Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/06/1995 B (Budget)BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 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 5:13 p.m. in SPECIAL BUDGET SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews VICE CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Michael Smykowski, Senior Budget Analyst Jean Gansel, Budget Analyst Edward N. Finn, Budget Analyst Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Lieutenant Paul Canady CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the first public meeting on Collier County's budget for the fiscal year 1995, '96. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening during this important meeting where the county commission will take action to adopt our fiscal plan and budget for next year. We'd ask that you bless our time together here this evening. We give thanks for those citizens who do care and who are here to participate in this process and that you would guide the hand of the county commission as they make these important decisions. We pray these things in your Son's name. A/hen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #3 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - BCC FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 TENTATIVE BUDGET CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the agenda tonight is the advertised -- the first advertised public hearing for the BCC adopting the budget for fiscal year '95, '96. Mr. Dotrill, do you want to begin this, or do you want Mike to get us started? MR. DORRILL: My statement will be none other than to indicate to the public that this is a public meeting. We do have a couple of speakers who are already registered, a majority of whom this evening want to speak concerning beach parking fees and that issue, and we do have your parks and public service staff here in the event. But if anyone else is interested in speaking this evening, there are slips in the hall, or either I have slips that you can fill out here, and if you would do so and just give those back to me, we will call you at the appropriate time. Other than that, Mr. Smykowski will introduce the order of business for this evening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you mind if I ask before we get started, how many people in the audience here are here to speak on something other than the beach fees? Okay. Fine. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe I missed something, but I got in tonight, and I have an executive summary that is a recommendation that the county commission confirm their previous direction regarding the institution of beach parking fees. It's -- It's a quarter of an inch thick, and I didn't know we were doing this tonight, you know, that there would be this specific -- I guess I'm asking, where is it on the agenda? MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's not on the agenda specifically. Mr. Olliff prepared that, assuming there would be some discussion on beach parking. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of problems with that. One, it's not on the agenda. Two, that it was given to me about 30 minutes ago, and it's got to be 30 pages long. I am sure -- I assure you, I haven't read one page of it yet. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the public has no idea. MR. OLLIFF: Generally we don't prepare any additional information other than what's in the budget for an item like that. And, in fact, this was just supplementary information that was provided for you following yesterday's board meeting where it looked like the board wanted some additional information about the beach parking program. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're not looking for a final decision now? MR. OLLIFF: No. We're looking for the final decision at the last public budget hearing which would be the 20th or the 26th. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 20th. MR. OLLIFF: 20th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would it not be fair since this is in an executive summary format and this board has never -- I mean, I've searched the minutes -- never officially resolved to reinstitute beach parking fees? We indicated at our March budget workshops that -- not a bad idea. It showed up in our June line item workshops which there was a lot of discussion about, and now it is still in our budget using six or $700,000, whatever the number is, to underwrite the millage that we've already established yet we've never formally adopted this, and I'm -- I'm concerned about not having formally adopted it, and the thing is here, and I've got questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Madam Chairman, we haven't formally adopted anything. Every single element of this budget that is either an expenditure or projected income isn't formally adopted until this budget process is completed. So the beach parking fees -- and that falls in the same category as every single other thing that we're going to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if you could have -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- do tonight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you could have held off another minute or two before you jumped in -- I would have liked to see this on our agenda sometime between now and the time that we finally adopt this because we've not formally adopted the reinstitution of the fees. MR. OLLIFF: We can do that. There are -- There are a lot of fee-type issues like that one that will be part of your budget that are presented as -- as regular board agenda items, but if that's the pleasure of the board, we can certainly present that as a separate item and let the board have a regular board meeting agenda discussion about it. It's up -- It's up to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's -- It's just that we -- We, as the board, have always said in the past -- and I pulled the minutes of the June 19th meeting when we discussed this, and Commissioner Constantine says in here that, well, this is a workshop. We can't make policy at a workshop. And -- And yet this is policy. MR. OLLIFF: It's part of your budget policy that would be adopted in formal public hearings both tonight and on the 20th which are usually the format that we do related-type issues. If -- Again, if you want to have separate formal presentation as part of a regular board meeting, that's completely up to you, and we'd be happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I, for one, feel like I would like to have it as a formal policy hearing because there's a lot of things that we have talked about over the last two years as to how we would do this, how we would not do it, and -- and we, as a board, have never had the opportunity to fully discuss this in a formal resolution adoption manner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's not much on Tuesday's agenda. Why don't we stay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this question quickly, and I think we can go on from there because I -- I would like to have this formally ratified as well as long as it's going to be in the budget. Mr. Cuyler, do -- is it absolutely necessary that we have a separate agenda item on some county commission meeting and ratify beach parking fees, or does going through the budget process like this have the same effect? MR. CUYLER: It's not legally required to have a separate agenda item. You would be establishing a revenue source as part of your budget process. How you actually go about setting up your system and where the meters are and that type of thing, obviously you're going to have to reach some decisions on that at some point, but you can approve this, and you're, in effect, establishing a revenue source. If you don't implement a way to get that revenue source, then obviously you're going to have a shortfall somewhere. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, on June 19, as part of the overview at the beginning of that workshop, it was made clear that the general fund budget and millage rates were predicated on the beach parking being a component of the FY '96 budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- That's true, but, again, as I went through the minutes for June 19 on the discussion, there's considerable discussion about two items that we have not discussed since that time, and that is, number one, that dedication of any excess revenues from the program, what happens to that. Right now it's in the general fund. There was discussion that maybe it shouldn't be there. And the other thing that we've not resolved is the Naples city payment, the continuation or not thereof, which in these minutes of June 19 you would get back to us, and we've -- we've not made that decision yet either, whether we should -- should continue that. I believe it's $177,000 is what it was predicted to be for the fiscal year '95, '96, and -- and that's a significant chunk of change too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point just being, we need to settle those before we close the budget hearing two weeks from now. So obviously if for some reason we don't include beach parking fees as Mr. Smykowski just said, we need to come up with an additional six hundred, or whatever it is, thousand dollars difference. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 579,000 is the net difference between budgeted revenues and budgeted expenses. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if we decide to continue paying the city for county residents being able to use the parks, we've got to come up with another $200,000 roughly because it's my understanding that number is not in this budget either. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we've got two fairly significant issues. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The payment to the City of Naples for the beach parking stickers is not in the budget? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who decided that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It wasn't decided on the 19th. It was still something that we were going to get additional information to us on. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I -- I can stop talking about this -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can too. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because I have made my piece about it, that those are big issues we've got to discuss before we finalize the budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got two weeks. MR. OLLIFF: I'd suggest if you're going to do it, I've looked at the agenda index for the 12th, and I would suggest we schedule it for the 19th as opposed to the 12th. And, you know, it's probably my fault. I -- I've been through this so many times I feel scarred about it, that we've talked about it several times over. But I -- I think for those two issues alone, we will present that same executive summary that you have unless there's some additional information that you want to have, and if you do, I wish you'd go ahead and tell me that now, but we'll go ahead and present that executive summary for your consideration for the 19th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think for additional information -- I -- I'll -- I'll get to you in just a second. I'm sorry. I would like to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't want to be admonished No. I'm -- I'll sit quietly -- Well, I -- -- until I'm picked. Thank you. I think what I would like to see also is maybe some other funding mechanism for the 200,000 because we've -- we've sent the trim notices out. We can't raise taxes now. We can't raise the millage rate, and we're going to need some other funding mechanism if we decide to pay the city its money. And -- And if we -- If we, as a board, decide not to institute beach parking fees at all because we don't like what's being done with the money or we don't like beach parking fees at all -- we have at least one commissioner who has said he doesn't want them at all and -- and we're going to need you to tell us what we're going to do about the money if it's not there. MR. OLLIFF: We'll try and do our best to get creative between now and the 19th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we need to clean this up. It's -- It doesn't feel good right now. Commissioner Cons -- Commissioner Hancock, you have some comments? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you had discussions with the City of Naples since the last time we discussed this? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I assume you have some developments from those discussions? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. And I think their position is a good one. It basically is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really, Tom, rather than you repeating yourself again in a couple of weeks, I -- I just wanted to ask -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the question because that's what you told us you were going to do and -- Okay. That's fine. MR. OLLIFF: I think we have a good resolution, but the resolution would require that we continue the existing agreement that we do have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I'm out of order, I can -- I too can be admonished and learn to live with it, but while we're doing housekeeping matters here -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I do the admonishing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we -- Is it appropriate to discuss the agenda for Tuesday's meeting that has -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- 22 public -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- hearings? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When might it be appropriate? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tuesday morning when we set the agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Despite the fact that we have 22 hearings, and we have people who are going to be paying experts to show up? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're going to discuss it anyway, aren't you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, until I'm thoroughly admonished, I guess. It's a bad agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, can we get on with tonight's agenda, please? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's -- Let's get on with the budget hearings. That's what we're here to do, and perhaps you may want to have a meeting with the county manager tomorrow or the next day and see if there's something we can do about the 22 items. Okay? MR. CUYLER: At the risk of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: -- jumping into the jaws at this point -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the admonishment? MR. CUYLER: -- the participants are preparing for this. They are going to be ready on Tuesday. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we not discuss that now? It's not on the agenda. Let's get on -- Tonight's a budget hearing. Let's do the budget. We can worry about Tuesday's agenda some other time, but that's not appropriate now. MR. CUYLER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to meet about it anyway probably tomorrow. Item #3A DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER ROLLBACK Okay. Who is going to carry us through the budget? Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. The first order of business under 3A is discussion of tentative millage rates and increases over rollback. On page one of your package is the tentative proposed millage rates. The general fund, 3.4889, a 1.1 percent decrease below the rollback rates; pollution control millage is .0506 mills which is 6.6 percent below the rollback rate, largely a result of changes the board made as part of the program budget process in terms of reducing some staffing levels and making some changes in some programs. Road district one, there's a large increase over the proposed rollback rate. That's a function of a decrease in available carry-forward revenue. In addition, we've accelerated the road resurfacing program there. There's approximately 400 lane miles in that -- in that district, and we're doing approximately -- going to be doing approximately 20 per year just due to timing in terms of being able to rotate those out in terms of a service life of roughly 20 years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you talking about road district 1047 MR. SHYKOWSKI: Fund 102, road district one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Can you give us a little idea, because we've got a couple of new members on the board, which -- generally which area of the county or which district? 358. I don't know who's got district one but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Most of it's probably in my district. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it is, yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But it's not a large -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. A large component of that was going to be on Marco Island in terms of road resurfacing activity. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good lobbying by the district one commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The millage, though, is going up 358 percent. Okay. As long as everybody understands. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. And dollar-wise that's approximately $400,000. Percentage-wise it's very large. Road district three, fund 104, proposed millage is.1006, a 93.8 percent increase. Again, here we're doing some additional paving and purchase of landscape materials. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's basically where? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Golden Gate Estates -- Estates areas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- That's in addition to whatever might be left in the GAC land trust; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. The GAC land trust after this year CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- is gone. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- is virtually gone. That is correct. Marco Island beautification has a 19.2 percent increase due to a decrease in available carry-forward revenue and the purchase of a water truck. Pine Ridge industrial park, increase of 24.4 percent. That's for an estimated increase in aquatic plant control services. The bid, that's a contract service, and -- and a decrease in available carry-forward revenue. Golden Gate Parkway beautification levies a half a mill which is a half a percent increase. There's a slight increase in operating expenses there due to the contractor's default mid year during FY '95. The Naples production park is an 88.9 percent increase. That's -- There was insufficient cash this year to make the indirect service charge payment to the general fund due to a shortage in carry-forward revenue, so we just rolled over that balance into FY '96. Isles of Capri fire is 169.2 percent increase over rollback, and that is due to two things, the lease/purchase of a pumper truck as well as a transition from a volunteer to a paid -- part-time paid department. Ochopee fire has an 18 percent increase over the rollback rate, and there are two things there, purchase of 800-megahertz radios for the department as well as adding a supervisory position for fire prevention and training within the district. There's a slight increase in the Lely Golf Estates beautification. They levy annually a mill and a half in that district, and that's a decrease in carry-forward revenue. The Immokalee beautification is 6.3 percent increase over the rollback rate, roughly $12,000 above the rollback. Again, that's for improvements -- beginning of a series of improvements along S.R. 29. And, finally, the Pelican Bay MSTBU has a 209.3 percent increase, and that's a function of the sheriff's security proposal that they've brought forth for you this year. Overall in terms of an aggregate millage rate, 4.2486 which is .08 percent below the rollback rate. Item #3B REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET The next thing I'd like to do is review and discuss changes that have been made since you adopted the tentative budget in July. I'll walk you through the general fund at the end. The tax collector's budget has changed, and that's just a function of his budget being submitted in accordance with state law on August 1st whereas the tentative budget is released on July 15. I'm currently on page three at the top. Community development fund, they anticipate a computer purchase. This year it was $600,000. They do not believe that it would actually be under contract by September 30. As a result of that, we've just decreased the forecast and reappropriated those funds in the FY '96 budget. That is when the purchase order is anticipated to be issued. The sheriff's grants fund, 115, increase of 168,600, that was brought forth in an executive summary to the board in which we're recognizing and appropriating a career criminal grant. In the miscellaneous grants fund, that's an increase of $18,300. The board had approved a Haz-Mat plan update grant subsequent to the adoption of the tentative budget. Golden Gate Community Center, no net change to the budget; however, just in -- there was a rounding issue. We put 100 additional dollars in for debt service payment. That's the final debt service payment on that facility. It was the rounding function of $7. So we -- we rounded to the nearest 100. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going back to the miscellaneous grants and the Haz-Mat thing -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I'm assuming the grants we received required some sort of match, and that's why there is an increase as opposed to that grant going toward -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. There is no -- There is no match. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't we have a discussion earlier -- and I don't -- I don't recall exact details, but there was a program that had a grant, and some of the match was involved. Some of our own money was involved for a match, but we had a debate whether or not that additional program was -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the bilingual -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was the bilingual program for the household -- MR. DORRILL: Small quantity generator's program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. The household -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that this money? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. MR. DORRILL: My impression is that this is a Department of Community Affairs grant for Ken Pineau to do an update to a plan that the state pays for. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you just verify that by next -- MR. DORRILL: Sure will. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is, in fact -- MR. FINN: That is the case. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Is it? MR. FINN: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was quick verification. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was approved two weeks ago by the board. Basically in terms of the changes that have been made here, aside from the capital funds which are a function of revising forecasts as to whether or not projects are under contract, typically the bulk of these changes would revolve around decisions the board has made in -- in a weekly agenda format, that -- there has to be some basis for us to make those changes. So typically the changes you see are a function of decisions that you have made in a regular scheduled Tuesday board meeting. The 800-megahertz radio communication, again, that was just a reduction of reserves to fund tower leases and generator fuel. The next three TDC-related changes, it's just a function of how the economic disaster program was going to be funded. Rather than transferring funds from 193 and 194 into fund 196, we're just direct depositing the prorata share directly into the economic disaster funds. So basically what we've done is reduced the transfers in 193 and 194, decreased the transfer revenue in fund 196, and substituted the direct deposit of that prorata share of the TDC revenue into that fund. The next series of changes revolve around the debt service funds. The finance department made a -- took a second look at those in terms of where carry-forward estimates appeared to be, and most of the change is relatively minor. Again, the Golden Gate Community Center was a function of that $100 additional transfer. In fund 214, the special obligation revenue bond, the carry-forward estimate was reduced $2,500 based on reduced estimated interest earnings, and as a result, the general fund transfer increases by a like amount. Under the Euclid and Lakeland Avenue assessments fund, previously payments that were actually due on October 1st were paid on September 30. In FY '95 the finance department has made the change to actually making the payment directly on the due date as opposed to one day in advance. So what we've done here is just reduced our forecast debt service expenses which thereby increases carry-forward, and the debt service payment is not budgeted in FY '96 and will be made on 10-1. Again, on the -- on page four, the health computer issue is reserves decreased $100 to fund the rounded debt service payment. The next series of changes are in the capital funds with the exception of the final one listed, the Marco water-sewer district. As part of your adopted budget policy, we revisit our forecast expenditures in August in order to limit the number of carry-forward budget amendments that are necessitated and hopefully avoid any delays in terms of staff's ability to move projects ahead while waiting for those budget amendments and executive summaries to be approved. So the changes in the capital funds, countywide capital, parks, regional park impact fees, libraries, and the three community park districts that you see are a function of projects that would not be under contract that were forecast back in March to be under contract this year. So, in essence, what we've done is reduced our forecast expenditures in each case which increases our available carry-forward revenue, and we just rebudgeted the balance of those project funds in FY '96 which is when we now anticipate getting those projects under contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykowski, I thought we had folded all of our community park impact fees into, like, an urban district. I mean, at one point we had them all broken up into separate districts. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. There was residual cash in a few of those. We are working with the finance department now to facilitate the collapse -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To facilitate -- Okay. Good. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- of the residual equity transfers out and just rebudget them all in fund 368 which would -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 368 will be the surviving fund in the end? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And I'm sure we'll -- Marco and Immokalee will, however, continue to exist, but in terms of the urban, that will be the main component of our community park impact fees and will just make it a little easier on staff as well because there won't be seven pots of money. It will be all in one pot so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Marco water-sewer district is a net fund decrease of $79,100. Our carry-forward estimate was reduced due to additional debt payment in FY '95 and additional cost of bulk sewage treatment. On page five is the summary of the general fund changes. At this point under BCC was actually the other general administrative, 15,700 for the payment to the Naples community redevelopment authority for the tax increment finance district. Support services, the board had approved the addition of the assistant to the county manager position and $1,500 operating related to the pay plan study. The next item will have to be reversed. We had the package done prior to yesterday's decision regarding beach -- Preliminarily the board had previously approved the -- at least the budget amendment for the purchase of beach parking meters. Obviously that decision needs to be resolved at this point, so that -- We will reverse that decision -- reverse that back at this point, but the package was -- was done prior to yesterday's board meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Reserves have changed. Obviously beach parking, the human resources budget, the additional debt service required that I elaborated on earlier, the lease payment for the sheriff's office which was also approved by executive summary, the 15,700 for the Naples Community redevelopment authority. The next two changes are the net changes that I alluded to yesterday as part of the revenue report where reserves are -- the net impact of sales tax and revenue sharing partially offset by additional carry-forward revenue through additional interest earnings and ad valorem tax collected in FY'95 is a net decrease of reserves of $626,500. The next two items are simply the opposite of -- it's a corresponding expense increase for the transfer for the debt service that I alluded to as well as under the sheriff, board paid the lease payment that was approved by the BCC. Then on page six of the corresponding revenue adjustments, revenue sharing decreased as well as sales tax. Carry-forward increased a little more than a half a million dollars. And the revenue reserve adjustment was a function of reduced revenue sharing and sales tax offset partially again by additional interest earnings. So the net impact in terms of where the general fund was, is a net decrease to the fund of 723,500. Those are the summary of all the changes that have taken place subsequent to the board adopting the tentative budget in July. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have reductions in revenue for sales tax and for revenue sharing, and we were talking about that yesterday in the quarterly numbers. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this looks like it totals up to just about $1,300,000 that we're not going to receive that we thought we were? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you expecting that trend to continue for another -- you know, not just the carry-forward numbers, but into 1995, '96? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. This is the adjustment. We anticipate -- Our revised estimate is -- would be our baseline number for which we would be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Revenue will continue to grow. It's just our estimates were slightly higher than what we anticipated receiving. As a result of that change, we've reduced our estimated number for '96, but there's still -- I anticipate the gross sales tax is still, like, 6, 7 percent per year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But it is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's still growing but not as fast as we anticipated. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Not as fast as we had anticipated. And, again, that was offset by additional carry-forward revenue to the tune of $550,000, so that netted out there. That's the result of all the changes that have been made to date. The balance of the packages prior to the resolutions that need to be adopted are just actually the individual resolutions which identify the changes that I provided and walked you through in summary fashion. They are just details fund by fund of everything I've just walked you through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do we need a separate motion on each of the resolutions? MR. CUYLER: After -- Yeah. When you get to item E, you'll take a separate motion on E, F -- E -- E and F, each resolution when you get there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On E and F. MR. CUYLER: E and F on your agenda. You have your -- You will go with your review and discussion, your wrap-up issues, have your public comment. Then you'll adopt a resolution for tentative millage rate and amended tentative budget on E and F on your agenda. Item #3C WRAP-UP ISSUES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Okay. So we're at item C, wrap-up issues. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. We do not have any scheduled at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I thought we had -- we had -- we had resolved most of them on June the 21st. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. So there -- Item #3D PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we move directly to the public comment. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, how many speakers do we have? MR. DORRILL: We have about six. Mr. Paret. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, if we have put the discussion on beach parking fees to another time, the folks that are here to speak on that have kind of -- I mean, they're welcome to speak, but there may be a -- You may want to choose a more appropriate time when the decision is going to be made. So if we're not going to do that tonight, I would certainly hate to waste your time. Just -- Just a word and -- you know, I think if -- if I were in your shoes, I'd probably speak when a decision is going to be made. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That sounds like the 19th as to whether we're actually going to reinstitute -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- them or not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if you're here tonight, you're welcome to speak. I don't want to discourage anyone. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Anyone here wanting to speak about beach parking fees, whether we should or should not reinstitute them, is certainly welcome to it, and it sounds to me that on the 19th Mr. Olliff is going to give us a formal executive summary so that we can formally adopt the policy one way or another as to whether we're going to reinstitute them and what we're going to do with the money. But certainly you're -- you're free to talk about it tonight. MR. DORRILL: I was just going to say I'm certainly encouraging that. The budget document is your most important policy decision of the year from my perspective, and it's -- I will say it's a little irregular for us to have compiled and spent the amount of time developing the budget document but then need to go to some extraordinary step as part of a regular agenda item, and I understand your desire to consider that, but I would hope that you would receive both public testimony and give us some indication of what your intention is so that we can be prepared by the final budget hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I would hope that we would do that -- that also -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Paret. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to tell you what the intention is. MR. DORRILL: If you would, please, sir. And then following he, Mr. Mueller. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, the final budget hearing too is the 20th which would be the day after that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The day after. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's just that I just can't help but feel if we're going to adopt policy, that we should do it in a formal Tuesday meeting. MR. PARET: Good evening. For the record, my name is Ray Paret, and I'm going to take Commissioner Tim Hancock's advice and merely say that I'm here because I'm interested, as we stated in the invocation. But yesterday under the influence of cold medication and watching this on television, I became quite confused, more confused than what the medication was doing to me, and that's why I came here tonight. And I must admit, I'm even more confused now that the medication is not working on me. So I will take my shots or my opinions and place them before you at the proper time rather than waste your time at this point in time once I know exactly how everybody stands on the item of beach parking, but thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mueller and then Mr. McGilvra. MR. MUELLER: I would prefer to wait also until the 19th to speak on the issue if I may, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra and then Ms. MAggio. MR. MCGILVRA: My name is Doug McGilvra, for the record, and I'm representing the Taxpayer's Action Group of Collier County, Incorporated. I would like to speak to you concerning specifically the sheriff's budget. I would like to read to you into the record a letter I sent to all you commissioners back on the 18th. Dear County Commissioners. The Taxpayers Action Group board agrees with Sheriff Hunter regarding his 1995, '96 budget request for the 28 additional deputies and the necessary required funding. The deputies' calls for service have increased to the point that only about 1 percent of the deputies' time remains for preventive patrol in three of the six county districts, North Naples, Golden Gate, and East Naples. The 28 additional deputies will increase the preventive patrol time to about 10 percent which is still one-third to one-fifth below recommended levels. Please note that TAG is in favor of increased spending in this case. We are not the naysayers on tax matters as has been alleged. We believe in spending tax dollars where they make sense. Adding deputies in the sheriff's budget makes sense in this large, expanding, and important county. Sincerely, Douglas L. McGilvra, member of the board for the Taxpayers Action Group. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to carry this one or -- We talked about it yesterday. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just got through speaking with the sheriff just before we came in here. We have not, as the misconception goes, cut any money from the sheriff that would go towards deputies. The last thing this county commission wants to do is to lower the number of deputies on the street. It's simply a matter of accounting. We asked him to -- to budget for 3 percent attrition, and he had not done that. Now he has, and I -- I'm really reluctant to speak for the sheriff. He said he might be here. I don't see him. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He's here. Is he here? Uh-huh. Where is he? He's here in the back. He's here. But, Sheriff, if you -- if you are comfortable with the arrangement that we have in our budget, would you please indicate yea or nay or a thumb up or a thumb down or -- (Sheriff Hunter indicated with his thumb up) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thumbs up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the record show that the sheriff indicated thumbs up. He's comfortable with it. He'll get his 28 deputies. MR. HCGILVRA: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're quite welcome. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a little help here because I'm not sure what that arrangement is, I guess. The -- The conversation I recall we had in June was none of us questioned the need for additional deputies. It was a matter of priorities, and maybe that's what you're talking about with the attrition, but we wanted to try to prioritize and cut some of that nine hundred and whatever thousand it was out, and maybe you and the sheriff have had that conversation, but he and I keep missing each other so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, it's -- it's in the county's general fund reserves. That's where the money is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a simple matter. If -- If he goes to full employment and has all these deputies on board, it's a simple matter of a budget transfer. But for accounting purposes, that's what we had asked to do, and that's the way it is handled. And I'm sure that if the time comes the sheriff needs that money to put deputies on the street, that certainly I, for one, am not going to vote no on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not either. So let me ask you so that I make sure I understand it. He's -- He's going to debit .... debit." Listen to me, debits and credits. I've been doing this all day. He's going to budget for attrition to the tune of 3 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And rather than reduce the millage rate, we're going to put it in the reserves. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And should he need it during the course of the year as he fills the positions, it's there to move over. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's just make it clear to the public that that money is in the budget, in the overall budget, and if -- if the sheriff needs it to spend on deputies, we'll put it in his bank account. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may have some questions on that, but we'll do that when we get to it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Maggio and then Ms. Ward. MS. MAGGIO: I think I too will wait with specific comments on beach parking fees, although I'm sure you know where I stand on it. But I think something happened yesterday that -- that should be brought out. There was an item on the consent agenda to purchase meters and to implement this program, and it was pulled off, and the board very correctly made a decision not to move forward with it because the budget had not been formally approved, and I think this board is to be commended for making that decision because I don't think you lost a whole lot of money if you don't start the parking -- If you're going to have fees, if you don't start them until October, November, you're not losing a lot of money because if only the tourists are going to pay it, they're not here yet. But what you've gained in -- in public perception is immeasurable because we have to know -- The budget process is governed by laws that are intended to see to it that the public has input, and if you're going to be, you know, doing these things, let's do it according to the law so that we, the taxpayers, can feel confident that you're doing everything above board and that we do, indeed, have a voice in the process. On -- On your consent agenda on July 25, there was an item for parking meter purchase and the hiring of personnel, and I had intended to address it at that time, but because of a misunderstanding, it didn't get pulled off the agenda, and as a result, it was passed, and I wrote a letter to the editor and had my say on it but I just thought -- you know, everybody comes down -- We always complain when things go wrong, but you made the right decision, and we'll see you on the 19th. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ward and then Ms. Tomlinson. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you ask, Emily, we'll sign the copy of the Naples Daily News in which you appeared, but you just have to catch her at the right moment. MS. WARD: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Marjorie Ward representing CABB which is a bi-county association, and I'm speaking for the people who are not only Collier residents, but those outside of Collier because all are concerned with the beaches which is our dedication and I'm -- I'm -- want -- Some of the things I want to address I figure would be helpful if you know now for the time that is coming up later. We also appreciate your voting yesterday to postpone any purchase of equipment for collection of beach parking fees prior to a vote to instigate the fees in the budget process. A few weeks ago an insert came in the Naples Daily News. It's the parks and recreation fall and winter booklet which on pages 45 and 46 had printed for each beach and boat launch park a fee by either an attendant or a master meter far in advance of your actual voting on the budget. So we feel this is just another example of putting the cart before the horse because someone's been so confident that this is going to occur that the commission has been bypassed. Whether or not residents like it, it is a fact that Collier as well as Lee County are dependent upon tourism to provide our economy which is one reason that our beaches are so important to Southwest Florida, all of Florida. However, even tourists can be overburdened with charges. They pay tourist development tax on expensive hotel accommodations, and this money, among other things, is used to help with your renourishment cost for the beaches. If these people have to pay to park at the beach -- and unless they are in a hotel that is on the beach, they are going to have to pay -- they might consider going elsewhere. Last week -- and this is what I wanted to give you an opportunity to know as soon as possible -- we toured all the beaches throughout Sarasota and Manatee Counties, and we found that there were no -- I repeat, no parking fees nor any charges to access the beaches. Many of these areas had wide, wide sand beaches and all the amenities, including lifeguards and picnic tables under the shade and playgrounds and rest rooms with showers, concessions, et cetera, with extensive parking areas and no charge, even free parking along the side of the street near the shoreline. One park alone we counted over 1,000 parking spaces. This is substantiated with some pictures of these areas. These are not professional photography by any means, but they do substantiate what we're talking about, place after place after place. And those we didn't take pictures, we even substantiated on the back, and these are going all -- all the way up the coast, and some of them are very, very beautiful. (indicating) With fees you are signalling tourists that they're unwelcome in Collier County. So if these people decide to transfer their lodgings to these areas where they are being welcomed and not nickel and dimed to death, how do you propose to even break even with the extensive costs of the master meters which just at the end of August were broken into at Bonita Beach at a very hefty cost. And whether they are meters or attendants, you need personnel to man the booths. You need a monitor to be sure that everyone who is in there has paid. This is a substantial added expense over and above regular maintenance and should be taken into consideration. Incidentally, in Lee County, maintenance is subsidized by TDC monies, and all the fees go into the general fund to be used wherever there's a shortfall. Now, if this sounds familiar to you, it sounds familiar to me with what we have been -- you have been talking about and having attended those preliminary budget hearings. It seems to us that the budget is actually being balanced or at least subsidized on the back of the beachgoers. We do not advocate fees on every Collier parking facility, but we also do not feel that the beachgoer should be responsible for paying for all the rest of any parking system expenses or the Collier budget. It was clear to me in attending your prebudget hearings on June the 19th and the 21st that these fees are intended to go into the general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up, please? MS. WARD: Hmm? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up? Your time's expired. MS. WARD: Yeah. I have one sentence. That's all. At a latter meeting, I did present 5,340 signatures opposed to fees, many of which were your constituents, who might not need to pay the fees, but they did, and they still do oppose them. We thank you for caring and I -- This isn't a threat, but I'll be back on the 19th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. WARD: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Tomlinson, then Miss Chenery. MS. TOMLINSON: Y'all are going to be buzzing me. I can feel it already. Mine's longer than it's supposed to be but I'm -- I'm going to address an issue that I think is very, very important and I think has kind of been thrown to the wayside, and I don't think that we've had an opportunity -- You've heard the pros for it and really haven't heard the cons for it, and that is the issue of Pelican Bay wanting the extra deputies. In April of 1991 Pelican Bay asked the sheriff and the Collier County commissioners to provide a level of law enforcement to them greater than that received by all the other county residents. At that time, the board after careful consideration voted unanimously to deny this request. This was done at a regular county commissioners meeting and was intensely criticized by many taxpayers. The arguments that the sheriff and Pelican Bay are using now are the same ones that were being used on May 21, 1991. There is no evidence that the present circumstances have changed since this decision four years ago. This is unprecedented and goes against two Attorney General opinions, one in 1979 and another one in 1990, which said you can't use public funds to benefit the private sector. The decisions you make regarding the sale of law enforcement to persons willing and able to pay will set precedents that will remain long after all of us, myself, the board, the sheriff, and the county manager, are gone. The effect will be far reaching, and these decisions once made will be difficult to reverse. A trend may be set that many will feel compelled to follow. Some questions need addressing such as, do we want people to feel they must create MSTUs to feel safe in their homes, and if they do not, their service is lacking? To offer an area of law enforcement and security services in excess of the rest of the county, shouldn't you be convinced there's a need? Pelican Bay was -- boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the county. If this is such a good idea, maybe the sheriff should receive all of his funding from MSTUs. Unfortunately these are difficult questions that require you, the commissioners of Collier County, to make this ethical and moral decision based on what you think is right for your county and your constituents. Pelican Bay has regular sheriff's patrols, extra off-duty deputies, the North Naples substation in their neighborhood, and full-time security. It is hard to believe that Pelican Bay wants its own city and their annexation yet deputies hired by Pelican Bay will help neighboring areas. There are no extra deputies to the county as a whole from this action. The sheriff still has to continue to provide present patrols to Pelican Bay, and new deputies will generate activity that requires backup from deputies in adjoining neighborhoods. Who determines what an emergency is that allows officers to leave? The Pelican Bay Property Owners Association wants to interview and screen deputies to be hired for Pelican Bay and have the right of approval and refusal. This creates an opportunity for corruption. No one picks their police. How can they fairly enforce the law when they're working directly for specific individuals? Will a deputy jeopardize his livelihood and arrest a Pelican Bay -- Pelican Bay board member for DUI? Pelican Bay is cutting back their security force. Will deputies perform security duties of the guards they're replacing, such as locking up their beach bar at night? Isn't this a drastic change in job description? The sheriff's figures cannot be accurate as to actual cost of deputies. If the figures he has given Pelican Bay are at no additional cost to the county, why is it that under his present budget deputies with the enormous amount of support staff necessary to run his office costs the county about $110,000 per deputy? I would contend when other areas willing and able to pay for deputies attempt to do the same, these figures will not be adequate to support the personnel required to assist these additional deputies. What happens now if another area of Collier County needs additional patrol? If you want anything extra, you have to pay for it. As far as the sheriff's concerned, the use of HSTUs for law enforcement releases him of accountability to the community. If you don't like the level of service he deems appropriate for your area, you better dig deep down in your pockets. We're a wealthy community, and we will pay for it if necessary. Fear will control the decision for HSTUs, and when we're afraid, we will agree to almost anything to feel safe again. It is the sheriff's job to provide all of Collier County with equal protection. Is it not double taxation to demand more taxes for a service that has already been paid for? I would hope this board would not allow a more intensified level of service to be offered to wealthief areas of the county who can afford to pay and not others. All citizens pay for law enforcement, and our public funds are the only reason there's a sheriff's office with the network, personnel, facilities, and capabilities to offer this intensified level or any additional law enforcement at all. The entire county does not benefit from this private use of public funds which is a direct violation of the state constitution, section one, article seven. The entire county assumes the liability for actions of officers hired only to benefit Pelican Bay, a wealthief, low-crime area. In 1991 Don Hunter could not support this. Now he's attempting to use skewed logic. As he stated in his August 30 Naples Daily News editorial, he wants to bring Pelican Bay up to the same level of service as higher crime levels -- crime areas such as East Naples -- Would y'all let me continue? I think this is a really important issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you can wrap it up in just a few seconds because we don't let people go over -- or try not to let people go over -- much over five minutes. MS. TOHLINSON: I mean, I think that this has not been fairly argued, and I think this is a really, really enormous decision that y'all are making that is not just something -- Well, let me try to finish as quickly as I can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. You're using your time up now. MS. TOMLINSON: I would contend that there is a higher level of service because of a greater number of calls for service due to a higher crime rate. If Don Hunter's logic holds, then more deputies does not mean less crime. Just ask the residents of these neighborhoods in Immokalee, Golden Gate, and East Naples being victimized daily. Do not set a precedent where the wealthy can buy a higher level of police protection. This simply creates a situation of the haves and the have nots. If the public school system allowed parents in wealthief school districts to create taxing units to pay for teachers with master's degrees and better teacher/student ratios in their school because they could afford it, would that serve the best needs of the community? I would suggest this not be done through public funds but private. Whatever the reason, this is not community policing. Throughout the country, this concept is -- is accomplished with existing departments, not by creating private police for wealthief communities willing to pay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss -- Miss Tomlinson, you're talking so fast, I can't even interrupt you. MS. TOMLINSON: But don't interrupt me, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Please, you're -- you're more than a minute over now. You've got to finish it. HS. TOHLINSON: Okay. I would suggest that you do a countywide MSTU for law enforcement. You -- For $25 additionally to each taxpayer, you could add 100 deputies countywide. Forget adding these extra 28. Do it countywide. Give everybody the benefit of extra deputies. If this is a problem, real or imagined, take care of it countywide. Do everybody a favor. Don't just do it for one area. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. HS. TOHLINSON: And -- And one other thing while I'm here. I'd like for you to take a moment because you have until September 20 to make your decision -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you -- Why don't you give that to Mr. Cuyler, and he'll hand them out to us. MS. TOMLINSON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we'll move on to the -- HS. TOHLINSON: Oh, I'm not allowed to do that. I'm sorry. Protocol. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to the next speaker. You're allowed to do it but we're -- HS. TOHLINSON: Okay. Well, the only thing I was going MR. CUYLER: Kathy. Kathy. MS. TOHLINSON: -- to say is if you could review these HR. CUYLER: Try to stay on the mike. HS. TOHLINSON: I talk so loud, you could hear me anyway. If you could review that, that is the minutes from that May 21 meeting, and I think it would give you an opportunity to reflect on how -- how serious this is. Anyway, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We will. Thank you. Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Chenery was the only other speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff Hunter, were you taking notes? MR. DORRILL: I can't recall. Were any members of this board seated in 1991 when this was discussed earlier? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I read the minutes though. MR. DORRILL: And Hiss Tomlinson, I'm sure you'll be quick to correct me if I'm mistaken but -- MS. TOHLINSON: I will. MR. DORRILL: I didn't think that you would. For purposes of complete disclosure to this board, none of whom were here in 1991, are you or were you the provider of private security services to Pelican Bay, and do you continue to own any or all of that company? Because at that time -- At that time with a different board, you did explain to that board that you owned and operated the private -- MS. TOMLINSON: Right. MR. DORRILL: -- security company that was under -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Tomlinson -- MR. DORRILL: -- contract to the foundation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- you need to come to the mike and put it on the microphone. MR. DORRILL: And since this board is not aware of that MS. TOHLINSON: Okay. MR. DORRILL: I think you need to understand that she owned '- MS. TOHLINSON: Wait. Let me -- I can explain that. MR. DORRILL: Okay. MS. TOHLINSON: At the time, my husband did private security for Pelican Bay when it was -- when the initial thing happened. We are no longer employed by Pelican Bay. We have not been since that point. Obviously at the time they were not pleased with my -- my discussion. I want you to know the reason that I am well versed in this, the reason that I have explored this far deeper than you ever would is because of the fact that it did deeply impact our lives. However, I am coming before you as a taxpayer. My husband is in law enforcement -- was in law enforcement and is now in private security. We've been around it. I went to law school for a certain -- a small amount of time and -- just enough to be dangerous. And the point here is not who I am or where I came from. The point is that if this wakes you up, it doesn't matter who I am. I'm a taxpayer. I pay taxes like everybody else and -- and it has nothing to do with my being here today. I think it's important enough. It doesn't affect me financially or anything -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Tomlinson, not you '- MS. TOHLINSON: -- yet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- nor your husband are currently connected with '- MS. TOHLINSON: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- a private security firm? MS. TOHLINSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, you are? MS. TOHLINSON: We have a private security firm, but, no, we are not at Pelican Bay. We have nothing to do with Pelican Bay security or anything to do with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Just Hiss -- For your information, we had a separate meeting in Pelican Bay where this was really the sole issue, and at that time I think '- MS. TOHLINSON: Well, you know, it's funny -- MR. DORRILL: -- it was widely advertised as was the meeting in 1991. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil, if you want to engage her in a '- MS. TOHLINSON: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- conversation on that, go ahead and do that, but let's get on with the public meeting. MS. TOHLINSON: Yeah. Okay. MR. DORRILL: I'd be happy to. MS. TOHLINSON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. TOHLINSON: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Miss Chenery. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Chenery, sorry to interrupt you when you were all set to go, but go ahead now. MS. CHENERY: I'm Mary Chenery, vice president of the Friends of the Museum, and I'm here to ask for your assistance. Sometime ago Mr. Hancock asked for us to give complete detail of the things we needed, and to the extent that you were able to with budget, you did help us. Then more recently through the tax program you were able to give some money for the cat that's coming, and it was given basically to the Marco Island Historical Society and also Charles Danray, but the program has been turned over to the museum. The monies that you provided are very explicitly taken care of, every penny. The problem that we're going to be running into are twofold, and we need some immediate help on it because November's not that far away. One of the things is the parking. We have very limited parking, even apart from the cat. The school buses come, and that little circular area is just not adequate. It's -- In fact, when they drop the handicap children off, the bus has to go on, and other people have to help them into the museum. So the parking -- There is parking, but it's divided away from us. We need a reconfiguration of that parking facility. It is important if the crowds come for the cat, but it also has been needed right along for the children, for the school buses, and the other people. Presently our people are using the parking lot -- particularly in the evening, the parking lot that your transportation and facilities people have across the street, and I'm afraid that that will be utilized whether we like it or not if we don't provide other parking. That is an $80,000 item. It's reconfiguration of the existing parking lots to provide increased handicap space, direct access to the internal roads, safe loading/unloading zone for the school buses, including lighting, curbs, stripe -- stripping and landscaping. I hope you can do something about it because I don't know what we'll do when the people come, and already we could be running into a problem with the school children. The other item is the lecture hall. That will be used extensively when the cat is here. The budget for that was thirty-five five. We got 5,000 which we're using from the -- from the cat money for the acoustical wall carpeting, wall trim, and molding. That's 1,000 short of what we need for it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, Mr. Cuyler, I realize you weren't probably listening there because you were talking to Mr. Weigel but -- MR. CUYLER: I was trying to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are those expenditures she just mentioned legal? I thought capital improvements are not allowed under category C, tourist development dollars. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: $5,000 for sound walls or something? MS. CHENERY: Yes. That -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And carpeting. Can you read that -- what -- what you just said again? MS. CHENERY: Acoustical wall carpeting, wall trim, and molding. You gave $5,000 -- Well, where is it on this thing? MR. CUYLER: Miss Gansel may need to help me out, but I think that I remember that that was -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's in the -- MR. CUYLER: Did we -- Did we exempt that as part of the approval of the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. CUYLER: -- Marco Cat situation? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was in the guidelines, not in the ordinance. MS. GANSEL: Yes, we did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we just topped it out of our guidelines. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we provided a waiver for it, yeah. MS. GANSEL: I didn't remember it as acoustical. I don't have my budget here. MR. CUYLER: There were -- There were some -- There were some changes to the museum of some sort that would have fallen under capital improvement definition. MS. CHENERY: The ones that are outlined in yellow. MS. GANSEL: The budget that was presented to the board, partition library walls, modified overhead lighting in the exhibit area, and the security upgrade, and those were presented and approved, and the resolution waived those capital guidelines -- MR. CUYLER: And the museums are a separate item under the statute. So the legality's okay. It was just the guidelines and following the guidelines issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Museums aren't included under our local ordinance. MR. CUYLER: They are not included under our ordinance. They're in the statute. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Today you're asking us for what? For -- specifically? MS. CHENERY: Two things. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To increase the budget for -- MS. CHENERY: The -- For the -- The parking lot situation is hottendons. Something has got to be done. And there is land but it's -- it's sectioned off. It had belonged to somebody else. It's just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt you? Mr. Dorrill, don't we have substantial parking within, like, a block and a half of the museum? MR. DORRILL: At the request of Mr. Jamro just last year, when we expanded the parking to include the -- that whole area for what I call the courthouse parking, which is essentially what it is, there's a separate area that was -- It's divided by the service road that goes to Wal-Hart that, frankly, was built for the exclusive use of museum parking. So when you -- When you said parking is hottendons, we were constrained by the historical parking in the loop driveway that drops people off at the front door, but then there is an adjacent parking lot, and there's a little -- I'll say there's ten feet or fifteen feet of Bahia sod, and then there is what I would call the auxiliary parking lot, but, frankly, that's really for the -- the use of the museum, and it's -- nine days out of ten probably has no one parking in it. MS. CHENERY: Well, it's because of the condition of it and the fact that -- MR. DORRILL: It's brand new. It was -- It was done -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This the big area to the south of the museum that -- MS. CHENERY: Southwest I would say. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Southwest. MS. CHENERY: I don't know. Southwest. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a brand new parking lot. MS. CHENERY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What may need to be done -- MS. CHENERY: But there's a big barrier. In other words, you can't access it without going out and back in, you know. It -- It really has to have some work done on it eventually. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can look at the relationship between that area and museum parking and see if better signage and maybe a wood-chip path or something can connect the two and do a better job. MS. CHENERY: If you could -- If you could take out all the shrubbery and that sort of thing and try to make some kind of an area to -- that we could go directly into it. There's great barriers there right now that don't have to be there. If that could be removed, we could very easily access that land from the driveway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I bet Skip Camp could come up with a way to achieve an increased access. MR. DORRILL: The intended purpose of the parking was for the museum, and if we could do anything at all to enhance that, we certainly will. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We'll -- Then we'll have our facilities director look at what we can do to enhance it and work with the board -- MS. CHENERY: Beautiful. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and see how we can better connect those two. MS. CHENERY: That would be wonderful. I'm very grateful for that. And now for the lecture hall? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How do you feel about one out of two? When we went -- When we went through the budget discussion on this, there was a lot of discussion about the amount of equipment being purchased for that lecture hall and this particular year's budget constraints, and I remember it wasn't something we necessarily wanted to do because we all recognized the acoustics were not great in that hall. And as a matter of fact, they were bad enough that we left. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We did. MS. CHENERY: Well, that's part of the things that needed to be done in that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the point is here I think for this budget hearing, it's a little late to start add -- trying to add things in to -- MS. CHENERY: Oh, these were things that were -- that we had submitted before. I'm just speaking -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- MS. CHENERY: -- on them because -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the thing is, the budget is pretty well set by this point in time, and we're just trying to -- MS. CHENERY: The lecture hall will be used extensively during that period. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's immaterial to the fact -- MS. CHENERY: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that we're here for a final budget hearing. MS. CHENERY: Well, we needed this before. You know, I -- I -- I know you have a hard job. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everybody needs a lot of things all the time -- MS. CHENERY: I can appreciate that. Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but the point is, tonight we're here to discuss the final tentative budget. It's not a very opportune time to start adding things in. MS. CHENERY: Well, they're not added. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is not the proper time, is all I'm saying. MS. CHENERY: We're just asking you to reconsider something we submitted before because -- I mean, we didn't ask for the cat. Marco did. And you people granted the money, and they dumped it on us because it should be at a museum, and our facilities aren't ready yet, and it is coming. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting you'd rather not have had the cat here when you say, "They dumped it on us''e I was under the clear impression that the entire historical neighborhood, community -- MS. CHENERY: We would dearly love -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my thought here. MS. CHENERY: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was under the impression that the entire historical community was behind this as very important to Southwest Florida, and now you're saying they just dumped it on you, and you didn't really want it? MS. CHENERY: No. That's not what I'm meaning at all. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's what you said. MS. CHENERY: What I'm saying is, we did not -- the museum didn't ask for it simply because we're not -- our facility is not completely ready for it. It's not that far away, and you people could make it possible. But the facility is something that the Marco Cat arrangement didn't take into consideration. We weren't even sure that they would get it. We weren't sure that it wouldn't put -- be put on Marco, but the Smithsonian insisted that it be at the museum, and you're making great alterations in the museum to house it. But what I'm saying is the parking is a problem. Thank you. I'm glad you can take care of that. But the lecture hall where we will be having -- We'll have great many speakers from all over the country, archaeologists that are very concerned about this, and there are -- yes, the acoustical situation has to be fixed. That's part of that 30,000. 30,000 isn't an awful lot of money, not on a big budget. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Miss Chairman, may I say something? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. You sure can. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we suggest -- This -- I tried to get my point across. I guess I didn't. This is not the time to talk about this. Why don't you bring it back -- get with our staff and bring it back as a regular agenda item and let's have a full discussion on it. We're having a budget hearing tonight. MS. CHENERY: Okay. Thank you. I will do that. Thank you all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Work with our staff on it, and if we can find a way to do it -- MS. CHENERY: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- possibly we will. MS. CHENERY: We're not trying to be difficult on it. We wouldn't be pressing if the time wasn't pressing. Thanks again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Again, just 30 seconds worth of history for this board. This particular project was originally conceived by the friends to be a gift to the county commission, but, frankly, aside from their good intentions, they underestimated the scope of the project, and you stepped in and finished the project with property tax money. And I don't mind meeting and going back through the friends process, but this was one of those well-intentioned things that they were going to do through private donations and whatnot, and I don't mind sitting down with the director and this fine lady and seeing if we can't redirect some of the project, but that's the history of this, and you've already helped them once, and I think the facility is adequate for what it was intended to be, and it could certainly benefit from some additional private donations or fund raising activity on part of the friends, and we all have great expectations for the museum next year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I need to excuse myself. I have another appointment at 6:30. I just didn't want to disappear without letting you know that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we're -- Thank you. We're completed with the public comment, are we not? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I make one comment before Commissioner Hac'Kie goes in reference to the sheriff's budget? In my mind, the question in the June hearings was never whether the sheriff should add 28 deputies if he saw that as appropriate or necessary. I think all of us agreed if the sheriff saw that, he knows what needs to be done in that department. What was the issue in June was -- it was a question of a matter of priorities, and he had put forth a specific budget and then asked for an additional $900,000. My recollection -- or 900-and-some-odd. My recollection of the debate was we were hoping the sheriff would come back with 900 and whatever thousand dollars it was in items that he felt were not as high a priority as those deputies, and I think it was Commissioner Norris who pushed that in particular who said it's a matter of priorities here and what the important things are and what aren't that created an incentive for the sheriff's department to come back with budget totals that perhaps were a little smaller. The reserve obviously was kept for us to hedge our bet. We don't have the ability to add it back in after the trim notices are sent. But by simply leaving it in the reserves and saying, well, when you need the deputies, come on back, we have completely taken away any incentive to cut any of those lower priorities out. I would suggest perhaps a better way of doing that is include the 28 new employees as part of that original total that was his initial budget and hold that $900,000 in reserve, and if there are other things that are lower priorities than the deputies later in the year that the sheriff finds he needs, he can come back and petition the board to go through the reserve, get money from the reserves at that time. But by simply leaving the money for deputies in reserve, you know, you might as well just put it in the budget anyway because if -- if it needs to be there, we're going to give it to him. I think that leaves an incentive in there to help cut the budget if you do it the other way around. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The way I remembered it was just that we had asked the sheriff to budget this 3 percent for attrition. He hadn't done that, and he had said the reason he wasn't doing it was because he was on an aggressive hiring program. And now I understand from what Commissioner Norris just said that he has agreed to budget the 3 percent for attrition, and that's all I understood to be an issue. And if he has agreed to do that, I don't know what -- I didn't remember it the way you did about prioritizing and cutting out $900,000, or whatever it was, worth of stuff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think I remembered it that way either. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know Commissioner Constantine made a suggestion, let's just cut the budget by the attrition amount, and let the sheriff decide what he hires or what he buys and doesn't do, but I think there was a balk at that by a few of us, and the result was, let's put it in reserves because we believe he's going to have attrition in his patrol deputies to match the 3 percent that's expected, and if he does, that money will be there at the end of the year. If he has a lower attrition rate than that, it still provides the sheriff the opportunity to keep those deputies on the road and to hire who he needs to hire, and his budget is still 4.6 percent increase. So my recollection is more along the lines of Ms. Hac'Kie's, and I think the arrangement that Commissioner Norris mentioned earlier accomplishes the attrition rate that we would set out to accomplish without hamstringing other things. I -- I -- I don't remember us saying we're going to pull a million dollars from it one way or another so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's what I said either, but apparently I need to go back -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't mean to characterize you. I was just trying to say -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently I need to go back and review those minutes because my recollection is different and could be wrong so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, two weeks you can review them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you leaving? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. (Commissioner Mac'Kie exited the board room.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: TAG supports the tax increase, and Commissioner Constantine could be wrong. Two firsts in one evening. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ooooh. Item #3E RESOLUTION 95-489, ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE HILLAGE RATES FOR FY 1995-96- ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are at the point in our agenda where we are ready to adopt a resolution for the tentative millage rate. Is there a motion? Is there any more that we need to do other than this at this point? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we adopt the tentative -- we adopt the resolution to adopt the tentative millage rate. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to adopt a resolution to adopt the tentative millage rate. MR. CUYLER: MAdam Chairman, just for your information, that's one of your latter documents. The exhibit is one of the former documents. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. They are on pages -- The two resolutions are on pages 33 and 34 in your packet. MR. CUYLER: And the attachments are earlier in the packet. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. All opposed? Motion passes 4-0 with Commissioner MAc'Kie being absent. Item #3F RESOLUTION 95-490 ADOPTING THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGETS FOR FY 1995-96 - ADOPTED COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I'll make a motion that we adopt the resolution to adopt the amended tentative budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I'm going to enter discussion at this point because the amended tentative budget includes the beach parking fees without an adequate discussion or a decision as to what we're going to do with the revenues from that or even that we're -- whether we're going to reinstitute them or not, and I'm going to have to vote no because we have not formally taken a policy statement on it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So will I. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why it's called a tentative budget as opposed to a final budget which we'll see in two weeks. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, you obviously need a majority vote to adopt your -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry? MR. CUYLER: You need -- You obviously need a majority vote to adopt your amended tentative budget, which is three votes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get Pam on the car phone. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's gone. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What happens? MR. CUYLER: Well, I'm going to have to get in the statute and find out what happens, but it's not good, whatever it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I -- What I sense is there is a potential spread here, a maximum of about a mill -- well, $900,000 if the majority of this board reversed its position on any support for beach parking fees. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I didn't -- Can you say that again? I didn't hear what you said. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just -- I was just trying to figure -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If it reverses its support for beach parking fees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the majority of this board reverses its support for the implementation of beach parking fees, we are then looking at about $700,000 there plus there's another 200,000 we found out tonight are not factored into the budget. So we're looking at a $900,000 spread. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll come up with it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's in the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I promise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's in the reserves if we -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It's in the reserves but my question -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I said, what -- what is in the reserves to cover it? Do we know? MR. CUYLER: Mike will answer the question, but I just want to point out that this is not the final answer on the budget obviously. In two weeks we have the final answer. If you still want to cut something, you still have that ability. You can't increase taxes, but you can still cut. So I -- I assume that this presentation on the 19th is going to do one of two things. Itws either going to convince you to leave it in, or itws not going to convince you, in which case youwll -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I said that rather flip, but Iwm serious, in that if that item is reversed from where it appears to be headed now, I am comfortable that we can come up with $900,000 in cuts from other items. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that -- Thatls why I was setting up the question, is that if -- if that figure is something we think that we can find elsewhere, then adopting the tentative budget as a whole doesnlt affect -- you know, negatively affect the process on the 20th. And the reason Iim saying this, trying to get a majority here so we donlt do something that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. My concern is -- is this. As I stated, Iim going to have difficulty voting to adopt the amended tentative budget, and I realize that itls tentative, but I donlt want to be listening to a discussion two weeks from now that says, well, gee whiz, Commissioner Matthews, two weeks ago you supported the tentative budget. Iim saying right now -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I make a suggestion? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that I support it with the exception of this one -- one piece, and I guess on the 19th weill decide that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So you are going to support the budget with that proviso? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With that proviso I can support the budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iim not going to, and tell you why, is that -- Understand that, you know, you donlt -- you donlt support that thing, but I canlt vote in favor of something that I donlt support and then just say, well, but if we donlt fix that, Iill -- Iill vote the other way in two weeks. I -- I canlt vote in favor of something that I clearly donlt support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe -- Maybe we need Mr. Cuyler to tell us what the result is of a 2-2 vote on this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Weill all go to bed without dinner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because I -- I agree with you. Fundamentally itls wrong. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While waiting for Mr. Cuyler, if -- if you were to vote for approval with a noted exception that there are items that -- outstanding that you still want to take a look at, I donlt know that any of us are going to arm-twist you on the 20th saying, yeah, but you approved it last time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, why donlt -- Why donlt we do this. Since it is a tentative budget, why donlt we take the beach parking fee program out of the budget, adopt it, if thatls what welre going to do on the 19th, and then on the 20th we can add it back. MR. CUYLER: Thatls an option that you have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can support that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, are you okay with that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, Iim not okay with that. This commission is just out of control. This -- This waffling has to stop. Welve gone too far in this process to have commissioners reversing their positions every two weeks or every two minutes on these issues. Welve got business -- public business to conduct. Itls time to do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This waffling has just got to stop. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I moved ahead knowing that the revenues for beach parking -- It was made very clear to me that the revenues for beach parking were a part of the budget. That's what we're being asked to approve now. And I understand, Commissioner Constantine, you don't agree with parking fees at all, and that's why you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- can't support it, but there was no misconception on my part about that being part of the tentative budget. If it's in category X instead of Y, if it's a semantic, then that's fine, but, you know, I -- I have to agree that that's nothing new to me, that it was part of the budget, that it was part of revenues. That was very clear to me so I -- I am a little -- You know, again, holding this whole process up for that point -- you know, I don't understand what it serves. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure, but I just want to make a note for the waffle record. I have opposed this each and every time consistently. So I'm not waffling the least bit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not waffling either in -- in that I have said consistently that I support the imposition of beach parking fees provided that the revenues are used to obtain and enhance additional parking and access. This budget doesn't do that. I'm not waffling. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the Mexican standoff continues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Cuyler is going to try to answer the question for us. MR. CUYLER: The statutes address what happens if you don't adopt your budget, and I assume we ultimately fall under those. You're going to -- This is an advertised public hearing. If you don't reach a conclusion, then you don't go to your final public hearing which means you have to re-advertise this hearing at some point if you can't reach a conclusion which means ultimately we're not going to meet our time frames which kicks us into the not-adopted budget statutes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is nothing that prohibits us -- I think you just answered this, but I need to make sure. There's nothing that prohibits us if that item is removed from tonight's budget in order to get a majority vote from putting that back in the final if a majority of the board decides to do that? MR. CUYLER: That's correct, because you're not increasing any taxes above what you have already notified on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the irony. If I take the position that my colleague is taking, I don't want to remove something that I agree with. Then we go nowhere. You don't want to agree with something that you have questions about, and I don't want to remove something I agree with. You know, it's a tentative budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to call Commissioner MAc'Kie and see if she'll come back? MR. CUYLER: There is a provision in here for -- if due to circumstances beyond the control of taxing authority, which I don't think this is but may be, which provides for a newspaper advertisement stating the time and place for continuation of the hearing. But, again, that's going to throw your time frames off because your second public hearing is key time-wise to your first public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's time to play adult. To move this thing off center, Commissioner Norris, I'll -- I'll make this comment. Maybe you and I will discuss it. If we approve it with the beach parking fees removed and I note for the record my exception to it, that at this time next week -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two weeks. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- two weeks from now, that unless some dramatic, new evidence is presented, I will not support the budget unless the beach parking fees are in it. You know, if that moves us off center, you know, and gets us where we need to go, fine, but, you know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a motion on the table? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: budget. We have a second. Yes. We have -- We have a motion -- There was a motion and a second. -- to adopt the amended tentative The wording of the amended tentative budget, two of us have said that we are not going to support the motion. I'll call the question and get a 2-2 vote, or we can withdraw the second and get a different motion withdrawing the beach parking, whatever it is, but right now we have a motion on the table and a second, and if I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: to fail. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then call the question. -- call the question, it's going Then call the question. Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? Motion -- I believe it fails on a 2-2 because we don't have three. MR. CUYLER: You did not adopt it, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there another motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, did you want to fashion -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that into some -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to be careful with this, that I don't -- you know, I don't turn around and have to fight for something that, in my opinion, this board agreed to move ahead with in some form or fashion. You know, to put myself in the position that I have to fight and scrap for something that the majority of this board told our staff to proceed with I think is procedurally wrong. And, Commissioner Constantine, I exempt you. You've been opposed from day one. Fine. But I think to procedurally hold this thing hostage at this point is incorrect. And since I refuse to play that game, I'm going to propose that we adopt the amended budget with the -- and help me with this, Mike, so we do this correctly -- with the -- I'll state it this way -- temporary elimination of the revenues produced from beach parking fees with the noted exception that, you know, I agree with the budget as presented here, and I'm doing this only to get this thing to next week. That's the motion. Is there any problem with that motion, Mr. Cuyler? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we have"temporary"? I mean, it's -- either it's in or it's out as far as this week. I don't know if the word "temporary" is going to work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It would be -- It would be out for now, and our advertisements -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we can put it back in. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- in the newspaper would be based on it being out, but obviously you still have your -- both a regular agenda at this point and a final public hearing in which you're going to need to make a final decision, and there's no statutory reason that you could not reinstitute it on September 20. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, you're putting me in a position of being tagged someone who's trying to raise expenses two weeks from now because you have some questions that aren't answered, and that's uncomfortable for me. I know how it shows up in print, and I don't appreciate that. You know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, a few moments ago I was saying I felt I was being tagged the same way if I was being asked to support something that -- while I don't -- I don't not support beach parking fees, I -- I -- I do not support those revenue fees being in the general fund which this budget is built around. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if the majority of this board in two weeks says that those funds should not be there and a change occurs, then we have reduced the overall expenses in the general fund, and that isn't seen as something that's bad. But if I'm put in a position to make a motion to increase what -- over what was advertised, you know, I'm going to get tagged. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I think the -- I mean, you've hit on the key there, is what the majority decides in two weeks. I mean, whatever the majority decides, the majority decides. That's an old Cuylerism. But with -- I mean, if -- if we're at odds because it's a strange 2-2 today, so be it. And if -- I think considering how the past hearings have gone, you will likely come out on the winning end of this issue, and I won't. But I think if for some reason the majority decided to do otherwise in two weeks, then it's still a majority and -- and -- But, I mean, whatever happens in two weeks, it takes three votes to get it. So the key is going to be what happens then and what the majority decides then regardless of which is done today. I realize you don't want to put yourself in a spot, but I think you've made your stand very clear, and it's up to the remainder of the board, and I've made my stand equally clear. It's up to the remainder of the board to form a majority around one of those. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately the difference between a clear stance and it being portrayed clearly are two very different things. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: True. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To help you with this, do you -- would you -- do you want Mr. Cuyler to help you with the crafting of this so that we have an unambiguous motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think it's possible for me to agree to something that's less than unambiguous at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Have you made a motion then -- Are you making a motion that we exclude the beach parking program from the adopted tentative budget with the full knowledge that it may very well be put back in in two weeks? Is that what your motion is? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Scrap my first motion. I'll make it simple. I move that we adopt the amended tentative budget with the removal of the funds generated by beach parking fees, noting that you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll be bringing this up in two weeks. That's the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to adopt an amended tentative budget that excludes the beach parking program. MS. BILES: No. No. Revenues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Revenue -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I stated the motion clearly. It's on the record. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a second. I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion -- Motion passes 3-1, Commissioner Norris in the opposition. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Matthews, since you may be the -- the swing or the deciding vote on this, there -- there are going to be two alternatives. Your concern, as I understand it, is that there are excess revenues over expenses directly attributable to the beach program in the parks and recreation department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To the beach parking revenues less the expenses to generate those beach parking revenues. MR. DORRILL: Okay. But -- But, otherwise, the entire parks and recreation department is in the general fund and has -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. DORRILL: -- always been in the general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. DORRILL: So between now and when this issue comes up again, could you be satisfied if the revenues, the excess revenues, are transferred into, say, the park's capital fund so that they don't accrue to the benefit of the general fund side of the ledger but the -- the excess revenues, or do you want them out entirely? Because what I understood you to say was that you support beach parking fees CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, I do. MR. DORRILL: -- but not in an amount higher than the cost directly attributable to beach parking and rangers and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. DORRILL: -- and all that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. That's not -- That's not what I've said. What I've said is I support beach parking fees, but the excess revenues generated beyond the cost to collect those revenues should -- should -- and I've felt this way from the beginning -- go to some dedicated source, i.e., additional beach parking or beach access. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Which would be fund 306. So that if I -- I took the difference here -- What's the difference? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Five seventy-nine. MR. DORRILL: If I took the difference being five seventy-nine and transferred it into fund 306 for the express benefit of beach parking or access expansion or enhancement, you then would -- would be satisfied in that case? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd have no problem with that. Now -- Now, we have the other question of the -- MR. DORRILL: And then, in turn, because we use this revenue to balance the general fund, there will be an ensuing decrease to general fund contingencies by that same 530-odd-thousand dollar amount. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Unfortunately I understand that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we do the convincing maybe outside of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this public hearing? You can sit down with the chair. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think -- I think Mr. Dorrill and I probably need to sit down and talk about this. He needs to sit down, I believe, and talk with -- with Commissioner Hac'Kie about it because, according to the minutes that I've read, she's got the same concern. MR. DORRILL: I just -- I just want to have something on the record and available for you to evaluate at the final hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's talk about it in the next couple of days. Item #3G ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROPOSED MILLAGE RATES AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX RATES Next item on the agenda is the announcement of the proposed millage rates and percentage changes in property tax rates. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. The general fund, the proposed millage rate, 3.4889, a decrease of 1.1 percent below the rollback; pollution control, .0506 mills, 6.6 percent below the rollback millage rate for a total countywide millage rate of 3.5395 mills, 1.2 percent below the rollback rate. In aggregate, 4.2486 mills, .08 percent below the rollback millage rate. And that is what we -- we will be advertising as required by trim law -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- is a slight tax decrease. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. We all like to hear that. And item -- The last item on the agenda is the announcement of the final public hearing which -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Item #3H FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 MR. SMYKOWSKI: The final hearing will be in this room at 5:05 on Wednesday, September 20, two weeks from tonight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the public hearing remains open -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- until that time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, before closing, I will hope rather than just saying that we are going to remove $579,000 from -- What was the category? What was the name? MR. DORRILL: General fund contingency. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- From contingencies, that maybe in the next two weeks, you might want to take a look at the budget and see if you can find commensurate reductions throughout the budget for that $579,000. That's merely a request. You have no obligation to honor it, of course. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Perhaps Mr. Dorrill can help us find ways to do that. We're adjourned. We'll continue the public hearing until September the 20th. Thank you. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 6:47 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR