Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/02/1995 S (Pelican Bay Services Division Budget) SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Foundation Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Bettye J. Matthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Mac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the special meeting of the Board of County Commission for Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at the Pelican Bay Foundation Center where we are here to discuss the budget for the services district. First item on the agenda is an invocation and pledge. Mr. Dotrill, would you care to lead us. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening as always for the people of Collier County and in particular this evening the people of Pelican Bay. We thank you for the wonderful community that this is and the wonderful quality of life that these fine folks enjoy. We ask tonight, during the business deliberations of this important meeting, that we'll make decisions that affect this community for the next fiscal year, that your hand be on the deliberations and actions of this county commission, and we would ask you that you bless our time here together. And we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #3A FISCAL YEAR 1996 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We're here for an advertised public hearing. The first item is the presentation of the fiscal year 1996 Pelican Bay services division budget. MR. WARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record Jim Ward, the administrator for Pelican Bay services division. As you indicated, this is a public hearing to consider the fiscal year 1996 budget for the Pelican Bay services division for the residents here begins on October 1st of this year and ends on September 30, 1996. Let me just take a few minutes and go through with you some of the highlights of our proposed budget for next year, and then I'll stop and answer any questions that the board may have. In the way of the services that are provided by Pelican Bay, they consist of or are recommended to consist of essentially four items for next year: The water management system, which is the maintenance of all the aquatic materials and the aquatic water management system that we have here in Pelican Bay; a big part of our program is the maintenance of all of the public roads right-of-way; our landscaping program including all of the parks throughout the community; and the third area is the maintenance of the street lighting system that we have here in Pelican Bay. And the final item, which is new for next year, is the inclusion of a security operation to be assumed by the Pelican Bay services division from the foundation for fiscal year 1996. In terms of what some of our goals are for next year, as part of the water management system budget, and as part of the approval of the recently adopted natural resources protection area by the county, we have included in our program for water management next year some additional items to improve and increase the water quality program, testing the program we have within the community to bring it into conformance with what was recommended by the staff for the water control program. That will include additional testing parameters and additional sampling points throughout the community, but most specifically additional sampling points in testing parameters in the Clam Bay estuary system for next year. In addition to that, we have included monies in here for an exotic removal program on a portion of our water management system which lies east of the Clam Bay berm and in what we traditionally call systems 1 and 2 which runs from the Registry Resort north to Glenview Park. That program includes a $60,000 line item of which we hope to be able to obtain a grant from the State -- matching grant from the State of Florida for approximately $30,000 to assist us in that endeavor. That will supplement the county's program for the NRPA on the west side of the berm. Our program is envisioned to last approximately three years with similar expenditures this year and also a similar commitment by the Pelican Bay services division to increase the quality of our maintenance program on those areas we're managing east of the berm. In addition to that particular program in our street lighting or the street sign program, we have budgeted $10,000 for a study to be conducted by the advisory board this year, which we include for review and analysis of our existing wood signs that we have here in the community, and a recommendation as to whether or not to continue with the use of those wood signs or to change those to some material that would allow the division to decrease the cost of the maintenance of that sign -- of all of the signs that we have within the community. That was implemented this year by the board at staff's recommendation based upon the fact that we have taken that program over this past -- for fiscal year 1995 and are spending a significant amount of money to handle that. Our right-of-way program for fiscal year 1996 is relatively consistent with what has been provided to the community for fiscal year 1995. By that I mean we are maintaining all of the same areas and the same square footage. We are always trying to be able to increase our level of service provided to this community without an increase in the cost. And I think when I get to the numbers, you will see that we have been successful in doing that this year. And then the final program that is new for fiscal year 1996 is the inclusion of Collier County's sheriff's patrols for the community to supplement what is currently being provided by the foundation in terms of private security. We have received the proposals and worked this issue out through the advisory board in which the community will receive one additional deputy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the community of Pelican Bay. That will be an additional five deputies that the Collier County's Sheriff's Office brings on staff. They will be additional deputies over and above what is currently included in the sheriff's budget for fiscal year 1996. That individual who is assigned to the Pelican Bay community will be utilized solely within this community. However, in the event that the sheriff in his decision-making authority opines that it is necessary to move that individual out of Pelican Bay for some sort of an emergency situation, that will automatically be done by the sheriff's office. There is no obligation to keep that individual here within this community and not be able to provide additional security levels for other surrounding communities to Pelican Bay. In terms of the cost of our programs for next year, we -- that is handled in essentially two different ways. One we call non-ad valorem special assessments for the operations and maintenance of the water system on our landscaping and right-of-way program. The total cost per unit for those residences in Pelican Bay next year is $158.54. That will appear on the county tax bill that they receive in November of this year. That is in comparison to the amount of $156.33, which is what they saw for the current year service or roughly 1.4 percent or a 1 percent increase. So it is relatively a small increase in terms of the services that we will -- additional services that we will be providing to the community for next year. In terms of our street lighting and security operation, that is an ad valorem-based tax. And for the street lighting operation for this year, the proposed millage rate is.0977, and it equates to approximately $10 per $100,000 of assessed valuation within the community. That is virtually the same number as the community paid for the current fiscal year that they're in. And then for the security operation for next year, it equates to a millage rate of .194, and that is roughly $10 per -- I'm sorry, $20 per $100,000 assessed valuation for the community for this year for the security operation. With that -- that is the highlight of our division's budget for fiscal year 1996. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you all may have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ward, what is the total assessed value this year? Do you have that figure with you? MR. WARD: Sure do. The assessed valuation for 1996 is $1,536,737,602. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And who's got the two dollars? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No pennies? MR. WARD: You never know. It increased substantially. It was roughly $1,339,000,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So a billion and a half in round numbers. MR. WARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it has gone up just about $200 million. MR. WARD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? MR. DORRILL: I'll tell you there are a lot of counties in the State of Florida that have an assessed value of a half billion dollars. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this is just this district? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's just say North Naples is doing its part. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a public hearing. Mr. Dotrill, are there public speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: There are a few. This would be the appropriate time to take those before you approve the assessment roll. We'll have Mr. Conkling. If you will come forward, and then Mr. Rocco, if I could have you stand by. Mr. Conkling, good evening. MR. CONKLING: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MAy I interrupt you for just a minute, Mr. Conkling? Mr. Smykowski has reminded me that if anyone doesn't know, they need to fill these little slips out if they choose to speak and hand them to Mr. Dotrill. Mr. Conkling, you may proceed. MR. CONKLING: I live at 652 Bridgeway Lane, and as such I am on the south lake in the Bridgeway development, and I have lived there for a year. I am very concerned about the condition of that lake in terms of trash, algae, all sorts of debris that I feel is not being dealt with at all effectively. I finally -- I've been pleading this through trying to learn where to plead may case. I started with the Pelican Bay property owners, and there was a lot of agreement in that meeting that -- you're right, but what do we do about it? And finally, I have located and want to commend the fact that a young man by the name of Jeff, who I believe is in the Pelican Bay improvement district -- you know, one of my problems is that I get communications here from the Pelican Bay services division, and I finally found somebody who was concerned about the lake and the Pelican Bay improvement district -- phone number. And I'm not sure I understand bureaucratic and interwoven arrangements here, but to come down on the point that I want to make is looking at the budget, which I have just seen in the last few minutes, on the third page -- G-2 it's called -- which deals with the Pelican Bay water management situation, there is an item under workload, which is called control of algae bloom in the lake system. I'm glad to see it there. Treat 98 percent of the algae blooms within 24 hours is the performance criteria. I submit that somebody who lives right on that particular lake, I believe, would be supportive. In fact, I know from meetings that have been referenced in the community, that I speak for a number of residents on those lakes who believe they are being poorly managed, and 98 percent performance isn't beginning to be met. I do want to return to my friend Jeff who I finally -- he said, Mr. Conkling, I am the man to talk to. Glad you finally found me, and I'll come over there in my boat today, and I will spray the weeds and begin to try to look after this. This has been a week ago. He said I'll come back every week. He hasn't been here this week, but the weather has been bad. Maybe I'm on the right wicket, but I would like this audience to know that I think that just notwithstanding that we have a problem of serious magnitude in terms of the kind of place that Pelican Bay portends to be and is, and it's not getting the attention it needs vis-a-vis our lake management reference to what really comes out when it is all said and done looking like sewage all around. This is very unsightly. I see that the next page -- there was a decrease in operating expenses in the account for personal services and operating expenses and so forth, and it goes on to say that 57,400 was budgeted for chemicals, and 50,000 was forecast. I take it that's a $7,400 reduction. Maybe those chemicals should be used. I question the validity of that deduction. I read that next year, if I am reading this right, 12,500 is budgeted for operating supplies -- that doesn't sound like much -- and that $2,000 is forecast. I think that's a small item in terms of all you people have to deal with, and you deal with them very well. And I for one appreciate very much what the county does and its manager and its commission, and I know some of you personally. I know how much time and effort it takes. So thanks for listening to me about one little item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Conkling. Commissioner Hancock, you wanted to comment on this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ward, is the aquatic leaf control a private contract or somebody underneath PDID? MR. WARD: Let me go back and sort of address this question locally first, and then we will get down to details. In terms of who the residents should call in an organizational structure, obviously most everyone knows at this point in time that Pelican Bay improvement district no longer exists. It is now a dependent district of the Board of County Commissioners called the Pelican Bay services division. We have the same phone number that PDID has had since 1980, I think. So that phone number is out there in the community, and the residents have an ability to call us, and we will respond to those complaints. In terms of the individual who he spoke about, that is one of the county's employees under our auspices, and he does go out and maintain the water management system on a daily basis. I think if this gentlemen has a specific complaint, he has my personal assurances that we will be out there, and that issue will be cleaned up. And that problem will not exist for fiscal year 1996 in that particular location. I am familiar with it. It is a very troublesome area for us to maintain. Be that as it may, the commitment is to provide a level of maintenance, that's outlined in the level of service in your budget, and we will insure that that happens in 1996. I apologize to this individual for that not occurring in '95. That will be corrected immediately and will continue to be provided at the highest degree possible for 1996. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jim, is there a way of informing the community and the property owners who to call with problems? It seems like the property owners didn't know who to call. MR. WARD: Generally, I thought we had a pretty good mechanism in place to inform the community, but the foundation, the private homeowner's association, doesn't publish all of the important phone numbers in their newsletter periodically. I haven't looked at that communique in a number of months, but ours used to be in there and what we did and who to call and, generally, quite frankly, we're the first listing in Pelican Bay. You know, if you look in the phone book under Pelican Bay, we happen to be the first listing, so we get a lot of calls other than what we really do. It is somewhat surprising he didn't get us on the first try. But be that as it may, it's in the communique. Most of the -- I can tell you since I've personally talked to all of the condominium association boards and their presidents, most everyone knows who we are, who I am, what our division is, what we do, and that line of communication works relatively well. Obviously, also, because you have a 15-member advisory committee for this community, a majority of which who live within this community, a lot of times community residents will call the advisory board, and then that's funneled through us. So there is a lot of ways in which the community has the ability to communicate with us. The bottom line is that we will improve that for Bridgeway Villas for next year and make sure that we take care of that problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other comments on this? Mr. Dotrill, any other public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Rocco and then following is Mr. Flatto. MR. ROCCO: My name is Gus Rocco. I am a resident of Pelican Bay since 1984. First of all, I want to thank you all for coming to Pelican Bay this afternoon. I have been involved in a lot of aspects of the community as president of the foundation for ten years and have been on the advisory board since its inception for the services district. The 15 people who are on that board today take their advisory position very seriously and carefully considering what's going on. We, like you, sometimes have to say no to our neighbors, because we believe individually that it may or may not be the best thing for them overall. But we try to work it out in the best way possible. The staff of the services district has done a good job; first item. Second item on this that -- on the agenda is the sheriff coming in. Some years ago I made a presentation before the county commission board unsuccessfully regarding the similar proposal. The proposal that is before you tonight and included in the budget is one that we take very seriously. Pelican Bay is fortunate with the lifestyle that it has been able to achieve, much of it because of the number of units that are available. And when you break out those number of units and you -- as an interesting comment, a billion and a half dollars, when you break it out on a per-unit basis, and you decide to assess somebody $10 or $20 or $100, and you multiply it times 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000, we're talking about real money. And the ability to improve services for the residents that they are paying for themselves at no additional cost to the residents of Collier County and, in essence, it was described at this afternoon's meeting, is possibly the win-win where in the case of an emergency and all. I should take an extra second to thank the good Lord above for our storm Erin going a little bit north. But during those emergencies, that would have been an additional five deputies, armed, and vehicles and so forth available for in Collier County. But that is primarily my point to make, and thank you for coming. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions about Mr. Rocco's comments? Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Flatto is the final registered speaker. MR. FLATTO: Over here? MR. DORRILL: I don't believe it makes a difference. We do have a reporter, and if you would just speak up so that she can get both your name and -- MR. FLATTO: This will be extremely brief. Mr. Rocco did most of my speech or expressed most of my thoughts and feelings I wanted to express to the commissioners, and I can sum it up, I think, very briefly and succinctly. The most important thing I would like to express to the commissioners is their consideration which is a totally different situation involving the community police subject that we in Pelican Bay -- I should have introduced myself by saying that I have been a resident for approximately four and half years. I also have a business, a small business, in Pelican Bay. And the most important thing that I want to express is my appreciation for all of the commissioners' consideration and willingness to consider our desire for some years for this additional police, not just for crime prevention, but for traffic control which is even more of a problem in Pelican Bay. Lastly, I wanted to express my personal appreciation as well as to the advisory board on which I serve along with Mr. Rocco the genuine interest, concern, and participation by our Commissioner Tim Hancock at all of our meetings, which is quite different than it was several years ago. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Flatto. That was our last public speaker? MR. DORRILL: Last speaker. I believe I did see our sheriff step in. I don't see him now, but it -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I see him. MR. DORRILL: -- recognizing the sheriff has been extremely supportive and, Sheriff, we appreciate you being here this evening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want, for purposes of clarification and so that we actually understand it and, again, because of my involvement with the board here in attending their meetings, I've come to understand the parameters of this security operation very well, I think. I'm sure if I step left when I'm supposed to step right, Sheriff Hunter will intervene quickly. But one of the most important things that differs in the proposal here for the security in Pelican Bay and that which was proposed previously is that these officers will be five new hires or five dedicated officers to Pelican Bay. They are not going to be pulled from North Naples or pulled from another part of the county. It in itself is a dedication of those five officers in an attempt to approach a community policing aspect that I think is on the cutting edge of law enforcement all over the United States. And it gives us a chance to look at how this works to use Pelican Bay, if you will, as a test model that with will benefit Pelican Bay and benefit our sheriff's office. And he will have five additional officers he otherwise didn't have for other things such a hurricane, whatever the next one is going to be, to help out. So that to me is a very important aspect in that the sheriff has put together probably the most complete list of costs associated with this right down to uniforms, tires, car wear and tear. It is probably the most expansive list. He has some things in there that I wouldn't have thought of. But I think what he has tried to do is show that he can provide a community policy aspect for Pelican Bay without adversely affecting the ad valorem tax base in Collier County in any way. And I want to thank him for those efforts. I'm sure the people of Pelican Bay are appreciative. And I thought it was important to note, again, that this is not an allocation of five officers from existing patrols, that this is, in essence, more of a stand-alone operation, and the proposed officers in the sheriff's budget, this is not a part of that. Is that correct, Sheriff Hunter, when we start talking about 28 new officers these 5 are not a part of that? SHERIFF HUNTER: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that is a quick summary, and I'll try not to eat up everyone's time, are some of the things that I have become aware of from the board and things I think are important. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to ask a question of the court reporter. Did you get Sheriff Hunter's reply? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, I want to apologize for being tardy, but I want you to know the club was very empty at six o'clock. I understand the intent of the policing program. And I certainly admire the willingness to pay a little extra to improve or to maintain your community. I do have some concerns, however. Whether it be reality or perceptions, we'll say that there is -- there will be a perception, I guarantee you, that you are getting a safety level over and above that of other communities. Obviously, that is not necessarily the intent to do -- and as Commissioner Hancock outlined, it isn't going to cause any difficulty to other communities but, nonetheless, there will be the perception that this is somehow -- you all are getting a better level and, indeed, you are under this scenario. But what worries me is the potential over time that this is a first step toward the county getting -- and maybe the sheriff can help me with this -- but getting very different levels of service in what I think is our most basic service, and that is safety and protection throughout the county. Theoretically, the more affluent areas could add numbers of deputies in unlimited supply assuming they could afford it, and the poorest areas would just maintain the minimal level of service that we have now. If we have a number of a different communities doing it a number of different levels, you end up with -- I don't think that is the intent now, nor do I think it would be the immediate result, but you could potentially end up with some areas having a service which is inferior to other areas. That is not to say that it would be inferior, period, but inferior to other areas in the county. Ironically, what statistics show are that the poorest areas are usually those which need the service most. I'm sure there will be an argument, particularly by the growing corporations obviously if the county does not do this. Somehow we are not serving the needs and wants of Pelican Bay. I would disagree. I need some help from the sheriff perhaps here. But on statistics I think it is probably safe to say Pelican Bay is not at the top of the list for crime in Collier County. I think that is because the sheriff is doing an excellent job here and throughout the county -- the business that he has taken on the responsibility he is doing. I need some help being convinced that different areas of the county should be getting different levels of service when it comes to safety and protection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of thoughts in response to that, Commissioner Constantine. One is that because of a tax base of a billion and a half dollars, Pelican Bay is already contributing to the safety of poorer neighborhoods. They are already paying for more than they get by virtue of their high tax values -- property values in the City of Naples and otherwise. Notwithstanding that, I still think that even putting that aside, what is more important here is that the results of this would be an enhanced law enforcement for other areas in the county generally in the event of emergencies. Frankly, that is the sales point for me. I think if these are officers that in a crisis would not be available to Collier County at all but for the willingness of people to tax themselves an extra $40 a house or whatever it turns out to be, that is what carries the day for me, coupled with the fact that we can't lose sight of the fact they are already paying for more than their share of law enforcement for the poorer areas in the county because of the way the ad valorem taxes work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Commissioner, you are right. Some people may try and turn this into an argument of have versus have not. That simply isn't the case. And to cite two or three examples that are comparable in nature, I have yet to hear people complaining that their neighborhood is not landscaped the way Pelican Bay is. Yet Pelican Bay has set up a mechanism by which their residents pay increased funds to beautify their community. I have not heard other communities complaining their signs are not as pretty as Pelican Bay's. Pelican Bay residents pay for those signs. They pay for their maintenance, and they will pay for their replacement, and you're not going to look forward to that, I guess. So, in essence, the increase in level of service of law enforcement is no different than the increase in the level of service of other areas that the Pelican Bay residents pay for. We don't seem to complain when the Pavilion movie theater hires a deputy to patrol in the evening, and that's really in essence a microcosm of what is going to occur in Pelican Bay. Pelican Bay will continue to pay for the base-level service for itself and the county regardless of the decision we make today. So I don't disagree that there's going to be discussion out there about have versus have not. But I don't see this being any different in the service division's ability to provide an increased level of the service in other areas, and that's something that the residents in Pelican Bay truly want. Then if it is something that if other residents in other parts of the county want, they too can find a way to have it in some fashion. And that is what, I hope, comes out of this and not the negative side that it's have versus have not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interject a question? Sheriff Hunter, can you give me some idea as of right now how many manhours a week are dedicated to patrolling Pelican Bay? SHERIFF HUNTER: Per week? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Per week, per month, per year. SHERIFF HUNTER: Probably averaging 20 hours per week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty manhours? SHERIFF HUNTER: We have about 1,280 hours that we're dedicating up here under the current contract of service which, as you know, we're committed by law to have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if we agree with this budget and put these five extra deputies on your payroll, what will happen to those 20 hours per week? SHERIFF HUNTER: What will happen, Commissioner, is that those 1,280 hours will now be absorbed into this new program so which will be approximately 8,700 hours. It will gently nudge up available hours countywide that we will have available for law enforcement, which we commend. And we would ask that the commission think of this as another vehicle to fund additional law enforcement throughout the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just wanted to know what is going to happen to the service that was already being performed. It sounded to me like you want to combine them. SHERIFF HUNTER: Although I have not received any commitments from the residents of Pelican Bay, I would imagine what would happen is that this contract would go away. The existing contract would go away. It will, instead, be absorbed into this larger effort in Pelican Bay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And those 20 hours a week will be available somewhere else in the county. SHERIFF HUNTER: Theoretically, right. I remind the board that you have been gradually improving the base level of service for law enforcement in working with us to keep that at a reasonable base level of service countywide. And, again, this additional five in Pelican Bay will gently nudge that up. I would also remind the board that there is ample legal precedence here. We are holding an attorney general opinion that says that places like Pelican Bay may, in fact, adopt a little bit higher level if they're willing to tax themselves for more municipal-like services. And you heard, I believe it was Mr. Rocco, refer to traffic direction, traffic control being a large area of concern for Pelican Bay. It's not so much crime related but traffic control which would mean that when we move traffic control elements in here, we will be able to displace perhaps some of the crime prevention patrols with that traffic unit, and it will also provide that enhanced crime prevention patrol. So it's an all around good thing for the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of things. I don't want to get into a long debate with Commissioner Hancock, but I think the basic purpose of government is or certainly should be anyway health, safety, and welfare. One of my peeves is when government goes too far beyond those issues. And those are some of the debates going on in Washington now whether we should be scaling back some of it, I think, particularly on a local level. Health, safety, and welfare are the issues. Landscaping and signage style are hardly health, safety, or welfare issues. Those are optional, and those are aesthetic. I think the police protection basis of safety and protection is neither optional and certainly not aesthetic. It is a basic need which we all have a right to, I think. And I agree wholeheartedly with you that you all are paying the freight for certain other parts of the county. I don't disagree with that. But in a community -- in a democratic community where we do take on a community sense of trying to make sure everyone has the same basic levels of service as far as health, safety, and welfare, I just -- I worry when we start saying one area can have different levels than others. And, Sheriff, maybe you can help me here. If we have five more in Pelican Bay and next year Lely decides they want to add ten deputies, and they are willing to pay for it, and Countryside wants to add three, and they're willing to pay for it, do we get to a point where there are so many different varying levels that we're not sure -- you'd be sure -- but we're not sure what areas have what level? Do we get to a point where all of a sudden there are so many communities paying for extras that there is a serious question as to whether or nor those areas that can afford no extras are getting an inferior level? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, there is a very confusing amalgamation of strategy out here already with gated communities, extra security patrols provided by various communities, both gated and ungated. Developments are already providing for private security patrols. When we roll all of that up, we can't really pay a great deal of attention to those issues when constituents want to see regular law enforcement, uniformed law enforcement with marked vehicles patrolling neighborhoods. They realize the difference between a private security patrol or neighborhood patrol constituted of residents and a uniformed patrol. But what we have done, Commissioner, over a period of years, we have become much more flexible in our strategy. What we have to do is look at where the crime is occurring, what time of the day, what day of the week. And from day to day you will see various and varying patrol strategies and levels of patrol in the different communities. And I'm not trying to create something for media publication tonight, but I'm going to use a lower-class area, lower socioeconomic community, Naples Manor, and they enjoy a high level of patrol, but it is not for protection of property so much as it is for discovery of latent criminal activity, especially drug dealing, prostitution, prevention of muggings in those areas. Whereas, Pelican Bay enjoys a high or reasonable level of patrol today both under contract and with our regular basic level of patrol for prevention of property crimes, especially burglary and motor vehicle theft, burglary of vehicles. So you have two very distinct communities. But they enjoy relatively from time to time on a daily basis the same levels of service, just different service. We have targeted towards different crimes in those two very distinct communities. The same could be said of Immokalee and Quail Creek. If you ride through, it is a gated community, but we have access through Quail Creek. Foxfire -- and I'm just tossing out names. I'm not suggesting that they're the only communities that receive service, but these are the ones that I know are being subjected to burglary. Foxfire, Kings Lake, Moon Lake out in our area, Pelican Bay, they get the crime prevention patrols to prevent property-type crimes. Naples Manor, Immokalee, street-type crimes, violent-type crimes would be the difference here, not so much the level of service as the types of crime patrol. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sheriff, let me ask you -- I just need a little bit of clarification on how this is proposed to be structured. It is my understanding that these five slots will be all new slots and that they're sort of an aside, I would assume, on your organizational chart. I mean, they'll be dedicated slots over here that won't necessarily be mingled with any of the other deputy operations; is that correct? Am I reading it right? SHERIFF HUNTER: That is correct, by contract. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And let me make sure that I also understand that if you went forward with this, that the deputy time that is currently being expended here in Pelican Bay would be expended outside of Pelican Bay and I assume just distributed where it's necessary, and then what would be left in Pelican Bay would be these five slots; is that close? SHERIFF HUNTER: By and large that's right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: What will happen from time to time for the Pelican Bay residents -- remember that here sits the substation right on the boundary, if you will. And there are patrols through Pelican Bay on a regular routine basis now plus contractual patrol, which was my agreement with the residents of Pelican Bay, that this was supplementary to existing basic levels of patrol so that they do have a lightly enhanced patrol. With the additional five, which is around-the-clock protection, we get one person per shift out of that. So you'll have one person dedicated to Pelican Bay. But from time to time a district unit is going to be required to respond into Pelican Bay to back up especially on alarm calls, which I know we've gone through this over a period of months. Alarm calls are one of the largest requests for service here. They have a backup, and while they're in here backing up, naturally they will be patrolling before they return back to a zone to go back to regular routine zone patrol. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this will not replace -- it won't replace what is here? SHERIFF HUNTER: Uh-huh. It's a slight, very slight, one patrol deputy increase in the level of service that Pelican Bay currently enjoys. But it will slightly displace what is going on today because obviously our current contract only provides the 20 hours a week. With that we try to get the high activity times. We're not patrolling on a daily basis all three shifts a day. So we're only hitting some of the high peak times in Pelican Bay. Therefore, when we add these five, there can be one person around the clock. We should see a slight displacement so, therefore, yes. Now, the rest of this area, the rest of this district will enjoy a little higher level of service than they had before as a result of Pelican Bay residents. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That seems to me that, as in the earlier discussion, that Pelican Bay funds a lot of the county's sheriff's budget that they don't really use, and that is one of the quirks, if you will, of ad valorem taxation. And to hear -- even so they're a basic exporter of ad valorem dollars, they're willing to increase their ad valorem funding and purchase services that will dedicate deputies to the community, and at the same time it will allow even more deputy time for the rest of the county. I really don't have any objection to that myself. It seems perfectly reasonable. I'm not going to be persuaded by any arguments that people who can afford something shouldn't be allowed to buy it. So I'm not going to be persuaded by the argument. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, the Sheriff has answered my question already. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: After Commissioner Norris has made his statement, I'm done. I'm not going to tell Sheriff Hunter how to do his job. The citizens have made a request of him. He has responded in a manner he feels is the most appropriate that does not have any adverse effect on the balance of this community. In fact, it may have an advantageous result to the neighborhoods in -- at least in North Naples and possibly elsewhere. So I'm very comfortable with what has been proposed and commend Sheriff Hunter for the work that he has done in putting together what I would call a very lengthy list of costs to make sure that the balance of the tax base does not support this effort. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final thought. Again I admire the effort of Pelican Bay. I don't want you in any way to think that I think it shouldn't have such a thing. But what I am looking at is the long-term effect throughout the county. I think I am going to be in the minority anyway. This isn't about -- for me it's not about Pelican Bay. It's the long-term effect for several different levels potentially over two, three, four years when different areas make the request and the long-term impacts. So I don't want you to think that I think this is an awful thing. I am worried about what is going to happen over the years and having different levels of safety or protection in different areas. But I'm not going to support it for that reason. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand your concern, because I'm also hearing and reading a lot in newspapers and magazines and so forth on safety in neighborhoods and so forth about the efforts of the neighborhoods to build a cohesive police protection and safety element. And I guess, Sheriff Hunter, these five deputies that you're going to put here, are they going to be the same five deputies seven days a week year round so that people who live here will know who they are, and these five deputies will know who belongs here and who doesn't so that what we're really looking at is a neighborhood patrol system? SHERIFF HUNTER: Uh-huh. In order to optimize the community policing aspect, that concept, they would be the same five deputies. Remembering this is a small adjustment to an existing contract, we already have deputies here under contract. This is an enhancement slightly. We do have a community policing feel here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My last question, what is the reason to change? Why not enhance the existing contract instead of a change to this tax mechanism for you or maybe for -- MR. WARD: Sure, that is simple to answer. It's currently provided by the sheriff to their foundation. So they actually pay the sheriff's personnel overtime. It's time and a half of what costs are substantively higher than utilizing Pelican Bay services division where they actually have those people on staff, and the sheriff actually provides the existing patrol for the existing sheriffs -- with existing deputies in overtime rates. This provides additional people at regular rates and gives the sheriff more people on this staff to provide this at a lower cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In addition to that, Mr. Ward, those fees are paid for through the foundation? MR. WARD: Yes, through the private foundation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, therefore, they are not on the tax bill? MR. WARD: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in that. My last question was just -- compared to what Pelican Bay presently pays via its contract, how much did it spend last year under the contract, and how much are they going to spend next year under this new scenario? MR. WARD: I honestly don't know the answer. Do you know? MR. NUDGE: I think it's in the order of forty-five to fifty thousand this year, and last year I believe it was thirty thousand dollars. And this was for overtime deputies, time and a half. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that you are getting substantially more for your -- MR. DORRILL: That gentleman was Russell Nudge who is a member of the board's advisory committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess we're ready for a motion on this item. MR. WARD: Just for the record, we received two letters. Over 5,000 that we sent out, one individual who objected to the timing of our public hearing and thought that this was a new assessment, and that was responded to. And we informed him of what this was, and the timing is set by statute. The other letter which asked for information only, and the information requested by that resident was provided. And I'll provide these to the clerk for the record. MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, we'll need two motions; one, to accept and adopt the budget as submitted by your advisory board, and then a separate motion for the special assessment for water management. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the resolution approving the special assessment roll and letting the special assessment against the benefited properties within Pelican Bay NSTD and benefits unit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this in the proper order? Should we not adopt the budget first? MR. DORRILL: It's your discretion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about if I withdraw my first motion and replace it with another? The motion is that the board accept the fiscal year 1996 Pelican Bay service division budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I'm going to support the motion, but only because I like the experiment that is going on here because of the neighborhood policing concept. And I think I'm safe in seeing our sheriff and our attorneys and so forth, and we're safe that this okay to do. I like that concept. It touches on -- and we are seeing more and more of it. But I, too, share Commissioner Constantine's concern of a neighborhood being able to have the police protection it can afford. And I'm a little bit concerned about that. I understand the problem, but it is something I want to watch also. SHERIFF HUNTER: Is it appropriate to make one more comment just to support and to clarify your comment, Commissioner? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We've got a motion and a second. Were going to discuss it. I would like to hear, if you don't mind, from the sheriff on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would too. SHERIFF HUNTER: I would remind the board and the people of Pelican Bay, you shouldn't be ashamed of what you are doing. I commend you. But the rest of the county -- and by board agreement we are trying to provide 28 percent of availability per shift for patrol purposes, which is not a standard by any means, and it is not something that every community can afford. But we are attempting in this county, countywide, by 28 percent of a patrol tour that is nothing but crime suppression patrol, and that is by our agreement. That is why we have those 28 people in that budget this year, is to maintain that basic level of service that we have agreed to. And the International Association Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the Florida Highway Patrol, we all have discussed this as an issue of trying to maintain that basic level, and that is there. That is preserved. The people of Pelican Bay are saying we are willing to pay that little bit extra, nudge up the availability in the north district which we handle and will actually give us a little bit better service experience up in a whole district. So it's a win-win situation and very good for the county overall. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with what you are saying. SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm supporting your comments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see a neighborhood concept for police protection here. If it works the way that the newspapers and magazines say that it should work -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have never seen two people who are agreeing argue so long. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you going to agree, Ken? MR. CUYLER: I will. Ken Cuyler, county attorney. Madam Chairman, you need to close your public hearing. And let me point something else out. The law enforcement is a budget issue, but it is an ad valorem issue. Therefore, Commissioner Constantine, if you wish to -- with regard to A, that is consideration for A on your agenda. That's not a consideration for the adoption of the resolution on the non-ad valorem portion. So if you wish to vote for that, that's not deferring to the issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing. Did you want to repeat your motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. My motion was that the Board of County Commissioners approve the fiscal year 1996 Pelican Bay services division budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Commissioner Constantine in the opposition. Item #3B RESOLUTION 95-441 CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the board approve the resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll, the final assessment roll, and adopting same as the non-ad valorem assessment roll for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Long one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? There being none, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. That concludes the public advertised hearing. Is there any comment or questions of the public of this board or staff? THE ASSESSHENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OFFICE. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the county, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 7:12 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Catherine Hoffman