BCC Minutes 09/20/1995 B (Budget)BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 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 5:10 p.m. in SPECIAL BUDGET SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Leo Ochs, Acting County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to call to order the
second and final budget hearing for Collier County, Board of County
Commissioners. This is Wednesday, September the 6th -- I'm sorry,
September the 20th, 1995.
Mr. Ochs, are you going to take us through this?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Begin with the invocation.
Heavenly Father, as we gather here this evening to adopt the final
spending plan for fiscal year 1996, we give thanks to the dedicated
efforts of our elected leaders and our county staff for the untiring
work that they've put into this budget process during the summer
months. We pray that the actions and final decisions made this
evening will be a reflection of your will for the betterment of our
entire community, and we ask these things in your son's holy name.
Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you for getting us started.
I didn't see the new agenda. It's behind my old agenda.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome. Good evening, Madam
Chairman, members of the board. I'll just make one quick opening
housekeeping reminder and then turn it over to Mr. Smykowski. Any
members of the public that wish to speak on any issue this evening, we
have slips that you could fill out and bring up to the front desk. Out
in the hallway we have some extras here as well. With that, Madam
Chairman, I'll turn the event over to Mr. Smykowski.
Item #3A
DISCUSSION OF HILLAGE RATES FUNDING THE 1996 BUDGET
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Smykowski.
HR. SHYKOWSKI: Good evening. For the record, Hichael
Smykowski, acting budget director. Our first order of business is a
discussion of the millage rates funding the 1996 budget. The general
fund proposed millage rate is 3.4889, is a 1.11 percent decrease below
the rollback millage rate; for pollution control, .0506 mills. That's
6.6 percent below the rollback millage rate. And that was principally
a function of changes that -- decisions the board made during the
program budget process in reducing some of the programs within that
department for a total countywide millage rate of 3.5395, a decrease
of 1.2 percent below the rollback millage rate.
Road district number 1, fund 102, has a proposed millage
of .1458 mills, 358.5 percent increase above the rollback rate.
That's due to an additional 15 lane miles proposed for resurfacing in
that district in FY '96 of which the bulk would be on Marco Island and
also a result of a decrease in available carryforward revenue.
Road district 3, fund 104, it's .1006; that's a 93.8
percent increase. Again, there's some additional paving proposed here
as well as some lime rock road materials for the -- in the Golden Gate
Estates area.
The next districts with a proposed increase is the Marco
Island beautification, .1712 mills, 19.2 percent increase over the
rollback rate. That's a function of a decrease in carryforward
revenue as well as the proposed purchase of a water truck for that
district.
Pine Ridge Industrial Park, .2746 mills, a 24.4 percent
increase for their anticipated increase in the cost of contracted
aquatic plant control within the industrial park this year as well as
a decrease in carryforward revenue.
Golden Gate Parkway beautification levy is a half a mill
on an annual basis, and there's a slight increase in operating costs
due to the contractor default this year. That's one-half of 1 percent
increase above the rollback rate.
Naples Production Park, .3827 mills, 88.9 percent
increase above the rollback rate. This, as discussed previously, is a
function of the indirect -- there not being sufficient cash available
to make the indirect service charge payment to the general fund, so
that payment is rolled over into FY '96.
Isle of Capri Fire, .6949 mills, 169.2 percent increase.
That's due to two things; principally a lease purchase of a pumper
truck and the transition from a volunteer to a paid department.
Ochopee Fire, 3.2390 mills, 18 percent increase above
the rollback rate, and that's principally due to the purchase of 800
megahertz radios as well as a -- the addition of a supervisory
position within that fire district for fire prevention and training.
Lely Golf Estates levies 1.5 mills. That's a
seven-tenths of 1 percent increase above the rollback rates. That's
principally a function of a decrease in available carryforward
revenue.
The Immokalee beautification district, .2972 mills, 6.3
percent increase above the rollback rate. And that's for the first
phase of improvements along State Route 29.
Finally, Pelican Bay MSTBU, .2920 mills, 209.3 percent
above the rollback rate, and that's a function of the sheriff's
security proposal within Pelican Bay.
Item #3B
DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET
The next order of business is a discussion of the
further amendments to the tentative budget. Those begin on page 3 in
your package under 3 (B). Basically what I've done is -- items that
are in boldface have changed since the first public hearing. I'll
just walk you through those. The general fund we'll talk about
individually.
Clerk of Courts has changed, and that's as a result of
the fees component of his budget being submitted September 1st in
compliance with state law.
The Isle of Capri Fire, no net change to the fund total,
but there was a change requiring due to a classification of the
firefighters, the part time being classified as regular part time
requiring the payment of retirement benefits, so we -- we had a slight
change. We reduced operating expenses and capital outlay slightly to
fund that retirement cost within that district.
The OCPM fund is being reclassified to an internal
service fund, so the entire budget in fund 189 is being reduced, and
conversely you'll see it under item 589, just a change in the fund
number, no change to the budget itself, though.
The public guardianship trust fund, the only change
there is appropriations that were budgeted are shifted to a transfer.
This was affected by the decision to shift the court functions into
administration by the 20th Judicial Circuit as opposed to being under
the county manager.
Under fund 195, the beach renourishment fund, we
budgeted the additional penny that was added to fund the beach
project.
On page 4, the public records modernization, that's a --
a clerk fees supported budget. Again, that's submitted September 1st
in compliance with state law. There was no net change to the gas tax
revenue bond, but there was a slight adjustment to the debt service
amount and the reserves based on the refinancing.
The parks construction fund, 306, that's -- that was
revised slightly for forecast expenditures in FY '95. In addition,
due to receipt of the donation from Mr. Sugden toward the Lake Avalon
park, that revenue is now budgeted with a corresponding amount
budgeted for park improvements, the half million dollars.
The next series of changes from fund 313 through 340 are
basically your roads capital program, and that was a function of
revising our forecast expenditures in '95 for items that are or are
not under contract at this point. Obviously if they're not under
contract at this point, we assume they will not be by year end, so
we've just increased our carryforward revenue and rebudgeted the
projects in the -- in FY '96. In addition, we've made some slight --
some changes within -- within those budgets to have the budget be
equivalent to the first year of your ten-year road -- road plan. The
budget in the road plan obviously should be in balance. What we've
done is made internal changes within those funds to bring the road
plan and the -- and the budget into balance. The road plan through
the AUYR will be brought to the board for review in early October, so
the board will obviously have an opportunity to make any changes at
that point both in the -- through the AUYR process as well as in terms
of approving any proposed contractual improvement -- road
improvements. So you'd have two opportunities to review each of those
prior to any expenditures being made within any of those funds.
The EMS impact fee fund, there was just a slight
adjustment with additional funds required for the North Naples EMS
station, a function of just updated engineering estimates for the
project.
Water and sewer capital as well fall into that -- into
that category of revising our anticipated expenditures for FY '95,
rebudgeting projects that would not -- that are not under contract at
this point in FY '96.
OCPM, again, as I indicated earlier, as being
reclassified to an internal service fund, so the budget that was
previously reflected under fund 189 is the same identical budget term,
just under a different fund number.
Pages 6, 7, and 8 identify a summary of changes to the
general fund tentative budget and basically fall into one of four
categories: One, the shift of the court system from the county
manager to the circuit; two, beach parking being added back in and a
payment to the City of Naples for their share of the -- for their
beach parking program.
There were some internal changes, no net increase in
terms of dollars. Some of the functions have been shifted from like
support services, for instance. The public information office
previously under support services is going to be a function of the
county manager's office in the upcoming year. The county security
previously funded under the court system will now be under support
services in facilities management. The Q-plus program previously
housed in the OMB office is going to be integrated into the human
resources department. And mail operations, which is -- which was one
component of the public affairs office, is being redirected to
purchasing.
The final category, I guess, broad category, was in the
electricity budget. As you all know, on the campus there was a -- FPL
had made a billing mistake going back to the original billing for the
campus. As a result of that change, the electricity for the campus
site is going from 330,000 to $551,000 on an annual basis due to that
change. And as a function of timing, we had just budgeted the -- the
$221,000 margin within the refunds category prior to the release of
the tentative budget. All I've done at this point is allocated that
out across the various cost centers within the divisions, and that --
that summarizes the changes.
One -- one note as well on the tax collector's budget,
we received notification from the state. The state had made some
slight adjustments to the tax collector's budget decreasing his
operating expenses $40,000, adding slightly to personal services, but
it -- so that will result in -- while his expenses go down, in
essence, his turnback will go up, so there will be no net change to
his budget. I just wanted you -- that change is not in the package.
We just received that this afternoon. But for the purposes of
adoption of the final budget, obviously we'd like to include the final
adopt -- adopted budget as adopted by the state for the tax collector.
Item #3C
WRAP-UP ITEMS
That concludes the discussion of further amendments to
the tentative budget. Under 3-C is wrap-up items. Staff did not have
any wrap-up items that they were going to address this evening, so
that would bring us to item 3-D on the agenda which is public comments
and questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there questions for as
far as we've gone? Don't seem to be any.
Item #3D
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Let's go to public comments. Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, we have four registered speakers
this evening. The first one is Mr. Balch followed by Miss Tomlinson.
MR. BALCH: My name is Niles Balch. To qualify what I
have to say tonight, I'd like to state I am a retired New York state
trooper. I was in the New York State police for over 21 years, 7
years as a road trooper and over 14 years as a criminal investigator
with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. I'm here tonight to object
my -- or to voice my objection to the use of taxpayer funded public
police officers as private police officers in certain areas of our
community based on the community's ability to pay.
As we know, there are several affluent communities
within Collier County such as Quail Creek, Wyndemere, Windstar, and
Eagle Creek, to name a few. What do you say to these communities when
they request the same services and are willing to pay the same or
maybe even more? Once the precedence has been set, how do you say no?
Or do you just continue on selling better and more services based on
the ability of the community to pay? What happens to the rest of us
middle-class taxpayers and the level of protection and the police
services that we will receive?
I understand that some of the homeowners in Pelican Bay
don't feel that they are receiving the level of service and protection
they deserve based on the amount of taxes they pay. Anyone who has
ever been involved in public safety knows that this is -- this case is
across the country. Anyplace you go, lower income areas always get
more fire, police, and ambulance service. And that's a social problem
which we aren't going to be able to solve -- solve here with this. And
that certainly won't get solved by more affluent areas being able to
buy extra police protection.
I live on a private road with 11 homes on it. I lived
in my home for over seven years, and I know of a sheriff's deputy on
my street three times in that seven years, once for a house fire and
once when my wife called because two unknown men in a van with
out-of-state Texas plates on the vehicle were walking around the
neighbor's property. My wife called the sheriff's department. When
the deputy responded he made no attempt to I.D. The subjects or even
to obtain the plate number of the vehicle. They were driving -- he
just advised my wife -- just advised them that my wife had complained,
and they were trespassing. Due to this I had a burglar system
installed in my home at great expense to me and plus the $24
monitoring fee that I pay a month.
I in no way believe -- do believe that this is a just
and proper or possibly even legal precedence to set. I'm against it,
as I feel most people in Collier County would be if they were made
properly aware of this. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. OCHS: Hiss Tomlinson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who follows Hiss Tomlinson?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Kerrilan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kerrigan.
MR. OCHS: Kerrigan, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Kerrigan. Okay.
MS. TOHLINSON: Well, I'm back. In April of '91 Pelican
Bay asked the sheriff and the Collier County Commissioners to provide
a level of service to them greater than that received by all other
county residents. At that time the board unanimously denied this
request. There is no evidence that the present circumstances have
changed any since this decision four years ago.
Since our meeting on -- since your meeting on September
6th, 1995, I researched and found a countywide HSTU for law
enforcement in Brevard County. I sent you all a copy of the
ordinance. All that is required is a public hearing and a vote by you
to enact this ordinance. I also provided a copy of this to Neil
Dotrill last week. He indicated that he would be late for this
meeting. However, he wanted me to convey to you his new reservations.
He informed me that he was no longer convinced that the
proposed method of providing Pelican Bay with deputies was the best
thing to do. Mr. Dotrill was concerned about several things. He felt
other areas would want to have their own deputies, and it would be
difficult to deny them the same opportunity as Pelican Bay regardless
of their size or need. Mr. Dotrill also indicated that he thought it
might be better to enact a HSTU for law enforcement by district as
opposed to by neighborhood. It was also his opinion that heightened
law enforcement throughout the county benefitted all areas.
I would suggest you are the only -- you're only as good
as your weakest link. I also discussed the fact that if you decided
to investigate this and take action at a later date, that Pelican Bay
had demonstrated no immediate need for these deputies. Their crime
rate is one of the lowest in the county, and there is no reason to
rush this decision.
These questions need to be addressed: Do we want people
to feel they must create HSTUs 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? And if this is such a
great idea, maybe the sheriff should receive all his funding from
HSTUs.
Pelican Bay has regular sheriff's patrols, extra
off-duty deputies, the North Naples substation in their neighborhood,
and full-time security. Although it is their contention that the
other neighborhoods will not suffer from this, Naples Park has already
lost its substation to Pelican Bay, and deputies throughout their
district would respond as backup to Pelican Bay's deputies.
Who determines what an emergency is that allows officers
to leave? It is my understanding that 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 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 beach bars at night?
Mr. Dotrill and I discussed the possibility that the
figures that the sheriff has given for the cost of the additional
deputies could be inadequate when faced with numerous other areas
wanting the same. The support personnel required to assist a large
number of additional deputies can be very costly. 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 a network, personnel, facilities, and
capabilities to offer this intensified or any additional law
enforcement at all.
You are the sheriff's only checks and balances. How can
the program start in ten days? Personnel must be trained and hired
and certified. That normally takes several months. Is the sheriff
supplying Pelican Bay with deputies on the road in Collier County, and
the county will have to operate with a void until new officers are in
place? Where are the 28 deputies the sheriff's asked for going? If
there is a need in Pelican Bay and you feel like they have a
justification for this, why not allocate some there?
The entire county does not benefit from this private use
of public funds. The entire county assumes the liability for actions
of officers hired only to benefit Pelican Bay. If Pelican Bay doesn't
like the public schools in their district because they don't meet the
standards or level of service their children deserve, do they hire
more teachers than the rest of the county?
Law enforcement is not like street lighting or
maintenance. You cannot measure it. You can -- your safety and the
safety of your family is highly emotional, and you will pay for it at
any cost. Whatever the reason, this is not community policing.
Throughout the country this concept is accomplished within existing
departments, not by creating private police for wealthy communities
willing to pay. If you feel therews a need, real or imagined, for
additional road patrol deputies, create a countywide MSTU for law
enforcement and provide the entire county with the luxury of
additional officers patrolling their streets.
According to Don Hunterws figures, for a cost of about
$25 per taxpayer you can hire an additional hundred deputies
countywide. Now thatws something that would benefit everybody and not
just a few. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Kerrigan.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Just as hels coming up, Mr.
Ochs-- youlre -- not that Mr. Dorrillls opinion is the controlling
factor anyway, but as his designated speaker, did he ask you to give
us any information about his opinion on the sheriffls Pelican Bay
budget?
MR. OCHS: No, he did not.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thank you.
MR. KERRIGAN: Hi, my name is Bill Kerrigan.
president of the Poinciana Civic Association, and Iim treasurer of the
Second District Association, but Iim not here representing them. But
in those capacities I do get around, and I do hear from the sheriff. I
hear from everybody else. And, quite frankly, the problem we have is
therels not enough road patrol deputies, period.
Establishing a special taxing district in Pelican Bay is
not going to solve that. From what I hear at various meetings, and
you -- some of you have been in attendance at them, call after call
for deputies are primarily taken up on misdemeanors or complaints that
are smaller than that. This is not going to give people equal
protection or free somebody up for the kid thatls riding down on a
motorcycle without a helmet or muffler on there. And when you call
you wait 45 minutes for somebody to show up. You know, sure if 0. J.
Is looking in your window with a bloody glove the sheriffs are going
to show up, but on most of the calls that you want them there, theylre
not there.
So I think the point that was made, that we have a
countywide MSTU, raise everybodyls level of protection and service up
is what we need to go for. This is a band-aid thatls just not
necessary. And, quite frankly, I donlt think it would hold up to any
kind of court challenge, I mean, you know, if this came in. I mean,
this is not providing equal protection to everybody. Itls -- itls
just a waste of time. Letls raise up our level of service to
everybody. So thatls my opinion. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Miss Payton.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think thatls the final speaker.
MR. OCHS: Yes, malam.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton. I came to say thanks in
support --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you bring anybody with you,
Nancy?
MS. PAYTON: I always seem to be a lone ranger on this
issue about the animal control budget and the need for additional
kennel help up there and a concern that I've had for many years since
I've lived here is we need to develop a database, that there are no
demographics in this county on animals. And last week I listened to a
presentation by Jeff Perry on our buildout or anticipated buildout.
Optimum, I guess, however you want to look at it, 800,000 people here,
both seasonal and permanent. And based on that we're going to be
dealing with an awful lot of animals. We're going to be dealing with
almost a million animals based on a formula that's been prepared by
the American Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal
Control Association as well as Tuft's University's Center for Animals
and public policy, which offers a masters in that issue, if you want
to talk about esoteric endeavors.
That's -- that's almost a million animals, 960,000
animals that potentially we're going to have to be dealing with, and
10 percent of those will go through our shelter. So that's 96,000
animals. We're going to be dealing with a shelter that's totally
inadequate now and -- when we have those demographics, areas that need
to be addressed, problem areas, trends. So thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Gee, that's nice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And unusual.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I think all
four of you are familiar with my thoughts on the Pelican Bay police
force funding. I repeat them. I will note my objection to that.
Item #3E
RESOLUTION 95-539 AMENDING THE ADOPTED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: However, that notwithstanding, I'll
turn to page 9 in our agenda, which is item 3, and make a motion we
pass the resolution to amend the adopted tentative budget.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is
there further discussion?
There being none, all those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #3F
PUBLIC READING OF HILLAGE RATE RESOLUTION
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hadam Chairman, on page 62 is
item 3-F which would be -- we need to go back through the public
reading, or did you cover that, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, but consolidation of lighting
districts will make this a little much easier task than it was a year
ago.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are now going to proceed with
the public reading of the millage rates?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, the millage rate resolution
and the rates themselves, the resolution adopting the millage rates to
be levied for fiscal year 1995-'96.
Whereas, Section 200.65, Florida Statutes provides the
procedure for fixing millage rates; and,
Whereas, Section 129.03, Florida Statutes, sets forth
the procedure for preparation and adoption of the budget; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners has received
and examined the tentative budgets for each of the county's funds;
and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners has prepared
a statement summarizing all of the adopted tentative budgets which
includes for each budget the proposed tax millages, the balances, the
reserves, and the total of each major classification of receipts and
expenditures; and,
Whereas, on July 25th, 1995, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted Resolution Number 95-434 approving the county's
proposed millage rates and setting public hearings for adoption of the
final millage rates; and,
Whereas, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes,
an advertised public hearing was held on September 6, 1995, at 5:05
p.m., and Resolution Number 4 -- Number 95-489 was adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners adopting tentative millage rates, and
Resolution 95-490 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
adopting the tentative budgets for fiscal year 1995-'96; and,
Whereas, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes,
a second advertised public hearing was held on September 20th, 1995,
at 5:05 p.m., to finalize the FY 1995-'96 budget and adopt the millage
rates in accordance with Sections 129.03 (3) (c) and 200.065 (2) (d),
Florida Statutes.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the millage rates as
set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein are
hereby adopted as the millage rates for fiscal year 1995-'96 pursuant
to Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statutes.
This resolution adopted after motion, second, and
majority vote favoring same.
On page 63 I'm going to go through the funds, proposed
millage rates, and the changes above or below rollback. The general
fund 001, the millage rate, 3.4889, 1.1 percent below the rollback
rate; water pollution control, fund 114, .0506 mills, 6.6 percent
below the rollback millage rate for a total countywide millage rate of
3.5395, 1.2 percent below the rollback rate; road district 1, fund
102, .1458 mills, 358.5 percent above the rollback rate; road district
2, fund 103, .0500 mills, 6.4 percent below the rollback millage rate;
road district 3, fund 104, .1006 mills, 93.8 percent above the
rollback millage rate; road district 4, fund 106, .0523 mills, 81.1
percent below the rollback millage rate; unincorporated area general
fund 111, .6101 mills, 1.6 percent below the rollback millage rate;
Golden Gate Community Center, fund 130, .3912 mills, 1.4 percent below
the rollback millage rate; Marco Island beautification, fund 131,
.1712 mills, 19.2 percent increase above the rollback rate; Pine
Ridge Industrial Park, fund 140, .2746 mills, 24.4 percent increase
above the rollback rate; Victoria Park drainage, fund 134, .8545
mills, 14.8 percent decrease below the rollback rate; Golden Gate
Parkway beautification, fund 136, one-half mill, and that's one-half
of 1 percent increase above the rollback rate; Naples Production Park,
fund 141, .3827 mills, 88.9 percent increase above the rollback rate;
Isle of Capri fire, fund 144, .6949 mills, 169.2 percent increase
above the rollback rate; Ochopee fire control, fund 146, 3.2390 mills,
18 percent increase above the rollback rate; Collier County fire, fund
148, 2 mills, 6.4 percent decrease below the rollback rate; Sabal Palm
Road HSTU, fund 151, 5.6570 mills, one-tenth of 1 percent decrease
below the rollback rate; Lely Golf Estates Beautification, fund 152,
1.5 mills, seven-tenths of 1 percent increase above the rollback rate;
Hawksridge storm water pumping HSTU, fund 154 is .2321 mills, 57.8
percent decrease below the rollback rate; Forest Lakes roadway and
drainage HSTU, fund 155, .3946 mills, 16 percent below the rollback
rate; Immokalee beautification HSTU, fund 156, .9272 mills, 6.3
percent increase above the rollback rate; parks GOB debt service, fund
206, .0688 mills, 5.5 percent below the rollback rate; Marco Island
coastal beach renourishment, fund 207, .7533 mills, 4.8 percent
decrease below the rollback rate; Isle of Capri municipal rescue, fund
224, .2288 mills, 9.7 percent decrease below the rollback rate;
Collier County lighting, fund 760, .1982 mills, 26.2 percent decrease
below the rollback rate; Marco Island lighting, fund 775, .0765 mills,
N/A; Pelican Bay HSTBU, fund 778, .2920 mills, 209.3 percent increase
above the rollback rate. That brings us to an aggregate millage rate
of 4.2486 mills, which is a decrease of .08 percent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: You're welcome.
Item #3G
RESOLUTION 95-540 SETTING THE MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are now at the point of our
agenda to adopt a resolution setting the millage rates.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion that we adopt
that resolution of setting the millage rates.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, noting my one
objection, I will second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
adopt a resolution setting the millage rate. Is there discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #3H
RESOLUTION 95-541 ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET BY FUND FOR 1995-96 -
ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we adopt a resolution adopting the fiscal year ninety -- '95-1996
final budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
adopt a resolution that adopts the final budget for fiscal
year'95-'96. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, and I guess that
concludes the meeting?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. I'd like to thank you for
your --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- perseverance through the process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Forty-five minutes. I thought it
would go maybe a half hour.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:48 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan