
million dollar surplus. And at that time TAG petitioned the board to
be heard on this matter, and I would like to read just a portion of
that petition.
We at TAG are citizens concerned with the long range
fiscal condition of Collier County as well as the current fiscal
position. We're worried that any debt transferred into future years
would damage the quality of life for us, for our children, both yours
and mine. We wish for this board of commissioners to understand that
the Taxpayer's Action Group also has serious concerns with the
proposed transferring of money from one designated county fund to
another. We see this as a potentially dangerous method of
bookkeeping, because it tends to blur the otherwise clean and
established lines between these designated funds and creates a public
perception that what's happening is perhaps similar -- similar to a
high stakes shell game. Shifting money from one pocket to another can
be very stressful from the standpoint of public understanding and
public trust in government.
The commissioners deemed that -- that they would ignore
this -- our petition, and we hope that you will not ignore this
presentation.
In the packet I have for you you'll find from the
official transcript, Collier County Commission meeting June 22nd,
1993, a discussion about the gas tax and road projects. With that
I've included the executive summary from staff supporting the 5 cent
gas tax. I have included Bill Hargett's memorandum dated July 28th,
1993, discussing and recommending the gas tax. I have included the
executive summary they did dated August 17th, 1993, in which Bill
Hargett details the removing from the 36 road projects, any that are
not concurrency driven. This included Vanderbilt Beach extension. I
have included from the official transcript of the October 26, 1993,
Collier County board meeting the road concurrency question that --
it's interesting to note that one of the commissioners is working hard
to get Vanderbilt Beach extension back on the concurrency list. I
have included Bill Hargett's memo of November 2nd in which he gives
details on how he took the existing budget showing a deficit of 48
million dollars and transformed it into a positive balance of 10
million dollars. Please note this was done partially by taking 23
million plus out of the roads and bridges budget for the first 5 years
and 31 million plus for the second 5-year period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up, please?
MR. SOHMER: Beg your pardon?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up, please?
MR. SOHMER: Okay. As I said earlier, we now in 1995
understand there's no money for road repairs. That's the roads and
bridges budget, and we are talking now about raising taxes.
Could I just give a few recommendations? It will only
take --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Be very quick.
MR. SOHMER: Okay. County needs money for growth.
Let's get back to let growth pay for growth. Take the advice of your
consultants and revise impact fees back up to what originally was
recommended. Discontinue giving impact fee waivers and deferrals to
developers. The waivers are give-aways. The deferrals are no
interest loans. We need the money.
There are over a hundred thousand PUDs on record in your
development division. Please put a hold on any new ones. For those
that have not begun building, put a hold on them. Put a hold on any
development --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Sommer, you're close to 6
minutes now. No one else has had that much time. Can you wrap it
up?
MR. SOHMER: Thank you. I'm wrapped.
MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Olds.
MR. OLDS: I can give him a couple of mine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't -- we don't have a
policy to do that.
MR. OLDS: The name is Stanley Olds.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
MR. OLDS: And I'm co-president of the Taxpayer's Action
Group. It's difficult to be the last speaker because I can't sum up
everything, but I'd love to. Personally it's been a wonderful
experience for me to see civics in operation, and I've enjoyed every
moment of it.
My comments are mainly about the fact that Miss Matthews
had a very positive idea about budget -- outcome budgeting, but it
seems to me that it hasn't been carried out through all the department
heads. The explanations that are required by that budget -- it
doesn't seem like all the functions of the various heads have brought
out the various facts and so that you -- they can justify their
expenses. Without this information that's supposed to be coming
through from the department heads, I can't see how the commissioners
can intelligently tighten spending, and as a result, an increase in
property tax or other taxes could result.
The Taxpayers' Action Group can only hope and pray that
the commissioners will find it in their hearts to remember the poor
taxpayer when it comes to putting the budget to bed. Now, just a
couple more comments. One of the facts was that I had the 10 percent
deduction in the library, so that's inaccurate. So I'll only say that
one other factor in any deduction for the library and parks,
recreation, is not the way to go for reducing taxes but should be
increased. These functions give a taxpayer a chance to really see
what their tax money goes for, living an obvious good purpose for tax
money for all the people to enjoy. Swinging an axe at these funds
misses the mark. Carving out funds for the bicycle paths serves only
a small portion of residents, and I would be very definitely against
that. I'm not a bicycler, but anyway I'm against it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olds, before the program
outcome budget review began on Monday, we had a discussion about the
performance budgeting -- MR. OLDS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and the -- what we're looking
at is that in June when we look at the actual dollars associated to
each -- each program, it's at that point that we'll get choices about
the different levels of service to be offered to -- this past week has
merely been an exercise in deciding which programs we want to continue
and which programs need to be added and which ones need to be
dropped. It is in June that we'll look at the level of service for
the programs, and I'm -- based on the explanation Mr. Dotrill gave us,
that's when we'll see a lot more of the performance budgeting -- MR. OLDS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and I invite you to look at it
closely.
MR. OLDS: Well, I thought your idea was very good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we'll save a lot of money
on it.
MR. DORRILL: And in response to Mr. Olds, if I may.
Beyond Mr. Lunsford's column that did irreparable damage to what --
the other 187,000 people who haven't been here this week, unlike
yourself, we did prepare outcome and performance measures for every
single budget that was reviewed this week. And if TAG does not have a
copy of that, I want you to have a copy before you leave today. MR. OLDS: Yes. We'd like to have one.
MR. DORRILL: The aspect that Mrs. Matthews has alluded
to previously as it pertains to gain sharing and decisions of levels
of funding are issues that are going to take place later this summer.
And we have said repeatedly that we were not going to try and do that
agency-wide. When it comes to the gain sharing aspect of establishing
performance and expected outcomes and then ascribing cost to those, we
are going to select with the board's assistance several hopefully
larger departments where we can do a pilot project to incentivise the
staff to lower unit costs, performance outcome costs, and then share
the savings with them in some ratio that is yet to be determined. And
we are going to see that. I don't want you to think for a minute that
we haven't done what we had committed to do as a result of the
workshop in January.
MR. OLDS: I just wanted to be sure because I did think
that that was very important to bring up. I appreciate it.
MR. DORRILL: I couldn't agree more.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Part of the problem with the
performance budgeting and gain sharing as an end result of it is it's
very labor intensive. MR. OLDS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's true zero based budgeting in
the first year, and our departments are too many and too varied. We'd
have a budget staff Mr. Smykowski would have difficulty managing if we
did that all in one year.
MR. OLDS: I know there is a lot of thick papers going
into all of this. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. And that concludes
o~r ----
MR. DORRILL: That concludes the speakers. The other
item on our agenda today was that we did want the board -- for my
purposes and so that you can tell me what your expectations are, if we
could have a real quick review of all of the items that have been
determined to be discretionary, not that I want to stop and talk about
each one, but in some instances you were very clear about those
discretionary items that you wanted to see lower cost alternatives
for. And if we can take -- take a few minutes to go down through
these, then I would have met your expectations for the discretionary
items. And I'll give you an example. Under administrative services,
the first one, you did rank the motor pool capital recovery and
sinking fund discretionary. I consider that good business, though,
for the reasons that we mentioned because you otherwise would have to
come up with all of the money in one year. So I don't know, frankly,
that that's an area where we ought to spend a lot of time because
that's a preexisting program, albeit a discretionary one. But you've
got some other things where you were real clear, environmental
pollution and solid waste, where you wanted some lower cost line item
budgets compared, and that's what I'm trying to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do -- I was going to
suggest that we do this. Over the weekend we take this list that
staff prepared for us and mark on it those we want detail and those
that we're okay with and get it to the county manager.
MR. DORRILL: That would be perfectly acceptable.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to ask that we do that
Monday before five o'clock so that they can move on with what they're
doing. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to be sure I get my
homework straight. With -- why are -- I thought that the whole point
of discretionary was that we were going to get -- they're going to
prove their case on every blasted one of these. I thought every one
of these -- I mean I'm just going to give you a big D unless I don't
under -- you know, here's my list.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think many of us ranked
discretionary because it is truly a discretionary program. It's not
mandated that we do it, and it's not essential to the health, safety,
and welfare of the citizens, i.e., the motor pool capital recovery
program.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's just good business.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there almost -- there -- as I
recall, Commissioner Norris has a question about is there some way we
could adjust the life cycle of the vehicles or something. So -- so
why am I going to now go back through and tell you what's already in
the transcript about why that one's on the discretionary list?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which was going to be my
question. And, again, I apologize for missing Monday morning when you
went through what we were going to use these definitions for, but
we've used these same definitions the last two years. And
discretionary meant that it wasn't something that was absolutely
essential to the running of health, safety, and welfare, just as
Commissioner Matthews said. And if we said on the transcript that
that's discretionary, but we're not really interested in doing
anything to it, we want to keep it there. That doesn't seem that
difficult to me. And if we said it's discretionary, but we want to
red flag that, we want to know -- we think maybe it doesn't take that
many people, that seems clear to me. I agree with Commissioner
Mac'Kie. I'm not sure what the purpose of the exercise -- going
through that again --
MR. DORRILL: What changed this year from my perspective
was that you specifically asked that some discretionary items come
back in a series of alternatives, because otherwise the discretionary
items, when you see the line item budgets, are going to roll up as
part of the total.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Were our comments during the
past four days not clear as to which items we felt that way about?
MR. DORRILL: In some instances, yes, and that's why I'm
asking in order to develop some consensus. When it came to solid
waste or when it came to some of your very specific comments in
environmental pollution control, the answer is no. But otherwise
there are things that run the gamut from the external security program
-- that was determined to be discretionary. But I don't know whether
we're supposed to be preparing alternatives today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me suggest this for the board,
something I've been trying to struggle with all week on how to proceed
from here. I think as policy makers we've done probably our portion
of it now by flagging what we considered discretionary programs. I'm
not clear at this point of how many dollars it will take to make a
millage rate neutral budget come through for the next fiscal year, but
we have decided here, as the policy makers, which ones we feel are
areas that need to be considered for possible reduction to meet that
-- that millage rate neutral figure.
And what I would like to do is give the -- the county
manager, as a board, give direction to bring back to us in June the
staff's suggestions, the manager's suggestions on where we could look
to accomplish the reduction in spending that we need to get to that
point and to do so in a way that provides the maximum service to our
citizens. In other words, I don't want to -- I certainly don't want
to leave it up to the manager or some staff agency and then have -- as
Mr. Jones said the other day, that he would make the cuts to where it
would be the most embarrassing to the county commission. I wouldn't
want to do it that way. But in -- with the good faith effort from
both sides to make it as sensitive to the citizens of the county and
as sensitive to the millage rate neutral figure that you can.
MR. DORRILL: And I don't care one way or the other. I
just don't want to come back in June when I get my line item budget
and have one or two of you think, well, I thought we were going to see
this, or I thought we were going to see that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's unavoidable, Mr. Dorrill.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I assume
you mean the manager just use this week's conversation as guidelines
for how to do that, and then let the individual department heads like
the library --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. Either that or we're
becoming as a board budget analysts, and I don't really think that's
our function.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not our function.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think what we've done is set
broad policy here and let the staff interpret what we've done and
bring it back to us.
MR. DORRILL: And I'm happy to do that. What you're
saying is then anything that you've ranked discretionary --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is on the table.
MR. DORRILL: -- is on the table --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- On the table.
MR. DORRILL: -- and/or red-flagged, to use Commissioner
Constantine's words, but that I should use some discretion when I
prepare the line item budgets with the focus being on a fully balanced
ad valorem neutral type budget for you to start from. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. DORRILL: But then tell you what it is that
programmatically that I am not recommending as part of the line item
budget so that you could put it back in or at least require me to
justify it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I want to avoid exactly
what Commissioner Norris has talked about, and that is a department
head sitting here saying, well, we can cut it, but, you know, this is
how I'm going to make it look bad.
MR. DORRILL: We're going to make you suffer, okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, if I hear that, and I have
to go into their budget individually item by item, my confidence in
that manager is going to go down dramatically very quickly.
MR. DORRILL: Let me make then just one final --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I need to make a comment too, Mr.
Dorrill, before you start on this, is that we do have some items that
we did classify mandatory and/or essential that we -- we did ask for
justification for the FTEs. We thought the program --
MR. DORRILL: Any of the other comments made to the
budget analysts they will remind me of when I look at the line item
budgets before you see them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We thought the program was
mandatory or essential, but we had some questions whether we were a
little bloated with the FTEs.
MR. DORRILL: Any specific comments would have been
recorded by the applicable analyst, and they will remind me of that
when I see those budgets.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: The only other comment that I was going to
make is that we can begin to get you to where it is that you want to
be. I'm looking at page 35 of last year's -- you don't have this --
adopted budget history, which is this document. And I just want to
remind you that under general government, general government is
general revenues and specifically property taxes, which is everybody's
short fuse. The total general government budget last year was 99
million dollars. The constitutionals portion of that was 60 million
dollars. And that at some point you're going -- and I'm going to
continue to remind you, you're going to have to apply some similar
level of scrutiny because they're now approaching -- spending
two-thirds of general government is outside of my hands.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so what I'm looking for
from you, Mr. Dorrill, is proportionately for your portion of the
budget to give us that ad valorem neutral recommendation. MR. DORRILL: I can do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't expect you to absorb
more than your proportion, but I'd like to see it in your budget.
MR. DORRILL: Historically, though, we do.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. DORRILL: And that's the point that I'm making is
that you will begin to cannibalize your general government functions
in order to make up increased spending for the other two-thirds of
general government in this county.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And maybe we'll decide that
that's appropriate. Maybe we'll decide that the sheriff's budget is
more important and so we have to cannibalize this one, but your job
from my perspective would be to show us a neutral budget for your
departments.
MR. DORRILL: I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your point is well taken, Mr.
Dotrill. We had a very brief discussion that -- a one-time discussion
last year that didn't go anywhere on further scrutiny on that. And I
think this board, if we're responsible for the budget and for setting
that budget, needs to give that some thought and within the next few
weeks set a policy for the constitutional officers whose budget we
review and make sure that policy is set through -- is followed
through, because right now they don't play by the same rules we
require our departments to play by. We need to take that tough look.
We need to sit down with those constitutional officers, and we need to
do exactly what you're saying, and that is a little more scrutiny than
we have in the past.
MR. DORRILL: Well, I tried to make that point last year
without trying to insult anyone. You are the only source of
appropriation in this county, and you are, thus, the ultimate
authority, and you are entitled to see budget information in any
format that you choose. And I do think that forcing these department
managers to show you program spending helps you tremendously when you
begin to establish priorities, because otherwise government managers
are going to lump everything together and not want to show you their
full deck. And at some point you may want to see constitutional
spending in program functions.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm amazed. I mean
here I am being the rookie again, but you mean I'm not going to get
programs from constitutionals?
MR. DORRILL: Never in the history of this county will
you see those budgets in that type of format.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I was just going to ask for
the benefit of Commissioners Hancock and Hac'Kie for Mr. Dotrill to
review the budget process for the constitutionals which people we do
get a line item budget, which people we get a lump sum budget, and
which people -- which constitutional officers go directly to the
Florida DOR to get their budgets approved and what we can do about
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. DORRILL: We can do that privately or under separate
cover, but Commissioner Constantine's point is well-made.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to follow up on your
follow-up comment, it's not intended in any way to insult any of the
constitutional officers. It's just a good exercise for any of us to
go through and I think opens our eyes sometimes to what we don't
realize is there otherwise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems we often share the
wealth and the burden.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion. This is
probably the appropriate time and the -- in everybody's budgeting
process to do this. I suggest that we authorize the chairman to send
a letter to each of the constitutional officers and let them know that
we have concerns about budgeting this year and that we are -- we are
highly motivated to control spending within the county manager's
agency and that we respectfully request that they try to hold their --
their budgets to the point that would be the same commitment that we
have made, let's call it, ad valorem neutral, millage rate neutral,
authorize the chairman to make that -- that first contact so that at
this early stage of their budgeting process they know how we feel
rather than wait till they submit their budget and then we say, you
know, we would rather see this down some.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a great idea.
MR. DORRILL: For historical purposes, the one thing
that they do not like, in fairness to them, is for you to change
things near the last minute. And we -- we need to say to the two
newest commissioners, you do not ultimately have the ability to pick
and choose programs the way you do with me in their budgets, but it
requires or it would compel them to show you programmatically how they
intend to spend money so that you make an overall appropriation,
because you ultimately are the only source of overall appropriation,
the one exception being the tax collector. He is a fee officer, and
his budget is submitted to the Department of Revenue.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I think
it's a great idea. I would still like us sometime in the following
couple of weeks to set some policies. Right now we've got a generic
policy.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. I'm just saying we
need to make a initial contact to let them know we have the concerns.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can get such a letter off and
in their hands the first part of next week.
MR. DORRILL: That concludes our --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we done?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No further comments.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. Thank you.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan