Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/23/1998 B (Budget)TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 23, 1998 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #2AB&C DISCUSSION OF HILLAGE RATES FUNDING THE 1999 BUDGET; DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET; AMD WRAP-UP ITEMS DISCUSSED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Wednesday, September 23rd final budget hearing. If you'd please stand for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good afternoon. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it me or is it dark up here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is. These lights are -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a little dark. MS. FILSON: I'll fix it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, and to those people in the audience, I'm going to apologize in advance, there are going to be some unusual noises coming from the dais. My two and a half year old daughter is with me tonight because of some change in plans at the high school due to the hurricane. So I'll apologize in advance for any interruption. But I just wanted to let you know it's not me saying daddy. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I'd rather have her interruptions than yours anyway, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just in terms of administrative business, obviously there are speaker sign-up forms in the hallway. If anyone's interested in speaking on any topic on the budget, you need to sign up and provide Mr. Fernandez, the county administrator, with that speaker slip, and they'll be called at the appropriate time in the meeting. With that, the first item of discussion at public hearings as prescribed in Florida Statute is discussion of the millage rates funding, the FY '99 budget. On page 2-A, the general fund, the proposed millage at this point is 3.5602. Number of additional services provided: Sheriff's staff, additional EHS units, increased library and parks funding, and stormwater management activities, which are a board priority in this budget year. The pollution control millage, due to decreased reserves and additional reimbursement revenue, is .0413, a decrease of four percent. Road district number one, there is no millage proposed. That was consolidated into road district 104 upon the incorporation of Marco Island. Road district two, the proposed millage is .1163, an increase of 18.9 percent over the rolled back rate. $25,000 per street drainage improvements and other principal increases in that fund include Bonita Beach landscaping and a pro rata share of seven employees that were previously providing service on Marco Island. Road district three, proposed millage .39, an increase of 50 percent over the rolled back rate. There's additional road resurfacing proposed and landscaping of Davis, Phase I and II, and County Road 951, as well as the pro rata share of those seven employees previously on Marco Island. Road district five, due to increased available carryforward revenue, there's a decrease in the ad valorem tax levy, .2195 mills, a 23.3 percent decrease. The unincorporated area general fund is .5887, a decrease of 13.1 percent. Marco Island beautification, there is no proposed levy in this upcoming fiscal year. That was assumed by the City of Marco Island upon their incorporation. Naples Park drainage, therews no levy required there, as well. A decrease of 100 percent. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, therews a proposed levy of .1097 mills, in essence, carryforward fund of the budget in FY w98. As thatws a one-time revenue source, there is a small tax levy required in fiscal year w99. Victoria Park drainage, the proposed millage is .124, a decrease of 47.7 percent. Therews overall a $2,000 decrease in the tax levy within that fund. Golden Gate Parkway beautification, we levy a constant half mill, an increase of 4.2 percent above the rolled back rate. Naples Production Park, .0372 mills, 34.8 percent above the rolled back rate. A decrease in available carryforward revenues requires $1,900 in additional tax levy in the upcoming year. And a number of these MSTUws, the percentages and the millage changes may be -- look rather large on paper, but wewre really talking about, you know, $2,000 in a lot of cases. Isle of Capri Fire is proposed at one mill, and thatws to phase in 24-hour coverage as of January 1st. Ochopee Fire Control, a decrease in the payment in lieu of taxes from the transfer from the general fund. Therews a four mill levy proposed, an increase of 58.3 percent. Collier County Fire, a proposed millage is 1.7979. Radio Road beautification, here again, we levy a constant half mill, 3.3 increase. Sabal Palm Road, 4.509, a decrease of 8.5 percent, according to a hundred dollar decrease in ad valorem. Lely Golf Estates, another case where wewre going to be a constant one and a half mills, an increase of one and a half percent over rolled back rates. Hawksridge stormwater, increase carryforward offsets the tax levy by $1,400. The proposed millage, .1114, a decrease of 47 percent. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage, there is no proposed tax levy. Immokalee beautification levies a constant one mill. Thatws a decrease of one-tenth of one percent. Bayshore Avalon beautification is the new levy proposed at three mills. Wewll address that a little further in the wrap-up discussion. Parks GOB debt service, community that built the -- that was the bond issue which funded construction of the community parks within Collier County. Due to increased taxable value, the millage decreases to .0495, .9 percent decrease. Marco Island coastal beach renourishment, there is no tax levy. Those bonds were paid off with proceeds from the tourist tax revenue. Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue, station debt, same dollars as the previous year. The millage decreases to .181 due to increased taxable value within that district. And Collier County Lighting, increase carryforward available decreases the tax levy slightly. The proposed millage, .1886, a 17.1 percent decrease. Naples Production Park is levying the same $1,300 as we did in FY w98. The proposed millage .006, a decrease of 3.2 percent. Marco Island Lighting, there is no levy proposed. Again, this was an MSTU assumed by the city upon their incorporation. Finally, Pelican Bay MSTU, levying approximately the same taxes as in FY '98, due to increasing property values within the district. The millage is .2484, a decrease of seven percent. The aggregate millage rate at this point is 4.2694, an increase of 1.6 percent above the rolled back rate. That concludes item 2-A. Moving to item 2-B, which is further discussion of changes to attend the budget. There are three sheets. 2-B page one, two, and three. Any changes since the first public hearing are identified in bold print. There was a minor adjustment to board salaries based on the advisory commission on intergovernmental relations. They provided a notification of that regard. In addition, funding for the employee picnic at $7,000. Those were the only changes in the general fund. Community development fund 113, there's funding for the interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for the FEMA coordinator, which had just been left out of the budget. Emergency services and miscellaneous grants, frankly, that -- this case we've just been notified of what the actual grant award is, and we adjusted the budget accordingly. Final changes are in the public works engineering fund, decreasing slightly. Transfers out. And that's to ensure adequate cash flow in this internal service fund for the upcoming year. In addition, personal services budget was adjusted to reflect the full cost of the pay plan, maintenance and recent hires. And finally, the last change is solid waste grants. That change, $14,200, based on the actual amount of the state grant award now being available. That concludes item 2-B. Moving to the wrap-up list, which is on page 2-C, there are five items on the list. At our first public hearing, there was an issue regarding potential funding of the City of Naples' capital budget request for The Edge Skate Park. The city has since submitted some correspondence to Mr. Olliff, which includes a matching proposition for Phases I and II. The city would contribute $15,000, and county contribution would be a corresponding $15,000. If the board is so inclined, that additional $15,000 in funding would be from the parks capital reserves. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was hoping everybody would be supportive of that. It's a -- you know, we wanted to show some level of inclusion without messing with our own skate program. And apparently this is the right place to be in order to accomplish that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm pleased to see the city actually come back and put more toward the project, and I think that's a good gesture. It does serve some county residents; I think it's money well spent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item on the wrap-up list is Bayshore/Avalon MSTU. There were questions -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I talk about that one just a little bit, too? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I frankly was not prepared at the last hearing to be able to calm some concerns or answer some questions that were appropriately raised about -- because that is a significant millage that's showing up on people's tax bill. The basis -- we're prepared today to show you the presentation that was made to the -- that has been made many, many, many times to the public, but also was specifically made to the MSTU advisory board that shows where the numbers came from. They're here, they're -- they have the pretty pictures. It's a two and a half million dollar budget, and it does involve spending -- collecting money now, because even at this -- even at a millage rate that's this high, it's impossible to raise the amount of funds necessary for the improvements. It's impossible to raise that quickly enough to accomplish it in any reasonable time frame, which we were hoping to be three to five years, because of the low property tax value in a majority of the area. So basically this is your -- we're prepared to show you the pictures and to tell you what the money is proposed to be spent for, if you need to see that tonight. And I don't know if there are speakers on that subject tonight or if -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is the money proposed to come from? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From the area, spent in the area. In that special HSTU recommended by the board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I ask that only because why would we possibly object? If they want to spend money -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to improve their own area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I certainly hope that's the case. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason for my questioning that was -- and as you know, all along, Pam, I've been a supporter -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of what's going on down there. But when a taxpayer stood at that microphone and said why am I being taxed three mills and we weren't able to pull out something and say here's where the money's going -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I had concerns -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Appropriately. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not on the project, but just something that I, as an elected official, need to be able to say, here's where your money's going. I couldn't do that. So absent that, I had to raise the question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you were right, too. And I just have to take the responsibility for not being ready to respond to those questions at the time. And we can answer them today or we can answer them with you on a one-on-one later, depending on the wishes of the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I'm the only one that really needs to hear that before making a decision, then I will defer to you at this point, Pam, and in the fact that it's there and that it can be shown to the taxpayers -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and whatnot, if I'm the only person, then I'll let this proceed and not hold things up and meet with those folks one on one. I just wanted to make sure it was addressed before we went through the final budget process. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, and I'm comfortable from the research I've done since our last meeting, as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. Thank you for coming anyway, guys. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My intent was simply not to hold up the process, just to make sure that we had those -- we were able to answer those questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appropriate. I appreciate that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, the third item on the wrap-up list is the status of the $1,053,100 contract with the City of Marco Island for sheriff's road patrols. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not quite so easy to wrap up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I don't think we're going to skip right over this one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. No agreement with the city. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anyone from the city here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had heard we might have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyone representing the city government? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems kind of funny to me that law enforcement, I can't think of a higher priority, and just no show, we don't want to pay, we're not going to talk about it, doesn't make much sense to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They basically tossed the ball in our court and said deal with it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the final budget hearing and they're not here to even talk about it. I don't see that we have any choice but to just say we're stuck, we've already made our decision, there's no money. We can't raise our millage at this point. It's over and done with tonight. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And maybe, you know, in the interest of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute, there's someone from the sheriff's department. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I bet the sheriff's office isn't going to be too happy about that. But maybe in the -- call this naivete or call it optimism, they do have the money in their budget. They are collecting a million dollars from the residents of the City of Marco Island for law enforcement related issues. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's going in reserves at this point; isn't that correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand, it's going in reserves, so maybe there is still some hope that they could change their mind and spend that on -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My point is it's out of our hands. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's out of our hands. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The frustrating thing -- and I'm sure the sheriff is more frustrated than any of us -- is it puts him in a very awkward position, through no fault of his own, in that he is required to provide a certain level of law enforcement. If I can oversimplify the issue, Marco Island has always paid into the general fund. And prior to city-hood, they put "X" number of dollars toward public safety, toward law enforcement, and then -- which is our sheriff's department. Since city-hood, that money no longer comes; "X" amount no longer comes for that purpose, and yet they still would like that same level of service. And I think the point you just made is the important one, they recognize they need to collect money from their residents for law enforcement and they're collecting the million, 43,000, or whatever it is, for that purpose, and yet have no other manner in which to provide it. They still want the sheriff to provide the same level of service and say well, we may use that money some day in the future. And I don't understand that rationale at all. And what's frustrating is, I understand when we talk about cable television or when we talk about an ice maker at the parks, when we're talking about those things, that there are disagreements and we can go on and deal with those. But when we are dealing with law enforcement, we often refer to health, safety and welfare are the primary purposes, and law enforcement is the single most important part of that. And for them to just poo-poo it and say we're not going to pay for it but we still think you should pay it, I think it's a shame. Unfortunately, the residents of Marco Island are the ones who are going to suffer. If we do changes in our budget, the rest of the county suffers in order to placate Marco Island. And I just hope -- I really hope that it doesn't come down to an unfortunate incident happening in Marco or elsewhere in the county caused by grubbing for money, because we are talking about the safety of the public here. And so I hope we don't have some incident before they are willing to recognize the seriousness of the issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess from -- only because of what I've read in the media and not through any direct contact -- and I don't know that anyone on this board has had direct contact with members of the city council on this matter -- I do understand what they're saying, I just don't agree with it. What they're saying is that we pay more in taxes due to higher valuation; therefore, we should get more enforcement without having to pay for it. This is a premise that says if your house is worth $50,000, you only get an officer twice a year. If your house is worth $300,000, you can have an officer six times a year. That's not how law enforcement works. The whole reason we have ad valorem taxation is because there are some basic government services that every citizen has equal entitlement to, regardless of their ability to pay: Law enforcement, health, safety, welfare. What is coming out of what I read as a councilman and a unanimous decision by the Marco City Council, in my frank opinion, is pompous, it is arrogant and it ignores the needs of their citizens. What they have told us and told the sheriff is go ahead, reduce our level of service, because we place a very low priority on law enforcement. Several weeks ago we, as a board, said if the funds are not forthcoming, then you are going to have on Marco Island minimum coverage. I know, honey, I'm talking a little loud. Thank you. She gets that from my wife. So in all of this decision, what the City Council of Marco Island has said is County Commission, go ahead, cut back the patrols on Marco Island to the bare minimum. That's precisely what they have said. They don't think for a second that they're going to have 17 officers serving Marco Island or that we're going to say golly gee whiz, just kidding about the million dollars, we'll have the officers. What bothers me even more is that officers from elsewhere in Collier County are going to be pulled off of their patrols to back up officers on Marco at times when the call load is high. We're going to see East Naples first and foremost suffer, we're then going to see the rest of the districts suffer as officers are drawn from those areas into East Naples or down to Marco. And that's the part that I find terribly irresponsible and, frankly again, arrogant. They are taxing their citizens for law enforcement but asking the rest of Collier County to pay for it. And that is just pitiful. So we have two roles today, as I see: One is we need to make sure the sheriff is funded at a level to provide the rest of Collier County with adequate law enforcement. Make sure he has enough to provide the bare minimum to Marco Island. And when they begin suffering from a level of service, it is not this commission nor the sheriff they have to look to, it is their city council, who has refused to use the funding they have taxed them with to provide law enforcement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is perhaps the single most irresponsible thing I've seen a government body do in six years on this board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree more. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you mentioned it, Commissioner Constantine, the person I -- the one person that is going to have -- and let's be honest -- political fallout from this is the sheriff. Because everyone on Marco is going to accuse him of not providing law enforcement to them. I say look to your own city council. They're the ones that took your law enforcement away, not the sheriff. And the sheriff is not going to penalize the rest of the county because Marco simply won't pay their fair share. I don't see that happening. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope he doesn't. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we do have to make a budgetary reduction, because we have to eliminate a revenue source that is not forthcoming. However, I think we need to look at the fact that we have five percent reserves that the sheriff should not have to alter his plan of action for the balance of the county, and then when Marco Island comes to its senses and realizes they have a responsibility to their citizens, and ponies up the money, we can then -- the sheriff will be able to restore his original personnel plan. I think the decision is going to be for this board probably sometime in January when that plan becomes specifically affected by this move as to whether or not some allocation from reserves is necessary in order to keep the sheriff's office from reducing its manpower in the other parts of the county. As I've talked to the sheriff, that's what I see coming. I think he's going to be okay until about January. But at that point, he's going to have to make a decision that may very well involve the reduction of manpower in the rest of the county. I don't think we want that, I don't think that's right. We may have to make a temporary allocation until the City of Marco Island understands its role in this community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for Mr. Smykowski. Is there anywhere in the budget that we could get money as a result -- you know, we've done a lot of things that were our olive branches to Marco Island. Did we leave equipment at the parks that we now ought to now take and sell to make up the deficit? Is there some operations budget at all that we could move? Can we charge people on Marco Island for using regional parks? Can we do something to come up with a revenue source, you know, to make up for what they've -- what they're trying to get for free? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we're not aware of that now, prior to that January time frame Commissioner Hancock is talking about, perhaps we can investigate what those are, because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's got to be something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- surely there are ways to generate revenue. That's a great idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we can charge them to get off the island. Let's have a toll. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I want to be careful not to paint it as a city v. county issue because it's not, it's a public safety issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. And it's our most fundamental duty and it's theirs and they're ignoring it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can't quite fully agree with the proposal that Commissioner Hancock's made. My position is that the sheriff's budget is going to be short a million dollars, 53,000, absent Marco Island's participation. That's what he's going to have to live with next year, as far as I'm concerned. I can't see that we're going to dip into reserves and try to bail it out, because that is providing the money that Marco otherwise would have spent. I can't support that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I see it differently, Commissioner -- I'm sorry, you weren't done. I do, I see it a little differently because of that substation, 72 percent of the calls were to Marco. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can make a substation somewhere else, as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, yeah, I think that land's pretty valuable. Maybe the sale of that land will help us -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, help us move along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now we're talking. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think we ought to proceed with those kinds of things immediately. If the city is so sure of their position, then let's go ahead and put the Ryder truck out front, load all the furniture, get it out of there and sell the substation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have to feel that all of this is simply posturing, because as we all know, they did tax their citizens 1.3 million dollars for public safety. Now, is it a matter of they wanted to tax for public safety and at the same time are saying we don't want public safety? I don't think that's it. I think that perhaps they might want to claim that we want public safety, we just don't want the sheriff. I don't know that that's what they're trying to say either. I think this has got to be posturing to some degree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, posture with the parks, posture with cable, but don't posture with people's lives. I mean, that's just -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, our choice is either bail them out or not bail them out, and my vote is not bail them out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't disagree with that, but the problem I have is when the sheriff made his presentation at our first budget discussion, the problem is that we're going to have to draw from personnel elsewhere in the county for him to meet his minimum constitutional requirement. In other words, he's got to have backup for officers that are on calls on Marco Island. So yes, he can go to two officers on the island, but when two accidents occur or if a burglary occurs and that person's got to have backup, they're going to have to come from somewhere. So it's not a dead even match of the million dollars, and that's why I say there's probably going to be in January a budget crunch in the sheriff's office. Even if he does cut them back to just those two patrol positions, there's still going to be additional positions necessary for backup and whatnot that he's going to have to face to avoid a reduction elsewhere in the county. That's why I left it open. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting we not bail out Marco; however, if a -- before a budgetary crisis occurs, that we be prepared to deal with that if that comes sometime after the turn of the year? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the future. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. Because the understanding is that you're going to have to pull from elsewhere in the county for backup to Marco, and Marco has agreed or basically said they're not going to pay a dime for it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can support what you're saying, but the message has to be clear to the sheriff, for me, anyway, is either you cut back to the greatest degree possible on Marco Island, and if you do that, then come back to us if you have a budget crisis and we'll be talking about reserves. But if you give them service for free, don't be expecting to come back to the board and have us bail them out later. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've hit the nail on the head perfectly for me, Commissioner Mac'Kie. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I think we're walking, though, on a slippery slope. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I do, too. I agree with you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I really do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to give them the money. I want to cut the budget a million 53 tonight. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand, but -- that's exactly what we're going to do. But at the same time, if there's an inkling that we're going to come back and help, then we're walking that slippery slope of hey, see, we told you, we knew they'd come bail us out. And I don't -- that message is not the message that I'm sending. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not the message I'm going to send. My message is this: If it requires the sheriff to move patrols in to back up at times on Marco Island, you better prepare for it now on the budget that you see here tonight, because that, as far as I'm concerned, is all you're going to get. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the message that I -- the only variation on that theme for me is, frankly, I want to be real clear to the sheriff that we expect you to not make the entire county suffer because of the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- City Council of Marco Island's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- bad choices. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I think by even mentioning that come January we're going to consider, there is -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You see what I'm saying? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, too. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I do, and I know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I'm not agreeing with you theoretically. I don't disagree, but I do disagree with the fact of -- and it has nothing to do with the guy that just walked through the door. This isn't his issue, per se. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The city's put him in an awkward position. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. They have squarely put him in a very awkward position, and I don't want them to portray that this is a battle between the Collier County Commission and the sheriff's office. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is not. But this is -- I'm afraid that if we send the message that there is a possibility that in a few months we're going to come with the bailout, I don't want -- I don't want that message portrayed at all, because I don't know that we can do that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, what I'm talking about is by no means in any way, shape or form to be considered a bailout. We need to take that word and put it in the trash can. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm talking about is not jeopardizing the lives of patrol deputies. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I -- yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a required backup that has to be there that will exceed at times the two-person patrol on Marco Island that may cause a budgetary issue in the sheriff's office. And if it does, we're going to have to address that so the balance of the county doesn't suffer. That's what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Meanwhile, let's sell the substation or come up with some way to make some money to make up that deficit that city council in Marco won't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they don't want the sheriff's office down there, I think that substation could be located in a far better place for the rest of East Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm clear it can be better in East Naples. Let's put it in the Manor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The message is clear, and that is that the sheriff has laid out what he believes to be the necessary level of service to provide safety in Collier County, and we are willing to fund that throughout the county to every area that participates in paying for it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paying for it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we're not going to provide that for free. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, the whole issue here, as far as I can see it, is really not about the sheriff at all. The issue is an inequity in taxing that they have viewed for a number of years, and it just so happens it happens to fall out in his budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd love for him to come talk to the city council of the City of Naples about that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, exactly right. And this is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Pelican Bay would love to talk about it. And I'm sure everybody would. But, you know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You start getting into this issue, you exactly are addressing, or you're going to have to address, the City of Naples in some of these other areas. You're going to get into an area that you don't want to go to. And they -- unfortunately, they have used the sheriff's budget to get there, or try and get there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we have -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that's wrong. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to make a -- do what we have to cut. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have no choice. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looks like we've got five. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, going on then to the next item. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. The productivity committee report on the Department of Revenue, that was distributed to the board last week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was all positive, as far as I could tell. It was a, you know, good report, that they're pretty much doing what they said they would do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was supposed to do. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The fifth issue is additional available general fund revenue that's -- there's a summary on page -- agenda item 2-C, page two, that identifies additional revenue in -- by source in fiscal year '98 of approximately 2.7 million dollars, which is of a windfall type of nonrecurring nature. And $621,500 in FY '99 from additional sales tax and revenue sharing, based on updated estimates from the State Department of Revenue that is of a recurring nature and available to fund ongoing expenses or to reduce taxes. The staff, in evaluating potential uses, felt strongly that the revenue of a nonrecurring nature obviously should be used for one-time expenses, such as capital projects. And in compliance with the budget policy, we essentially revisited capital projects that had been reduced during the budget process due to the lack of available funding at that point in time. The recommended uses of the additional nonrecurring revenue, there was action yesterday by the board supporting EHS for $320,000. The courthouse fourth floor renovation, the board will recall, we essentially split that project into two pieces and bit off half essentially in the FY '99 budget, and with the other half of the bill coming due in fiscal year 2000, given that the revenue is available and that from a logistics standpoint probably easier to bid that as a single, complete project, staff is recommending funding of that project for 1,354,000. The Golden Gate library, there's a sewer hookup required. That facility is actually still on a septic tank. We're recommending, obviously, hookup to the central sewer system. And on campus, there are generator fuel tanks' piping that needs to be replaced. Essentially we would be under fines if that work were not completed by the end of December; therefore, we recommend that as a priority. And frankly, the balance staff is recommending placing into reserves, $957,700. We had evaluated some other capital projects, one of which was the county maintenance facility, but we didn't have firm numbers in that regard. And also, given the storm that's eminent, as well as -- I researched budget amendments going back during the Hurricane Andrew period and immediately after that storm, we had over $800,000 from general fund reserves for debris removal alone. So staff is recommending that we reinforce our reserves in anticipation of the storm event, that there will obviously be some damage in Collier County as a result of that storm. The recommended use of the additional recurring revenue of $621,500, department revenue, beach parking. That was an issue that the board had made a policy decision on not to charge for the beach parking on Tuesday. In addition, staff is recommending increasing the transfer to EMS, reducing what is budgeted currently as prior year revenues that in all likelihood may not materialize. In addition, the run volume, which is essentially the lifeblood of the system, but also the principal revenue side of the budget, the run volume may not meet expectations this year and as a result, we may not have quite the run volume we were initially estimating. And to avoid a situation a year from now where we'd be looking to reserves, staff is recommending that we reduce the budgeted prior year revenues and increase the general fund support of the EMS operation. And that leaves net available revenue of $196,500 in which the board could either fund additional programs or reduce ad valorem taxes. But that is the staff recommendation for the additional revenues. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions of Mr. Smykowski? MR. FERNANDEZ: Staff -- Madam Chairman, just to clarify, staff recommendation is to reduce taxes by that amount for the recurring, the 196,500. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was trying to listen as I was in the back, but Mr. Fernandez, the discussion we had today regarding the storm that may not hit Naples, if we're lucky, is it in the general fund side, the recurring revenue side, that we have the roughly one million dollars? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes -- no, no, I'm sorry, it's in the nonrecurring. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nonrecurring. MR. FERNANDEZ: Nonrecurring that we have -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the intent is to apply that to reserves, understanding that that money may be used within the next seven days, if we get hit with the storm? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the basis of that was, I think we had spent about $800,000 simply in debris cleanup after Andrew? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Lowering the tax that couple hundred thousand dollars will just lower our millage rate that much more? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any problems with the list. I think it's the right thing to do, especially responsible thing to do on the nonrecurring. It's very tempting, but it's the only responsible -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- thing to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that was a very helpful way of breaking that out. I do want to thank you for that. It made the decision a little clearer and a lot easier. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We might get into some big difficulties if you apply that to the recurring cost every year. You really dig a hole for yourself. It's not a good idea. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That concludes the wrap-up items. We now open the floor for public comments. Mr. Fernandez has the speaker slips. Item #2D PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anyone that has not signed a speaker slip that wishes to speak? They're out in the hallway. If not, we'll begin the public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have three speakers; they appear to be all on the same subject. First is Nancy DeValder, and the second is Jeri Crowder. MS. DeVALDER: Good evening, commissioners, Madam Chairman. My name is Nancy DeValder, I'm the president of the Isles of Capri Civic Association. And we spoke last week, so I won't go into detail. I'm here just to speak on behalf of the residents and Isles of Capri Civic Association. It's my responsibility as a civic leader. And, of course, this is concerning the millage vote tonight. I feel that on behalf of all of the residents of the island, which are not back to speak for themselves, that I have to ask you not to pass this millage tonight, because years ago there was a promise to the people when we had a volunteer fire department, that there would be a one mill cap, and now you are deciding tonight whether or not you want to raise the millage, and we just feel that the people of our island should have a say-so in this. And the majority are not here to speak. The majority are not here to know what's going on. And we have felt up until this point that we've had adequate fire protection. It's been brought to my attention, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that we're getting a full-time ambulance, a firefighter -- a paramedic with a cross-trained firefighter next month on our island, and if that's so, that should be adequate coverage for the time being. In November we'll be starting our general meetings of the public to inform them on the millage, our fire department and all the other issues of our island, and give them opportunity to -- to say what they want. It's for them to speak out and tell us what they want. And that's really all have I to say. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. Could I ask you a question? MS. DeVALDER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many members are there? I just -- MS. DeVALDER: Approximately 400. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- speaking -- and they are -- those are all members of the civic association, and you're speaking on their behalf? MS. DeVALDER: Well, I'm speaking on their behalf because I was voted the president of the civic association to represent our island, and they're not here to represent themselves. There's very -- you know, there's a -- the majority of the people are still gone. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of the people -- I'm trying to get -- I want to pay a whole lot of attention to you if you're speaking to -- if you're speaking for 400 people on the island. So I'm trying to get that clear in my head. MS. DeVALDER: Well, okay, I am speaking as a civic leader of our association, and our board decided that we should -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the question she's asking you, are you -- did you have a vote of the membership, or are you representing the board? At this time you're representing the board '- MS. DeVALDER: Oh, we're representing our board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But your board met and voted on the issue. MS. DeVALDER: Our board met and voted. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the civic association board disagrees with the fire board? MS. DeVALDER: Well, it wasn't a matter of disagreeing. We don't know. I mean, you know, the people aren't informed. And so we said no, let's not have a millage increase until all of the people have a say-so about it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you don't think that there's any negative repercussions, or you know that -- I wonder if Mr. Fernandez wants to tell us, or if someone wants to tell us. If I were you and if the question -- it's like the tuna fish ice cream thing that Mr. Norris always talks about. If I were being asked do you want to pay more, even though you're not going to -- it's not going to hurt you if you don't pay more, well, the answer is sure, I don't want to pay more. But I wonder if it's been described adequately for you what the cost will be if you don't have this increased millage. And I'd like to have that picture painted in my mind a little more clearly, too. MS. DeVALDER: Well, I mean, I think maybe that, you know, it has been discussed. And I'm not sure -- you know, there was some confusion here last week, and there probably still is. I'm a little more clear on it myself. And I'm not speaking on behalf of my own personal opinions here tonight, I'm just speaking because it's the right thing to do. I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that. MS. DeVALDER: -- need to come up here and say the people of our island are not -- the majority of the people of our island are not here to know the issue. And if we're going to have a millage increase, right now the majority of the people say hey, we have adequate fire coverage. They're not here to say whether we don't or we do or do we need it or we don't need it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So Mr. Fernandez, if we don't change the -- if we leave their millage at the cap that she's supporting, will they have the same coverage that they had last year? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. This -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the point -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- recommendation -- remember when we came to you initially, I had been confronted with two conflicting recommendations, one from my staff and one from the fire services advisory board. At that time, the fire services advisory board recommendation was for a lower budget than the one recommended by my staff. My staff was recommending a 24-hour coverage, and the fire service advisory board at that point in the process was recommending something less than that, something similar to what we were currently providing. At that time I made the decision to defer to the fire service advisory board because we have had much discussion about their role in the budget process. We were talking about their role in other matters and we said the ordinance is very clear, their role is to advise on the budget. So for that reason at that time I deferred to their recommendation, came to you at that point in the budget process with a recommendation that did not include 24-hour service. Subsequent to that time, you had a presentation from a member of the fire services advisory board indicating that it appeared as though the sentiment of that board had changed, and as for the board's consideration, it was at the time that you were setting your tentative millage, and that it appeared as though that there was sentiment to go to a 24-hour service. The board set the tentative millage at that higher millage rate in anticipation of a recommendation from the fire services advisory board that 24-hour service in fact would be recommended and could be funded within the statutory operating millage cap that was provided. So here again, I deferred to that advisory board, because my feeling is you have a dependent district that provides for an advisory board, and if we don't follow their recommendation, they really have no reason to exist. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I appreciate that, because that's helpful to me, the information, but I still need, and I want you to have, a clearance to the question, if we don't increase -- and this is not a setup, I don't know the answer to this question. If we don't increase the millage -- MR. FERNANDEZ: What will service look like? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- will their level of service be the same as it has always been? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's good enough for you? MS. DeVALDER: That's, I think, how the majority of the island feel. I mean, you know, just -- I mean, we had our other -- the advisory board, like you said, they changed their mind. But they told us not all that long ago that our fire coverage was -- you know, that we could get by with the fire coverage we had. Now we have a new budget proposal. So, I mean, you know, it's just confusing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think I need to clarify my previous quick answer. Part of what's involved here -- and maybe I need some help from Mr. Ochs, if he's in the room. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, he's here. MR. FERNANDEZ: Part of what we were trying to respond to is the board's direction that this service not be subsidized by the general fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: And at that time there was some coverage being provided by EMS funded staff during the evening shift, the night shift. And that -- that, frankly, is what prompted the staff to make the recommendation initially that I referred to for the 24-hour coverage to be funded from the fire district. And that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the fact of the matter is that level of EMS coverage will be less than -- so the fire coverage will be the same, but you've been comfortable because you've had an EMS person there that you're not going to have? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we're going back -- MR. OCHS: Let me clarify. Leo Ochs, support services administrator. This entire past year, the coverage is 12 hours a day, seven days a week. And the staff proposal, based on the fire advisory board's recommendation, is to increase that staff coverage to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And in order to be able to finance that, you need to increase the operating millage from .79 to one mill, which is the cap. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if we don't, does she get exactly what she had last year? MR. OCHS: Yeah, we'll continue with the 12-hour coverage on the COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is what she had last year? MR. OCHS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if that's good enough for you, is what you're telling. I just want to be sure I understand your message. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have some questions. MS. DeVALDER: Can I say -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course you can. MS. DeVALDER: -- one other thing to Mr. Fernandez? You know, you said that you're relying on our advisory board's recommendation, and rightly so. But if that's the case, you know, it was like a year ago when the old advisory board came and said well, we think we need extra coverage and maybe we should contract services elsewhere, and that was denied. So that recommendation was denied. And so we just felt that we didn't need any coverage, any extra coverage, that we were fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, by us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez was referring to his role as bringing a recommendation to this board with the understanding that this board makes the final decision. So I think in his comment -- correct me if I'm wrong, Bob -- but he was saying in bringing something to the board, yes, they did their review, but he felt that he was obligated, because of their advisory capacity, to bring that view to the board and let us make that decision after a public hearing. That's what I think was being said. Not that the advisory board rules and we don't question that or that he shouldn't, but that was the strict function of the advisory board. And he brought that recommendation forward, just as they did previously on going with the contract. That was -- the recommendation was brought forward and then we had the discussion regarding it. MS. DeVALDER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nancy, I apologize, I wasn't here two weeks ago, so I might ask a couple questions that you covered then. This is not a new issue. You said a lot of folks aren't here this summer, but this isn't a new issue. This has been going on a while. Did the association either via a vote or via petitions, or at some point, surely you had a reading on what your 400 members felt on this. MS. DeVALDER: There -- you will hear -- you'll hear later that there is -- they did have a petition of some sort last year about the fire coverage. And just recently -- as a matter of fact, a meeting was called last night, a citizens meeting, and I was invited to join that meeting. And one of our citizens took a vote on the island. I mean, she just walked around on her own and I don't know exactly what -- you know, what she proposed to the people, but she got 150 signatures or so saying that yeah, they wanted the millage, you know. But 150 isn't 1,200 people, you know. That's all I'm saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea what the petition drive last year was? MS. DeVALDER: You'll -- I wouldn't want to comment. I didn't see it personally. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You weren't involved in it or you weren't '- MS. DeVALDER: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You weren't behind that petition? MS. DeVALDER: No, I wasn't. But I'm sure that somebody could speak to that, but I can't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the 24-hour service, Leo, you said right now there's 12 hours, seven days a week, which is 84 hours a week. In order to get 24 hours, obviously you'd have to double that. Will there be two additional people hired? MR. OCHS: No, there's only one additional person that would be hired, and they would work a traditional firefighter shift. We have one person that would work a 24-hour shift, be off the next two days and then come back on duty, and the other people would in turn work that same type of shift, one on, two days off. And we also have a volunteer force down there that will help supplement coverage if we have call-outs or we have unexcused absences or unanticipated absences. And we had discussed that a little bit the last time we discussed this issue. We do in fact have a combination of paid and volunteers down there, and it's been that way, I believe, since 1995 was the first year we had paid service down there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we can double the coverage with a 50 percent increase in human resource? MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a couple questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ochs, we are planning to station an EMS unit down there; is that correct? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've budgeted that? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I think one of the things as board members that we need to recognize is that this fire district was started as a volunteer fire service and ran that way for many, many years. It's only here recently that we've gone to any kind of paid employees. Now, incrementally we've bumped it up, bumped it up, bumped it up, and now here's a request to bump it up again. If it's a volunteer fire service, why can't we handle half of this with volunteers? If we have so many volunteers down there, why can't we do that? The other thing that Ms. DeValder hit on briefly is that even though -- well, the history of this is that there's a one mill cap on the fire district. Some time ago, to build a new fire station, there was a separate ordinance enacted that I think has a .25 or .3 mill. MR. OCHS: Three-tenths. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three-tenths, is it, cap? But there was an unwritten commitment, and you can see it in the previous budgets, not to exceed the one mill total. So last year, for example it was .21 for capital and .79 for operation, making one mill. That's been the unwritten commitment of the board. The proposal here now is to budget the full one mill operating, plus capital, which brings you up, what is it, 1.18, 6, or whatever it happens to be. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 1.8 is correct. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The proposal this year is not only to incrementally continue to violate the principle of having a volunteer fire service, but now to break the long-time, long-standing commitment upholding the total to one mill assessment of this board. And those are some of the issues that are -- that I think should be pertinent to this board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we were going to do that to them without their fire board advisory board asking for it, then I think that would be outrageous. But if we're doing it in response to the request of their advisory board, then it's certainly, you know, worthy of careful consideration. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And they are an advisory board. Now, another thing to keep in mind here is this is a phased-in program. It doesn't even start 'til January. They are scheduled to have meetings this fall with the public to determine the future of this district in the first place. So, you know, there may be some changes coming down the road after those meetings. And for us to continue to move away from volunteer fire service into full-time paid fire service at this particular point in time I just think is not the correct thing to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have more speakers? Because I'm hoping there's somebody who knows more the public sentiment and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got my questions right now, but I'd like to hear from all the speakers and then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MS. DeVALDER: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jeri Crowder and then Matt Crowder. MS. CROWDER: Hello again, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to pull your mike down a little? Thank you. MS. CROWDER: Yes. Good evening, for the record, I'm Jeri Crowder, an Isles of Capri annual resident, property owner and taxpayer. And I had the privilege of meeting with several of you over the last week. I won't burden you by simply repeating my earlier statements at the September 9 budget hearing; rather, I'd like to focus specifically on the issues that were raised after the public had an opportunity to speak at that last meeting, issues which were left unanswered. First, in response to our commissioner's assertion that there's a perceived promised cumulative one mill cap, which it seems went a long way in splitting the vote, I would point out that while a number of us are actively supporting approval of what we consider to be a temporary tax increase, since our debt service will be paid off next year, we're also very objective, and we really looked at all sides of this. We've actively searched for any reference to this so-called cumulative one mill cap, and we can find none. In 1992, when the people of the district supported the .21 millage increase to cover the debt service on the fire station, Commissioner Norris was not yet our commissioner. We are unable to find any promise or commitment on behalf of that commission or any commissioner since that we would only pay one mill total. From the minutes of the 1992 budget hearing, it's apparent that the public was very clear in their understanding that we were establishing a separate taxing entity specifically for servicing the debt on the newly constructed fire station, and that such a debt would be paid off in seven years. In our search, we did find, however, that our commissioner made a statement at the November 3rd meeting, I quote, your advisory board is the only one I listen to, end quote. I respectfully ask that he listen now to that advisory board and support their recommendation. In a year when the commissioners have found it necessary to increase taxes in certain areas, it would seem inconsistent to use this supposed promised cumulative one mill cap argument. Simply ask the Bayshore/Avalon residents; they're going to pay considerably more than they bargained for. Therefore, the argument that the commissioners have a duty to honor a non-verifiable implied commitment to keep our cumulative tax rate at one mill would seem to be inappropriate, in my view. In response to our commissioner's assertion that we can simply wait until the next budget year, I would point out that in the November 3rd, 1997 meeting at our fire station, he and several of then existing fire advisory board members and an outspoken volunteer went to great lengths to convince us that we were in dire need of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year fire coverage because, quote, what you have right now is a partly paid service, partly volunteer service with about 50 percent coverage, end quote. Many of the residents, myself included, left that meeting with the feeling that we were inadequately covered. While many of us did not support the seriously flawed East Naples proposal, we were committed to addressing the need for additional coverage. I find it inconsistent that our commissioner and the previous fire advisory board would use the argument of health and safety needs to support the East Naples proposal, and yet when we successfully defeated that proposal would now assert that there is no urgent need. What happened to that need? Did it simply disappear along with the East Naples proposal? No, the need is very real and it still exists. Even those residents who proclaimed if it ain't broke, don't fix it, have seen that there is in fact a need for additional coverage. Our fire department missed a call this year; the first call it's missed in over 20 years. Fortunately, the Marco tones went off as well and no one suffered as a result. Why did we miss this call? Because we don't have a paid firefighter on duty at night. There is a need for additional coverage. Even those who doubted it last year -- and I was one of them that doubted it -- recognize that need now, thanks in no small part to the previous fire advisory board and our commissioner, whom I commend for being forward-thinking and recognizing our need and helping us to realize that we need that coverage now, not later. Next, a public meeting was held Tuesday, last night, at our firehouse, at which both sides of the issue were presented. The meeting was announced by way of signage at the fire station, posting of the announcement at the convenience store, and by distribution of additional fliers. These fliers, which I can provide you copies of now, along with the rest of our stuff, announced the meeting and asked the property owners who were unable to attend to indicate their position on the issue directly on the flier. The Community Emergency Response Team, CERT, provided us with a map that identified those homes which were currently vacant. This map was prepared as a result of a hurricane survey that was conducted in August. Beginning Sunday evening, because we had short notice, a small group of taxpayers used this map and attempted to distribute fliers to the remaining homes, both on the Isles of Capri and on Mainsail, with special emphasis on those part of Isles of Capri and Mainsail where residents would not routinely pass the sign at the fire station. In the short time frame with which they had to accomplish this feat, this group was able to obtain numerous signatures and many commitments to attend that meeting. At the meeting, everyone was invited to share their views and concerns. At the end of the meeting, the attendees were asked to sign the fliers indicating their position. After checking for duplicate signatures and assuring that husbands and wives did not sign for each other -- the numbers tell the story, there were about 30 people at the meeting -- to the following statement. I support the proposed increase in our taxes to the one mill cap established in 1978. This increase is approximately $18 per $100,000 of assessed property value and will fund 24-hour coverage at our fire department. Please place a checkmark in the appropriate column. There were 102 yes votes, there were seven no votes, there were four undecided votes. The total number of property owners who responded to the poll was 113, which we consider to be a darn good sampling off season. Next, I'd like to remind the commissioners that while the input of our seasonal residents is absolutely critical to helping determine the fate of our fire department in the coming year, it's the registered voters of Collier County who will be casting their votes on this issue when the final story is told. I would hope that those seasonal nonregistered voters would lobby their voting friends and their neighbors and try to influence such a vote. But ultimately, the vote will rest in the hands of us, the registered voters, mostly annual residents. As an annual resident and registered voter, I value the input of a seasonal resident. However, while they're off island, it's only their property that's at risk. I live here year round and deserve adequate coverage for both my life and property year round. The matter of health and safety is not a seasonal issue and must not be treated as such. Thank you for the time you've taken on this issue, both at these meetings and in your offices. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Crowder? MS. CROWDER: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know very well that you misrepresented my position just now, the one that you talked about on the November 3rd meeting? Because what I said was that what the community deserves is to have a full-time professional fire service. Are you going to try to tell this board that even if we go forward with this that you have something more than a part-time paid service with volunteers? MS. CROWDER: Yes, if -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hybrid '- MS. CROWDER: -- we go forward with this, we won't be. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Huh? MS. CROWDER: If we go forward with this, we will in fact have full-time coverage. We'll have a paid firefighter on duty 24 -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just not '- MS. CROWDER: -- hours a day. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just not true. Because '- MS. CROWDER: Actually, it is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- there's vacation times, which have to be covered by volunteers. MS. CROWDER: Which we've already -- which we've already made arrangements for. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. But my point is that you don't have a full-time professional fire service. You still have a combination paid and volunteer fire service. MS. CROWDER: But it's not 50 percent, as you stated on November 3rd. We took these right out of the minutes and we took them in context. And our only point was that you've seemed to think we had a need back then and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I still do. MS. CROWDER: -- now -- but now we're being told that perhaps we can wait, you know -- you know, it's only for nine months -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't '- MS. CROWDER: -- wait a year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Crowder, don't try to mischaracterize my statements. What I'm saying is that even by doing this, you're not going to have a full-time professional fire service. You're still going to have a hybrid paid and volunteer fire service which is not what I '- MS. CROWDER: That's right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- intended to say at any time. MS. CROWDER: We're not looking for a 24-hour professional fire service, we're looking for a 24-hour paid firefighter. You have kept saying that we need a professional fire service. We've not asked you for a professional fire service. We like our hybrid situation, those of us that we've talked to. We don't even pretend to represent those people who are not supporting this, although several of them were -- I mean, all these people were contacted. But we -- you know, those of us that voted yes on this, we like this hybrid thing. We -- there are volunteers that have been there 20 years. We like the community, we like the fire department, and we want them to be on an even playing field this year when it comes up and we have to say do we go contract, do we do independent, what do we do with this fire department? We want our fire department to be on an even playing field, and we want that coverage. We don't want missed calls. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Finally I get what the issue is about. Finally I get it. The level playing field for when you have your discussions for November '- MS. CROWDER: It's certainly one of them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's part of it. Because otherwise, when we start doing these dog and pony shows out there to explain here's what you can have, here's what you can have, they're going to look at what they presently have and think it's rotten because it's inadequate. And if we give them the funding they're asking for, then they will be comparing apples and apples instead of something less. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It's not an apples and apples. It's not an apple and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they will -- but they'll be in a better position for comparison than they will if they don't give them the funding. Thank you. Lightbulb. I finally got it. MS. CROWDER: Would you like copies of this poll -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would. MS. CROWDER: -- or the fliers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, I think, has a question for you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you aware -- same question I asked Nancy. I recall crystal clear having a petition of some sort passed around a year ago. Did you participate in that -- MS. CROWDER: Yes, I did. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are you aware of the statistics of what that -- MS. CROWDER: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Memory serves me that it was four or 500 people; it was a huge number of people that did that. Maybe I -- you could refresh my memory with that. MS. CROWDER: I'm not sure of the official count, but I thought it was almost 600 signatures. That was a petition asking that this Board of Commissioners delay moving forward with the East Naples proposal until we could look at all options. That's what that petition was about. There was also a letter-writing campaign to that effect where we addressed all the commissioners at -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the importance of that question, to me, I remembered it was -- you say a number even higher than what I recall, and that's -- but it was a significant portion of the residents. And the importance of that question is, I know we don't have some people here this summer, but it's not a new issue to us. I mean, the island is very, very aware that the issue is going on and that we're trying to address it. My other question's for Leo, and plain and simple, we're getting into the semantics of professional service or 24-hour fire service. Is -- am I correct here in assuming the intent of a 24-hour coverage is to increase safety? MR. OCHS: Yes, it is. You'd have three full-time paid, state certified, totally qualified firefighters manning the station 24 hours a day, seven days a week. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's East Naples. You said three paid full-time firefighters? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: One per day. MR. OCHS: One per day. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, I'm sorry, I thought you meant three MR. OCHS: Total of three. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- per shift. MR. OCHS: No, sir. One per shift. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that would be a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now that's a professional fire service. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Like everybody else has got. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But again, the intent of that is to increase safety. MR. OCHS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, what they're asking for is to try to pretend that what they're getting is the same as everybody else in the county, when in fact it's not anywhere near. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, I think it's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think that's what he said. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on my discussions with some of the folks, I guess I disagree with that. And I'll tell you what I told Ms. Crowder. There's going to come a time when 1.5 mills and the professional level you would get from that 1.5 mills is going to be very attractive to Isles of Capri. I mean, there is going to come that time. Until then, what it seems to me we're dealing with -- at least the citizens are dealing with down there -- is an increase in call load, which no one has talked about tonight. The call load for that fire station is increasing every year. And there comes a point when you -- because I was in the Reserves, in the Coast Guard, and there comes a point -- and I understand a little bit about the volunteer side. There comes a time when you begin to max out volunteers' abilities and there's a very limited pool of people that are qualified to become volunteers. And I don't -- I don't know if we're there yet, but it sounds to me like some people think we are and some think we're not. So, you know, I think what is happening is that fire station is moving toward becoming what you're talking about, a full-time professional firefighting station, when the call load dictates it and the public safety issues dictate it. I don't know when that's going to be. But this sounds to me, in talking with Ms. Crowder and some others, they're asking to make a step in that direction without making a leap in that direction, and that's what this is about. That's kind of how I see it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll offer what I was taught, John. And I know you had said they're a volunteer board and always have been a volunteer board. And while I realize four square miles of Golden Gate have an awful lot more people than the Isles of Capri, Golden Gate fire board was an all volunteer board at one point, or all volunteer force at one time, and they got to a point where they outgrew that. The argument can be whether these folks have outgrown that or not, but I don't know that the argument that it's always been that way is a valid point. I understand the question, and I'll be interested to hear more on the issue of the millage and what the commitment was and wasn't long-term. I appreciate your points on that. But as far as just the volunteer aspect, I don't know if that's a valid argument. If they get to a point where they need more, they need more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I, too, look at it as a step. You know, I look at them going from over here to this step, and then the next thing after the November meetings where people are going to be fully informed, hopefully, about what their options are and what their current situation is and what future options are, then they're going to have to make a decision. And that may be the third step where they go to a whole different arrangement than what they had then. And then, you know, that certainly will affect millage -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this -- not now, but in a year from now, or whenever that's to be instituted. But I look at this as just another process. And apparently their advisory board at this time has deemed that maybe they need to take this second step from where they have been and move to this next level. So that's the way I personally view it. So __ COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why don't we -- since I can count on the board, why don't we just end the discussion and move forward? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have other public speakers? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless there's somebody who wants to speak in favor of -- or against increasing the millage, they could waive. Because we've got four votes to increase the millage and then I can go put the plywood up on my windows. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need to hurry up, because you've got __ CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to come to my house after you're done with yours. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Matt Crowder. I believe he's in favor of the increase. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You two aren't fighting over this issue, right? MS. CROWDER: He has a different point to make. MR. CROWDER: I am indeed in favor of this issue, but what I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You need to come to the microphone. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up. MR. CROWDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Matt Crowder. I am a member of the fire advisory board on Isle of Capri, I'm a volunteer firefighter down there, and I'm also president of the Isles of Capri Volunteer Firefighter Association. I don't want to unnecessarily take up your time with more of the same old stuff, having played out that discourse to its furthest extent. I would, if you don't mind, just ask you to indulge me and let me bring up a separate issue that relates to this that is of some importance to me. The fire advisory board, and you know by now, voted unanimously to request this increase to the one mill cap for personnel services, specifically for personnel to increase our firefighter coverage to 24-hour coverage. It has come to -- it has come to my understanding that some of that money is now going to be placed not in personnel services, but in reserves. And I am here speaking only for myself, I am not an officially sanctioned representative of the fire advisory board here tonight. But I think it's fair to say from the records of the meeting and from the motion that was passed unanimously, that it was not the intention of the fire advisory board to place some of this money in reserves, but rather to place all of this money in personnel services and start this firefighter at the beginning of the budget year, which is the 1st of October, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is he right about that, Mr. Smykowski, some reserves? MR. SHYKOWSKI: There was a portion -- the staff recommendation was to delay implementation until January, based on the numbers. We felt that the margin for error was too close without a delay in the implementation of the 24-hour coverage until January, and that was staff recommendation, accordingly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate your statement, Mr. Crowder, but I think half a cow is better than no cow at all. MR. CROWDER: I agree with that, and I am fully aware that neither administration nor the board owes myself or the fire advisory board an explanation on this issue. But if I could ask you to indulge me for one second on this point. Do we not already put money in reserves? Is there not already $7,500 placed in reserves specifically for such an event for unforeseen expenditures and things of that nature? And if so, are we not redundantly placing money in reserves for the same eventuality? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Crowder, unforeseen expenditures would be what's about to happen this weekend, not a planned budgetary move such as the addition of personnel. I think the two are very different. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Leo, do you or Chief Flagg have an opinion about that? MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner. Staff's position is that just to be totally sure going into a new operation an expanded number of hours, we think that it is prudent and fiscally appropriate, I should say, for us to phase this in in January. I know we've had several discussions about this, and we just kind of agreed to see it differently from a staff perspective from the advisory board. We think it's a good recommendation. It will still give us that higher level of coverage during the busy season, if you will, and I think that it's a prudent way to go for the first year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ochs, let me ask a question, too -- does that answer your question, Mr. Crowder? MR. CROWDER: For the most part, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Since we are going to go forward with the millage increase and have 24-hour coverage, and we're also going to station an EHS unit, we've already had the discussion and the board has said that they were not in favor of the EHS providing fire services because of the subsidization of Isle of Capri by the general fund. So is it your intent to ensure that our services are not being provided by the EHS personnel? MR. OCHS: That's correct. That unit will operate like every other unit in our system. The board approved that unit, as well as the unit in Golden Gate Estates as a growth unit, according to your Growth Management Plan, and it will operate as any other unit in the system. It will run calls not only on the Isle of Capri, but will respond as a backup on Marco Island, will respond in East Naples as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but my question relates to fire service -- the provision of fire services in Isle of Capri -- MR. OCHS: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- specifically, because that's what the board said not -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, they say -- MR. OCHS: Sure -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- we wanted to be the same. MR. OCHS: Well, what they will do -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They said we want the same across the county, not anything special given to Isle of Capri. So whatever we're doing in Isle of Capri, is it the same as we're doing the rest of the county? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I said subsidization. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's easy for you to say. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said providing a subsidy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's easier to say the way you said it. It takes longer, but it's the same thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a lawyer thing. MR. OCHS: We'll provide the same level of support at a fire scene with that EHS unit as we do with all the other EHS units in the system, and that is essentially fire ground support to the firefighters. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the EHS personnel are not going to be manning the station as they were before -- MR. OCHS: No, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- nonetheless. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. MR. CROWDER: I'm not trying to push my luck here this evening, believe me, but I would -- if I could just ask one final question. Because really, my sole intent is just to see this through and to make sure that we do indeed get the kind of coverage that I believe we need. And I think part of that is also that it start just as quickly as possible, so I ask for your understanding. And I would just ask this final question: Was any consideration given to perhaps maybe putting less money in reserves and starting this person in November? Is January -- was it determined that the minimum safe amount to have in reserves was this amount that it was equivalent to three months' worth, or could -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. CROWDER: -- we -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know -- but that's a relevant question because of this discussion. Now that my lightbulb's gone off, you know, I understand that you want to have an operational hybrid, which is what we're proposing, in place when the November discussions in the community begin. That's what you're concerned about. So is there not a process for splitting the baby here and letting him start in November and there's budget amendment potential or something, if it becomes necessary? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because otherwise, they're at a disadvantage. MR. FERNANDEZ: Probably my most important motivator in recommending this was a concern that we represent to the board that 24-hour coverage could be provided within that millage cap of one mill. As Mr. Smykowski indicated, it was too close a call. Given that it was a new development of a program, we felt that it was really much more -- we felt more comfortable phasing it in as we recommended, and felt that there was a less likelihood we'd be coming back to you at a later point in time saying we're wrong about that, as it turns out we need more money to fund a 24-hour service, and we don't have the millage capacity to do that, then we'd have the difficulty asking for general fund subsidy. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that makes sense. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the reason why we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- did what we did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can understand why they would like to start it sooner, but on the other hand, I think from our perspective as a board of commissioners, I think that it would be foolhardy to go in that direction. I think -- I would much rather take -- maybe people would as a conservative approach, but I'd rather take the conservative approach rather than get out on a limb and have this thing fail, and about July say guess what, we've got a major problem here, things didn't work out as we thought they might. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The reserves in that fund are at the five percent level for contingency, as well as the one and a half percent for merit pay. There's not an -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's no fluff. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- overabundance -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's no fluff. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- of reserves. If we went to October, November implementation, your reserves would probably be at two percent, and we didn't feel that was -- we felt that margin was too close. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're better off to stay where you are. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless the chief wants to forego the merit pay. MR. CROWDER: I accept that and '- MS. FLAGG: We may. MR. CROWDER: Just one final question for clarification: This is something that set in concrete will be implemented in January, or is this something that's going to be reevaluated in January? Can I get some clarification on that? MS. FLAGG: It's going to start -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Once the board adopts this budget tonight, the program will start in January. MR. CROWDER: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you had a speaker that signed up after the conversation began. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does she want to talk us out of this? MS. KOCIK: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's waiving. MR. FERNANDEZ: She'll waive, okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Both figuratively and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, yeah, I think you can count. You've got four votes up here at this point in time, so maybe you're better off to leave things alone. Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the only other speaker we have is Sheriff Hunter, who asked to address you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll allow the sheriff to address us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: He's our final speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, does the board want to take a vote on whether we allow the sheriff to speak with us or not? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He signed up late, I don't know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't we want to take about a 20-minute break? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're going to take about a half hour break. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got to go put plywood up. SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm not that verbose. For the record, Don Hunter, Sheriff of Collier County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don, were you here enough to kind of pick up the direction that the board collectively came to? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. And then I gleaned some information from staff. And first of all, I'd like to thank all of you for the work you've done on a very difficult situation, and the fact that you are trying to extricate me from my former position. I didn't believe myself as a part of this dispute, but I certainly seem to be involved in it. But I would like to thank the board for trying to reframe this and making it clear that it is a dispute between city council and Board of County Commissioners over revenue and taxation, and that necessarily we're discussing law enforcement issues and public safety in general. And I'd also like to thank Commissioner Hancock. We did have an earlier discussion, I believe it was this last week, week before, and it pertained to the possibility of using reserves as a way of getting through this next year, since obviously taxation or additional taxation doesn't appear to be a possibility. And finally, I'd like to speak to some of the implications. I've given it, naturally, a great deal of thought. Perhaps not as much as it deserves, but nonetheless, as much as I can afford at the moment, and I've come up with a few conclusions. I do want to say, and to abut a couple of points that were made, apparently earlier before I arrived. Commissioner Hancock refers to a statement that I made pertaining to perhaps removing services from Marco, and I remember also responding to County Manager Fernandez in a similar fashion, that if there is no funding, clearly we can't provide service. That's a general discussion as well. If there's no funding, clearly law enforcement, EHS, fire services, it really doesn't matter what you're speaking of, if we have no funding for government service, then government service goes away. I still recall clearly federal shutdowns because federal government didn't have revenues. And they shut everything down. Mostly nonessentials. In our case, I had to go back and think this through. What I come up with is perhaps a little bit different scenario. I wanted to reframe this discussion by saying that $1,053,100 that was arrived at in discussions with the city council, again, we base that upon a number reflecting the number of calls for service that happen within District 6 substation, which is a larger area than just Marco Island. But we base that number on the number or proportion of calls for service that can be attributed back to Marco Island proper within their city limits. 72 percent of the calls occurring at the substation in Marco can be attributed back to Marco Island proper and the city. That is as close as we can get to a real number, an accurate number that reflects how much money is being spent by the sheriff's office and by you, the Board of County Commissioners, on service, law enforcement service, to Marco Island. I should also caution, though, that the million dollars is the actual amount of doing the business. That is actual responding to calls for service. That's not patrol time, if you'll recall that part of the discussion from the last public hearing that we had. So if we take that million dollars away, we no longer have the ability, theoretically, to respond to the calls for service occurring on Marco. At first that sounds attractive, perhaps, to some people, but me, in my position, as a constitutional officer, as sheriff, I believe -- and I also know, because I'm accepting legal counsel from my attorney and trying to do my own research as well as to my constitutional responsibilities -- I know that I must continue to respond to calls for service in Marco. Those calls for service represent primary law enforcement complaints, usually crimes in progress. I cannot refuse to respond to a crime in progress as part of my duties. The real issue -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir, would you mind if I ask -- you want me to wait? SHERIFF HUNTER: No, no, I've got a few points, but I think I can get back to them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. You have to respond to a call from service -- for service, but you don't have to respond from that substation, necessarily. You could respond from some other location, could you not? Theoretically. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's one issue. We don't have to have substations, because theoretically the sheriff's deputies -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You could respond from out here on the campus. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- wherever the calls are occurring, the deputies are in those areas on patrol cruising, patrolling, waiting for the next call to come in. Unfortunately, we're not waiting as long in between calls -- for calls to come in. But theoretically you don't have to have a substation anywhere. We could have headquarters. What has happened over a period of years and going way back to a former board, the Board of County Commissioners desired to have substations. We gradually phased them in, if you will. We started with North Naples and we already had a substation at Everglades City and Marco and Immokalee, so we just added a couple -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- and now we have -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- what I was getting at, obviously, is you don't have to continue to provide a substation on Marco and, therefore, have immediate response. It may -- the response time might be a little longer -- SHERIFF HUNTER: But let's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if you came from somewhere else. SHERIFF HUNTER: If we could probe that a little bit, that's where I was headed, so you are getting me to that point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A little quicker. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's apply for commercial zoning on that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here, here. SHERIFF HUNTER: There was a couple of functions for the substation. People go there and they pick up reports, they file reports, they get information, they pick up their buttons and stickers for hurricane evacuation, et catera. It's a place where they can go to get governmental service. The substation could go away. The real point that's being made and the suggestion is that would we have to have deputy sheriffs in that area to respond immediately to calls for service? Crime in progress calls. And I think the answer is yes, for a couple of different reasons. One, if that's where the calls are coming in -- you know, I want to use some -- I'm not singling out an area, but it's an area that people can relate to. Let's say Naples Manor. For me not to have units available to respond to Naples Manor means life-threatening conditions and situations occurring to people wanting help from government and law enforcement, but unable to get it because the sheriff has decided to deploy resources in Marco or Pelican Bay or some other place. Same could be said for Immokalee, parts of Golden Gate, North Naples, even the City of Naples. If we fail to deploy in those areas where we know things are going to happen, it could be demonstrated in a court of law that I'm ignoring my duties, parts of my responsibilities and, therefore, I'd have a feasance issue to deal with pertaining to why am I not doing these things. So I think what would happen, Commissioner Norris, is that even if I didn't have -- even if we didn't have a substation in Marco district, that elements of the agency would be deployed there for patrol purposes to respond to calls for service as the crimes are occurring, just because I couldn't treat that element of Collier County any differently than I treat other citizens and visitors, other people in Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Despite the suggestion from -- SHERIFF HUNTER: And that's one of the problems I'm having. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Despite the suggestion from some city councilors on Marco that they should be deployed apparently to those areas that have a higher tax base than other areas. You get to deploy everywhere where it's necessary under state statute, right? SHERIFF HUNTER: That is the argument. Of course, they are arguing, in my discussion with Marco, that they pay more than their share of taxes. We heard the same thing from Pelican Bay, we hear the same thing from City of Naples and other areas of the county where we have high-price developments going in with very large valuations placed on the structures. Their argument is probably a good argument, but we need to put the assets and resources where they're required. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And isn't that the point? Isn't that where you have some flexibility that the level of -- that based on some crime statistics or just based on just common sense, from my point of view, an officer patrolling in the Marco district is much more likely to have time to watch the grass grow than an officer patrolling in Naples Manor; therefore, if you have less -- if you have fewer dollars to spend and therefore less people -- fewer people available, then you're going to have to deploy them where there's more action. And there's less action on Marco. So can you reduce your deployment on Marco? SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me address the first part of the compound question. The first part is if you think of it in broad terms, you're absolutely correct, there's less happening on Marco than there is happening in Immokalee and Golden Gate and some other areas. However, that having been said, remember that the $1,053,100 is based upon the actual activity occurring in Marco, not on some predicted amount of activity, not on some comparison of activity to other districts. It's the actual activity occurring on Marco. That's how we arrived at $1,053,100. And that was last year. We don't -- we suspect that what's going to happen to Marco next year is just like every other district, we're going to see increases in activity, not decreases. So we're using this $1,053,100 as an indicator of an absorption of services in Marco. They are, however, a reasonably and comparatively crime-free area, less activity than many areas, so your statements are nonetheless true. It's just that this million dollars that's in dispute happens to be based on actual activity. So therefore, if we don't -- now, I want to talk about some of the consequences if the million dollars isn't there. We tried to look at this a number of different ways. And since I can't look at it as if you don't pay -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Children. SHERIFF HUNTER: If you don't pay -- yeah, I didn't hear any crying. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No crying, so we're okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Must not have been her head. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's usually a good sign. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a good sign. SHERIFF HUNTER: If you don't pay, then I'm not going to deliver services. I must -- if I've misled the board -- I think I have to state officially and formally for the record that my legal position would be -- tonight would be that after consideration and based upon the legal constitutional and political consideration, I can't say that. I can't withdraw from Marco, because we're literally talking about actual levels of activity and crimes occurring there, and I will have to respond. I will have to do something there. The -- my belief is the actual consequence -- and I apologize for taking so much time; I appreciate the board being so accommodating -- but I believe the actual outcome is going to be that we will -- if you'll recall, we phased in the new positions, the new law enforcement positions this year. It came to about $950,000 or so. The actual outcome of the loss of $1,053,100 to the budget will be that we completely wipe out those positions, those new positions that were needed in order to keep pace with growth, plus about $100,000 will be reduced from the budget in operating costs. That will be the outcome, meaning -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Meaning we jeopardize safety around the remainder of the county in order just to try to maintain on Marco. SHERIFF HUNTER: Our whole county suffers. Law enforcement service decreases slightly because of growth, not because we've taken people off the street or done anything differently. Just because of the pace of growth, we're going to have a reduction county-wide in levels of law enforcement services. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: More specifically, we'll have a reduction county-wide because the City of Marco won't pay for their own service. SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct. That, in my mind, is the outcome, inasmuch as I believe I am compelled by law to provide them with service. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question about the calls for service. Is there another distinction -- I mean, I'm obviously looking for distinctions. Is there a distinction in the level of crimes on Marco so that the level of crime there is property crime and less likely to be somebody in danger, therefore, you can -- yeah, you have ways to deploy fewer officers based on that? SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't have a breakout at the moment. In fact, that's basically what I was looking for when I stepped to the podium. What I can tell you is that I found that sheriffs and other government officials get themselves in trouble when they suggest that property crimes may not be a serious threat to life. Owing to the fact that if you'll recall -- Geneva Husgrave was a good example. Geneva Husgrave was killed during a burglary in progress. She was in a house, just come down to visit from North Carolina, burglars break in, she's awakened, and they beat her with a dumbbell to death. You can't -- I don't want to fall prey to that. I think that property crimes can also be very significant crimes. And once again, I'm going to be locked into making certain that I'm responding in a similar fashion to those property crimes and those violent crimes occurring on Marco as I am everywhere else in the county. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps an easier way of asking that same question is just you have the ability to assess what is the minimal level of still providing adequate safety? SHERIFF HUNTER: That's the minimal -- 72 percent, the 1,053,100 was the minimal value. That was to keep Marco the same as all areas. No increase, no decrease. Same levels of service that we've been providing, which was what it takes to respond to the calls for service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's something terribly wrong in the State of Florida if an area can become a city and the demand on the law enforcement remains the same and there's not a thing you can do about it -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And don't have to pay for it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when that city withholds payment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think it goes back to the way their charter is written. And their charter does not speak to the issue, I believe, of law enforcement. And if you go to the state statutes which speaks to cities that have charters, they immediately refer to the police chief or a chief law enforcement officer. Their charter does not speak to it, it's silent on that issue. And there, in my opinion, is where there's a big hangup. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps the city fathers didn't see a need for law enforcement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to give -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For once I liked it when you called it city fathers instead of mothers. We're not messing up that bad. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like the -- I guess I'm not going to give the folks who drafted the charter enough credit to say they were devious enough to see this coming, but I will say that they were sufficiently vague so as to place the burden of their law enforcement on 200,000 residents that live outside the City of Marco. It's like the old adage, if you never give any answers, no one can ever nail you down to anything. Well, that charter left law enforcement so sufficiently vague that we can't legally hold the City of Marco to anything, and the abuse of a minimum of one other council people that by a unanimous vote I think includes all of them of that vagueness. And what is actually happening here is they are taking their million dollars that they should be paying for law enforcement, they're putting it in the bank until they give themselves enough time to go out and hire two or three of these cross-trained firefighter/police officer/doctors/lawyers/school teachers, and in the meantime, is telling the rest of Collier County to pay for their calls for service. And what I have heard tonight and over the last week, and as each day has been a new discussion and a little more depressing, is that there's not much if anything we can do about it unless the sheriff can prioritize calls in such a way that things such as property vandalism that has previously occurred goes so far at the bottom of the list that it waits until some -- you know, that a coffee break occurs slightly ahead of it. And I -- what I'm hearing you tell me is that there's really no way to do that within your agency. And if we can't show the people in the City of Marco what their city council has tried to do to them, then why don't we just let the rest of the county incorporate and eliminate the unincorporated general fund altogether and the city -- you know, the city can have sheriff's protection. They can get rid of their police department tomorrow, too, because they're entitled to the same thing the City of Marco is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't Duval County the same? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think, though, what's happened is that they have been led to believe that because they have such property values and their taxation over the years has been what it has, that they have paid their fair share. In other -- actually, that they have paid more than anyone else, and so, therefore, now Collier County, you're going to pay for us because you -- all these years you have collected and, you know, is been inequitable. But you know what, guys? It's the tax system we have. It will always be this way. It's not going to change anything any. And unfortunately, they're going to make us pay. Not only us, they're going to make all the rest of Collier County pay. And because their charter does not speak to this issue, we're between a rock and a hard place. No so much us, but the guy standing right there is the one that is in the position of between the rock and a hard spot, because he still constitutionally has got to provide service. And it's what is that level of service? What I don't understand is, is why the residents on Marco Island are willing to sit back and put up with this. That, I don't understand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, by a recent petition that's been circulating, there's about 3,500 of them that may not be willing to. We may or may not have a way to deal with the financial issues with law enforcement, and we can explore that. I think we're going to do what we've all agreed to on the budget, and we will explore it in the coming months. But quite frankly, this sets the tone for the relationship between the City of Marco and Collier County. And we have, as was mentioned before, gone out of our way through giving the parks and doing other things, tried to extend olive branches and tried to reach out and have a good relationship with the city. If they choose not to accept that and choose to have an adversarial relationship, whether we make it up in the sheriff's budget or not, I guarantee you there are ways in which, unfortunately, the City of Marco Island is going to suffer both financially and otherwise in its relationship with the county. And so whether it comes down to this 1,053,000 from this specific line item or something else over the next five years, it unfortunately sets a horrible tone for the relationship between the two governments, and it is the people of the City of Marco that are going to pay the price for what I said before and I'll say again, is the single most irresponsible act I've seen any governmental body ever take, and that is their refusal to pay their fair share for a safety issue of law enforcement. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And contrast that with the philosophy of Pelican Bay who complained about the same issue, the exact same issue, and then had the responsibility to go ahead and tax themselves additionally for additional service. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, contrast those two philosophies. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we transferred the parks to Marco yet finally? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good question. Did we deed them? MR. WEIGEL: The board approved that on Tuesday. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We approved it on Tuesday? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The contracts in total? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have the deeds been delivered? MR. WEIGEL: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then it's not effective until delivery; am I right about that? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- a prevailing side of that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I signed it with disappearing ink. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would not back out on that contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We wouldn't do that anyway, but we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I wouldn't, but I would take this into consideration on future issues. I'm not going to back out on that issue, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is, I don't know how many more future issues exist. There aren't going to be a lot of them. Obviously there -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, there will be. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, there's some more. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Think of all the issues we have with the city -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but I'm not going to be here to stick it to them, that's the problem. This has become personal, you know. I've only got eight more weeks to stick it to Marco. No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's the headline. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He can say that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's fun saying whatever you want to, isn't it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You sure know who's not going to be around. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a certain element of freedom down at this end of the dais at this point, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- has principle down there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess, you know, what we have seen is -- and when you talk about contrast, look at what we did on the parks issue. We did our very, very best. Where five people walked in here with a mind set and five people left doing things somewhat different than what we anticipated in the effort to be as fair as possible. And I think we were in that case probably more than fair, but trying to set a tone and a balance to a relationship that was going to have to exist for decades. And to be treated this way in turn and for council people in the City of Marco to tell the residents who live in my district that our tax dollars are more important than yours is -- again, the single word that comes to mind is simply pompous. It's just not right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's actually two words. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Pompous? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Simply pompous. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Simply pompous. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so we're going to have to make a budgetary reduction because we can't raise taxes. But there is -- I mean, there's going to have to be an adjustment during the year to meet minimum levels of service somehow. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, Sheriff's got to fix it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to go on the record as telling the Sheriff that I'm not going to vote to dip into reserves in January to fund any shortfall because of this. I think, you know, it's really unfortunate. This should not be at this point, but unfortunately, I think it's going to be up to you and your budget people to overcome this, however you can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I think we should commit our resources and particularly our legal staff, in any way possible to assist in that endeavor. Because we need to make Marco face up to its responsibility. Where we started out with this was being very careful, while it puts the sheriff in an awkward position, not to throw it all on you and say well, good luck. And I think we all need to participate equally in making sure that Marco pays their fare share. And if we can do that via legal means or otherwise and assist the Sheriff in doing that, then we should. But I agree with you, I'm not going to turn around and bail Marco out by pulling the money out of reserves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something we ought -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's keep in mind -- let's keep in mind, before we go too far off the deep end here, that they have -- they have budgeted this money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have the money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They do have it in hand. And so it's just a matter of maybe discussions with the Sheriff will convince them of the rationality of going ahead and fulfilling their responsibility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What you're going to have to do is paint them a picture that isn't as pretty as, you know, you won't see any change. SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me, if I may, one final comment? Marco won't suffer. Marco isn't suffering. Marco knows it's not suffering. Next year -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Balance the account. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- getting the number of people that they have on Marco to respond to the calls for service, they know that they aren't going to suffer as much as the rest of the county. The growth is in other areas: North Naples, Golden Gate, gang activities in Golden Gate, Immokalee, somewhat North Naples to our northwest, because of the border with Bonita. They aren't going to suffer. Their crime situation isn't changing year to year. Their calls for service is not changing year to year. They've been very smart about this, as I said before. They won't suffer. The rest of the county will suffer in the sense that we are not going to be able to keep pace with the growth required of this agency and of you with law enforcement services, because we are being underfunded as a result of this issue with Marco Island. We won't be able to add the people necessary to do what we're doing this year in the new fiscal year if things happen as we predict they will, as we've been predicting over time. And as I pointed out in the last public hearing, we have an impact fee study that also points to the same issues, that we continue to see increases and need, but we're not keeping pace with government services, including law enforcement. So I would just like to add caution to this. I very much support Commissioner Norris' statement that Pelican Bay saw it, they were able to reframe the whole thing, get it -- they understood what was happening, that their money may be going elsewhere, but that money -- it's not to say that they're getting an advantage out of that. The bad guys don't recognize the boundary at Pelican Bay any more so than Marco Island. They visit from Immokalee and East Naples, North Naples, and they take property and goods and sometimes lives from the people of Marco Island. So that's not going to stop. There's an advantage being realized by the City of Marco Island, the people of Marco Island, when they pay money into this bigger tax pot because of the social good that goes out from there that we spread those services around. We're giving them an advantage by giving them all the services of the county. So I think part of the argument that the board needs to put forth with the City of Marco is that they are a little shortsighted here. They may be paying a lot of money in, in relative terms compared to other people. They're also getting a lot of service for that. They've got a safe place there. And I'll remind them that many people who live in Collier County think Marco Island's a great place to shop. And it's not just the City of Marco Island resident that's going to benefit from services provided by Collier County, it's all the people who live here who visit Marco Island who participate in the trade there, who are their tourists, who are daily visitors who are benefitting from the services of Collier County, including the Sheriff's Office. And they need to wake up and see that. This is a partnership, and I would have to encourage them to be a partner with the Board of County Commissioners and do their fair share. But I do also ask the board's consideration for those new positions next year so we can provide for the growth expected to try to keep pace with law enforcement need. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, would you do some research for us -- not for tonight, but as far as the dissolutionment, or the city calling an election for the dissolutionment? It seems to me that one of the things I read was that the County Commission would have the authority to call that election. Would you check on that for us? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd be glad to fund the cost of that election in the near future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You just want to make the motion so you Ca~ '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Lot cheaper than a million bucks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hope that the people in Marco Island understand that this is just -- you know, there's no animosity here for anyone living on Marco. I mean, we don't draw those lines. But it's just -- I'm dumbfounded at what the city council has done. Absolutely dumbfounded. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Resolution? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Resolution. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the sound track. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Smykowski? Item #2E RESOLUTION 98-400 ADOPTING THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the public comment. The next issue on the agenda is resolution to amend the tentative budgets. We would need two motions, again, a strict interpretation the state statute, the pollution control fund as a dependent district of the board. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move the resolution on the pollution control fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So you would do the principal governing body funds first, pollution control second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if there's no second for that, I'll move the resolution on the principal government body. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd like to move the pollution control fund resolution, please. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: pollution control fund. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second. We have a motion and a second on the Motion carries five-zero. Item #2F PUBLIC READING OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY LEVYING MILLAGE, THE NAME OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY, THE ROLLED-BACK RATE, THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE, AND THE MILLAGE RATE TO BE LEVIED MR. SMYKOWSKI: Item F on the agenda is public reading of the taxing authority levying millage, the name of the taxing authority, rolled back rate, percentage increase and the millage rate to be levied. With the change tonight in the general fund, the proposed millage is 3.5510; rolled back rate, 3.5050; 1.3 percent above the rolled back rate. Road district 1, rolled back rate is N/A, proposed millage, zero. Road district 2, .103, .0987 mills rolled back, proposed .1163, percent change, 18.9. Road district 3, fund 104, .26 mills rolled back, proposed .39 mills. Percent increase over rolled back, 50 percent. Road district 5, fund 106, .2862 mills, .2195 is the proposed millage rate, a decrease of 23.3 percent. The unincorporated area general fund, 111, rolled back .6774, proposed .5887, a decrease of 13.1 percent. Golden Gate Community Center, fund 130, .3005 rolled back, proposed .2985, a decrease of seven-tenths of a percent. Marco Island beautification, no rolled back rate, no proposed levy. Naples Park drainage, 139; rolled back .1455. No proposed millage. A decrease of 100 percent. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, 140, rolled back rate is zero. Proposed millage rate, .1097. Percent change, N/A. Victoria Park drainage, fund 134, rolled back .2370; proposed .124, a decrease of 47.7 percent. Naples Production Park, fund 141, rolled back 0.0276, proposed 0.0372, an increase of 34.8 percent. Isle of Capri Fire, fund 144, rolled back, .7344, proposed one mill, increase 36.2 percent. Ochopee Fire Control, fund 146, rolled back 2.5271, proposed four mills, percent change, 58.3 percent. Collier County Fire fund, 148, rolled back 1.4895, proposed 1.7979, an increase of 20.7 percent. Sabal Palm Road, fund 151, rolled back 4.9271, proposed 4.509, a decrease of 8.5 percent. Lely Golf Estates beautification, fund 152, rolled back 1.4772, proposed 1.5, an increase of 1.5 percent. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU, fund 154, rolled back .2102, proposed, .1114, a decrease of 47 percent. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU, rolled back .2387, proposed, zero, a decrease of 100 percent. Immokalee beautification, fund 156, rolled back 1.0015, proposed one mill, a decrease of one-tenth of a percent. Bayshore/Avalon beautification, fund 160, rolled back is zero, proposed three mills, percent change, N/A. Parks GOB debt service, fund 206, rolled back .0510, proposed .0495, a decrease of 2.9 percent. Marco Island coastal beach renourishment, rolled back is N/A, no reposed levy. Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue debt, fund 244, rolled back .1923, proposed .1810, a decrease of 5.9 percent. Collier County Lighting, fund 760, .2275 rolled back, proposed .1886, a decrease of 17.1 percent. Naples Production Park street lighting, fund 770, rolled back rate, .0062, proposed .0060, a decrease of 3.2 percent. Marco Island lighting, no rolled back rate, no proposed tax levy. Pelican Bay MSTBU, rolled back .267, proposed millage rate .2484, a decrease of seven percent. Water pollution control, rolled back is .0430, proposed .0413, a decrease of four percent. The revised county-wide millage as a result of the general fund change, the rolled back rate, 3.548, proposed 3.5923, an increase of 1.2 percent. And the aggregate millage, the rolled back rate, 4.203, proposed 4.2602, an increase of 1.4 percent. That concludes item 2-F. Item #2G RESOLUTION 98-401 SETTING THE MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED We would now need a motion -- two motions adopting -- setting the FY '99 millage rates. First of which would exclude the pollution control fund being -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And we'd need a separate motion on the pollution control levy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second. We have a motion and a second. Hotion carries five-zero. Item #2H RESOLUTION 98-402 ADOPTING THE FUNAL BUDGET BY FUND - ADOPTED HR. SHYKOWSKI: Item H, the -- we need a motion -- a resolution to adopt the final budget by -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify the motion, that's the budget that decreases the millage rate again this year? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not just hold the line as they do in -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actual cuts to taxpayers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- other municipalities. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Holding the line for 11 years would be easy. Lowering the taxes, on the other hand, that's a real challenge. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There was a second for that, wasn't there? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe there is a second. For lowering, I believe, is that what I heard? Could you restate that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plywood on my windows. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Lowering that tax rate, is that what we're voting? Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And we need one final motion on the pollution control fund. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second on the pollution control fund. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. If there's nothing further to come before this board, I adjourn the meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK· CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC