Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/31/1998 S (Interim Governmental Services Fees) SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Bob Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney ORDINANCE 98-25 ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FEES TO RECOVER THE CURRENT COSTS OF PUBLIC SERVICES ALLOCABLE TO TAXABLE PROPERTIES NOT REQUIRED TO PAY CURRENT TAXES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to call to order the Tuesday March 31st session, the 1:00 o'clock session, of the Board of County Commissioners. This is more or less a special meeting. It's the advertised public hearing considering adoption of an ordinance establishing interim governmental services fee to recover the current costs of public services allocated to taxable properties not required to pay current taxes. If you'd rise, please, for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think I faked you guys out a little bit down there. He, too. Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Weigel is going to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel is going to be presiding? All right. Mr. Weigel, you're on. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I may be presenting at least just a part of it. Thank you. David Weigel, County Attorney. I appreciate that we could be here today with this fifth Tuesday afternoon meeting to discuss consideration of adoption of an ordinance establishing an interim governmental services fee. A brief history provides that this board and the county staff have been investigating, developing, researching an interim governmental services fee for a period of approximately three years at this time. And in December of 1997, as well as in -- 1st of March, early March this year, the board had adopted resolutions of intent to use the uniform method for a collection of this assessment which would utilize the tax bill. This is pursuant to Chapter 197, Florida Statutes. The Executive Summary provides a rather brief synopsis or synthesis of what this ordinance purports to do. As stated previously in -- in prior board meetings, this is an attempt to provide for a fairness and an apportionment of service -- services being provided by the county to properties, which full valuation is not reflected in the property tax roll and thereby reflected on the tax roll for specific periods of time, whereupon although the services are nonetheless provided to these developed properties, this is an attempt to provide for service cost equity for all properties receiving similar services depending upon, of course, their type of development. This is a one-time fee that would apply and appear on the tax bill just once in regard to any particular parcel of property. It would be -- the billing would -- upon the adoption of the ordinance, the billing would take place through the tax bill that issues through the Tax Collector's office and it would start with this October-November 1998 billing implementation. The fee also would be in fact a lien upon the property and I might -- I might note that although the popular term has been a fee, this is, for all intents and purposes, a special assessment with the basis of benefit to the properties that receive the services and would have the fees so applied thereon. With us today as part of the developmental staff for this, of course, is John Yonkosky, Department of Revenue. We've also, as you know in the past, had the assistance of outside consultants known as Tischler and Associates, whose report previously received by the board will become a part of the process and certainly referenced with the ordinance before you today. This board also, upon my recommendation, provided for the employment of outside counsel, a specialist in municipal government law, a long list of credentials concerning -- and of case law and from the development on behalf representing municipalities and local governments of impact fees, special assessments and a municipal service taxing units, and he is here in the form of Mr. C. Allen Watts will also be making part of the presentation and probably the more technical part of the presentation today. The Executive Summary endeavors to provide in brief format the kind of application of the assessment that would -- that would apply to properties that are developed and receive a Certificate of Occupancy, and that can be found on Page 2 of the Executive Summary at the top inset in the box. Among the other considerations you have today is the fact that we would be requesting, if the board should adopt the ordinance, the petition report be updated and that would require a separate action of the board to approve the further service of the Tischler and Associates to update the report and make the appropriate -- provide for the appropriate budget amendment that would be necessary to pay for those services. And with that, I'll turn it over to either Mr. Watts or Mr. Yonkosky, whoever wishes -- Mr. Watts? MR. WATTS: Thank you. Good afternoon. First let me thank you for the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, would you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. WATTS: Certainly. My name is Allen Watts. I practice law with the firm of Cobb, Cole and Bell in Daytona Beach, and I am one of those souls who has a misfortune to specialize in -- in local government law. Actually, it's been enjoyable. I've spent 25 years doing it and it -- it really is interesting to me to try to figure out ways in which we could help some of the problems that local governments seem to be saddled with, usually sent downstream by the action or the lack of action at the state level. One of the problems that local governments have suffered from and one of the political forces, which led to the anti-unfunded mandate amendment is the fact that more and more local governments are being asked to pick up responsibilities without being given new revenue sources to pick up those responsibilities. The problem becomes particularly acute in those jurisdictions, which are growing at a relatively rapid rate, particularly in proportion to their base. If you look at the history of how Florida raises revenue at the local level, the constitution gives only one source of revenue to cities, counties and school districts, and that is the ad valorem tax, a tax on real estate and tangible personal property. The legislature may, but seldom does, give additional authority to local jurisdictions to impose other taxes at the local level usually coupled with a referendum requirement. But by and large, you're limited to the property tax. In the Constitution, it says that all property within a given jurisdiction shall be taxed at an equal rate. One of the problems with maintaining that equality is the calendar under which we proceed with our taxation and budget process. It's a calendar which has gone back many decades, and you all know how it works, so I'll recapitulate it very quickly. Tax value is determined on January 1st of each year. Based on that value, the property appraiser prepares a tax roll by the end of June, certifies the tentative evaluations. Each taxing authority adopts a tentative millage level that goes out on the TRIM notice. You have your public hearings in late summer, early September. You then adopt a budget which begins October 1 and the tax bills go out November 1 based on what the value was the preceding January. They are delinquent if not paid by today. What happens in the case of a county where you have fairly rapid development or a high proportion of new development, new taxable property in proportion to your existing base, is that you receive no revenue in respect to that new development. For example, if a particular property is completed tomorrow, if this ordinance is adopted and it has an immediate effective date, if a property is completed, the improvements are completed tomorrow, it will not be appraised for taxation until January 1, 1999. And the first revenue you receive would be in November 1999 for the fiscal year that begins October 1 of 1999. Yet that property will require public services for half of fiscal 1997-1998 which is currently underway and all of 1998-99 with no ad valorem revenue in respect to those improvements. So, in that example, you've got 18 months of services being provided with respect to -- to that newly improved and occupied property with no ad valorem revenue. Now, you -- you have two choices. You either increase your ad valorem millage rates on everybody else or other revenue devices, fees and assessments that may be available to you on everybody else to make up that shortfall or you try to recoup from the owner of the property requiring that service the cost of that -- of that service. And that's what the Tischler report attempts to do. It attempts to quantify what does it cost you based on your recent experience, what does it cost you to provide services to these newly improved properties in respect to which you are not receiving any immediate ad valorem revenues. And Mr. Yonkosky has done a chart which explains something of -- of this lag time that is not constitutional. The Constitution says -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Watts. You're going to need to be on the microphone when you talk. There's a hand-held on the side if you're going to be on that side. MR. WATTS: Thank you very much. The -- there we are. The chart reveals that for the initial year, if this ordinance were effective October 1 and you had Certificates of Occupancy issued in April, May or June, then an assessment would be made on the tax roll in November that would collect for the public services being provided from April 1, 1998 all the way through September 30th, 1999, because for the remainder of this fiscal year and all of the next fiscal year, you will not be receiving any tax revenue in respect to those improvements. Similarly, in subsequent years we begin the assessment roll for administrative purposes July 1 of each year. For properties that receive a CO on July 1 of this year through June 30th of next year, they'll be processed in the next cycle and that gives us a chance to get that roll assembled, get it to the Tax Collector and get it out in time for the November billing. So, for properties that receive a CO in -- any time after July 1 of this year through June 30th of next year, they're going to be assessed for anywhere from nine to 21 months of their cost of services as based on the Tischler report and so forth and so on. We -- we have identified each year or part of a year based on an assessment cycle that runs July 1 to June 30th so that we are able to pick up an assessment in November for that number of months for which that property escapes taxation on the improvements. And the amount of the assessment is the value of the services based on the Tischler report. We have done a couple of things that I think might not have been expected when this assignment was originally given to me. One of those is that the -- the case law -- there's been a series of decisions by the Supreme Court in the last two or three years that deal with the subject of what services are fundable by special assessment. And the key seems to be can you measure based on -- on the new population growth what your increased cost of providing services is going to be? Can you quantify it down to the per house or the per thousand square feet of commercial space and so forth? And the Tischler report does that in a way that I believe will pass muster under those new Supreme Court cases. We have omitted those services which the Tischler report found are not population sensitive, are not growth sensitive and have no appreciable effect on your -- on your cost of services. We have included only those that are growth related. The other thing we have done, some of the justices, and there's -- there's been a -- a back and forth three-four, four-three split on the Supreme Court, and that was before Justice Grimes retired, as to whether you could recoup particular services through the assessment process and what the downside was. Justice Wells in particular has been concerned and has written several opinions, either concurring or dissenting, in which he expresses a concern this could be an end run by local government around things like the homestead exemption or the ten million cap. So, a couple of the precautions that we put into this proposed ordinance were, first of all, a credit for any ad valorem taxes actually paid. For example, in a -- in the case of a new house, you're still going to have the lot which will be on the tax roll anyway. And we're giving an offset for the taxes that will be coming in with respect to the vacant lot. And the other thing is in the case of properties, which are tax exempt because of their use; that is, charitable, scientific, educational and so forth, they are entitled to an exemption from the ordinance. And for those properties that are owner occupied and will ultimately be determined by the Property Appraiser to be qualified for homestead exemption, we have given an equivalent credit against this assessment so that no one can really say that you're trying to dilute or water down the -- the homestead exemption or -- or impose a higher fee for the services than they would have to pay if they were actually paying taxes. I hope that explains some of the theory of the -- of the ordinance, why we put it together the way we did. And Mr. Yonkosky has for your ready reference, and I think you've seen this before, a portion of the Tischler report, the summary table. You've already gotten it. It's Page 26 out of the Tischler report. And those tables give you the starting numbers that we propose to use in the ordinance. And have they got -- MS. ASHTON: I distributed them. MR. WATTS: Okay. You have a -- a new copy of the -- of the agenda item that beginning on Page 7 of your agenda transposes the appropriate numbers from the Tischler report as the starting numbers for your ordinance. You'll note that the countywide fee for Sheriff's services begins at 213.99 for a single family residence and so forth. All of these numbers are extracted from the Tischler report. And we had originally anticipated that we might have an update of that report prior to your adoption. The way you have this before you today, you're being asked to authorize a further update of the Tischler report and, therefore, what we did to -- to fill the blanks in the ordinance that you had was to bring in the numbers from the Tischler report based on your budget numbers for '96-'97. And that's where these numbers are based. The Property Appraiser has lately issued a letter, and I believe I -- I have not yet received my copy, but I understand there's a similar letter from the Tax Collector, dealing with some questions from the constitutional officers about the administration of this. The first thing I want to say is with respect to the concerns about legality, part of my obligation to you is to commence validation litigation to -- to make sure that this is legal. I think that Mr. Carlton in particular had asked for an opinion of the Department of Revenue for his comfort, and I think we can go him one better because my contract requires that we get an opinion from the Circuit Court that this is a permissible way. And the way we propose to do this, in order to -- to provide the -- the correct justification for the assessment, we need to get the proceeds of the assessment into the same fiscal year in which the cost of service is incurred. Well, you're going to collect an assessment in November, if you adopt this ordinance, for properties that are occupied beginning in April and it's not going to go into fiscal year '97-'98's budget unless we do something about it. What we've provided in the ordinance is that we have the right to issue revenue anticipation certificates. Those are financing devices so that we can borrow against the November assessment, put the proceeds of those revenue anticipation notes into this year's fiscal budget so that we get the revenue in the year where the services are being provided and where the costs are being incurred. And that way we're on a -- a constant current financial budget, revenue versus expense. The revenue anticipation notes become the vehicle by which we will then seek validation in the Circuit Court under the -- the second part of my obligation to you. So that, I think, will answer the question that Mr. Carlton raised about can we get an opinion from the Department of Revenue or somebody as to whether or not it's lawful to do this. We do propose to do that. I think that I have answered the question about the homestead exemption. We do not propose to make the County Administrator a substitute for the Property Appraiser in determining who's entitled for homestead. We've used the statutory language of who's entitled to qualify for homestead in order to qualify for the credit against this assessment. Certainly, if the Property Appraiser wanted to undertake that responsibility, I think that might be something that's discussable, but not relying on being able to require him to do so, we've provided that the County Administrator would -- would undertake that responsibility for purposes of the assessment only, not for purposes of determination next year or later years of whether somebody is actually entitled to a homestead exemption under the ad valorem tax laws. With respect to the section of the ordinance determining substantial completion, I think Mr. Skinner, the Property Appraiser, raised a question about how do you intend to determine when a piece of tangible personal property is acquired or placed into service in order to assess the fee? That is a bit of an administrative unknown at this point. We certainly can impose the obligation. And the way we propose to recover it is to reach back in later years, if something goes undetected until they actually file a tangible property tax return, and then we find out that property was placed in service a year or a year and a half earlier than we knew about, we have the ability under this to -- to add it to the then current year and reach back to the time when the property was actually placed in service and, again, with the revenue anticipation notes, the ability to transfer that -- the money back to the correct budget year in which services were provided. So, what we've tried to design for you is a -- a system that has some fiscal integrity to it that offsets the revenues from these assessments in the fiscal year when costs are incurred in order that you may hold down your ad valorem millage that otherwise would go to subsidize the services to these properties that are not giving you any ad valorem revenue on the cost of the improvements. We've tried to do it in a way that -- that sets it up to be legally ratified early in the process so that you don't incur any substantial liability for refunds while you go through some long, involved other litigation process. We've tried to anticipate those concerns that a minority of the Supreme Court has expressed in some other cases about whether or not this waters down homestead exemption or other constitutional protections for taxpayers. We've tried to design this as a holistic system so that all the moving parts of it work together to one end, and that is to recover the cost of services provided to people who are not paying for that cost of services. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. I've probably gone into more detail than you might have preferred, but I -- at this point I think I will -- would rather entertain questions from you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have to make a statement here. I don't know where we're at, where I'm standing, but I believe I have a conflict of interest in this particular issue, having to do with a family member who's about to close on a home, a new home that's being built. Am I -- am I all right to vote on this or am I not? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm glad you brought that up because my father-in-law has a contract on a house, too, and it would be the same application, but since it's countywide it affects you and I as well as them. My understanding of the law is that it doesn't represent a conflict of interest. MR. HANALICH: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Hanalich, Assistant County Attorney. Just in speaking with Mr. Weigel and Mr. Pivacek now in checking Chapter 112, I tend to view this situation as Commissioner Hancock has just mentioned. This is an ordinance of countywide application and I do not see that there's a special private gain or loss through your voting on this ordinance. This is a matter of countywide application. Whether it was an incidental result one way or the other for a relative, I don't believe meets the test. Now, that's, obviously, without indepth research but as asked right now. I don't know if Mr. Weigel has anything to add. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise I think a lot of decisions we make that are countywide that have eventual or potential fiscal impacts we all could claim conflict now. MR. HANALICH: But I think the situation would be different if you were voting on something that, for instance, was limited to a particular PUD, a particular home or property, but this is to me of countywide application. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's what -- I don't mind. I've been involved with this before, so I -- I'm not -- not concerned, but I -- on the other hand I don't want to get down the road and get nailed for something. We're real sensitive to those things these days. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That would never happen around here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Of course not. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Yes. Obviously, the question is appropriate to -- appropriate to be raised and I think that it's -- it's very fine to place this on the record also. I -- I do agree with the review that Mr. Hanalich has just done. We discussed the facts as we know them. We can certainly, I think, all recognize where there are almost constant review of the statutes, that it does look in fact to in the bloodlines and -- and close relations when you look to incidents of a special benefit, but I think that is where the distinction does divide out. And this is a -- an ordinance of such universal countywide application -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- that the benefit or detriment is incidental to the relations that may -- MR. HANALICH: The only other thing I would add is -- MR. WEIGEL: -- or may not alter. MR. HANALICH: -- there is not to be any particular unique or special tie between the situations you've discussed in the ordinance. And this almost reminds me of some of the Commission of Ethics opinions that I've seen where you're talking about where the board votes on a matter of a -- like a regional mall or something and somebody happens to know a relative that happens to be affected because they're in the neighborhood by the -- whether or not that mall was in or not. Again, that was not viewed as a special private gain or loss conflict of interest. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Great. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt the train of thought here. Now, Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. You had mentioned earlier, and I'd like for you to clarify for me a little bit, about you mentioned applying a credit for property tax paid on the vacant lot? MR. WATTS: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Explain that for me. MR. WATTS: Yes, sir. The original Tischler report just took a -- a macro look at the entire county and proposed that you give an offset of maybe 30 percent of the amount of the assessment because on the average, countywide, that might be what the land value would represent in proportion to the -- to the total assessment that was being proposed. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So, now, let me ask this. Then the figures that are contained in the -- in the revision of the ordinance here already reflect that offset? MR. WATTS: No, sir. The -- I don't believe that's the case. The -- the numbers that are reflected in the Tischler report are the cost of services per dwelling unit or per thousand square feet of commercial space. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying then that 30 percent of these figures will be -- will be removed from the initial assessment? MR. WATTS: No, sir. What we found as we -- as we moved through the drafting of this ordinance was that the -- the data processing capability exists to do this on an individual parcel basis rather than simply apply a 30 percent countywide offset and -- and, therefore, we have proposed, if you'll take a look on your Page 17 of the agenda package? 7.1 subtracts the credit equal to the ad valorem taxes paid or payable in respect of that property for those fiscal years that are being assessed under this ordinance. So, we're doing it on an individualized basis. We've -- we've talked that over with Mr. Yonkosky. We have the data processing capability to do that. I'm more comfortable with that legally than simply applying some gross 30 percent pudge factor to it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm having difficulty understanding the point of subtracting that at all. I mean, the -- the vacant property generates no call for services. It's the -- it's the fact that you built some sort of building on that vacant property that causes the need for services. So, why would the -- I'm just having trouble trying to understand why the vacant property enters into it at all. And -- and the other part of that is that a lot of this vacant property is so expensive that if you apply 30 percent of -- of what they paid in taxes against this assessment, you're not going to have an assessment. So, what was the point of doing this exercise to begin with? MR. WATTS: In the case where somebody is already paying taxes that exceed their cost of services received from the county, then you have to that extent been getting a bit of a bonus. So, the rest of the taxpayers up to that extent have been getting a bit of a bonus. We are at the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why didn't that break even? Why is that a bonus instead of break even? Do you mind? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that's the way -- MR. WATTS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it is now if your home is worth 250,000 in this county. That's the parallel I'm drawing is if your home is above the average valuation, the rest of the taxpayers are getting a bonus already. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Off of you. MR. WATTS: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems like a parallel situation to me. MR. WATTS: Well, it is a parallel situation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, John. Go ahead. I didn't mean to divert. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's see. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Start again. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We're -- we -- we have a -- a status today -- MR. WATTS: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- a situation today, and what we're saying is people are building houses from today on and when they do that our -- our retail property or whatever it might be, we expect an additional amount of money to provide for services that -- or pay for services that will be provided because they built a building. Now, if you're going to issue them back a credit and take that away, I don't see the point in doing this at all. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me at that -- that point. We're saying they -- they -- the status that we have today will be elevated by whatever building is built. MR. WATTS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, therefore, we want an assessment commensurate with that building. Why give it -- why are we going to give it back to them? MR. WATTS: One of the things that we've -- John looks like he's ready to -- to hold forth here. MR. YONKOSKY: Maybe I can address that, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name? MR. YONKOSKY: Sir? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you? MR. YONKOSKY: My name is John Yonkosky. The -- the original study was put together so that the assessed valuation was the total, included the land and the building. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they've already paid taxes on it. MR. YONKOSKY: And they've already paid taxes on the land so that the figure that we want to use to apply is the net value, and -- and so we did address your question by taking the assessed value that we're going to use to apply the -- the assessment against, that includes the land value. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, otherwise, we would be taxing twice on the land -- MR. WATTS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or collecting a fee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, you're just going to back out the land portion -- MR. WATTS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- from the -- what you've paid on taxes, you're going to back that out of the overall? MR. YONKOSKY: That's right, commissioner. It was easier for us to come up with the total assessed valuation other than just the assessed valuation for the building itself. And that's -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is not based on a valuation. It's based on units or a thousand square feet of commercial space. It's not based on a valuation. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct, but we still had to determine what the actual tax would be that the individual would pay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that we can see what's the deficit we're trying to make up. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. That's correct. And you're right, Commissioner Norris. It's not based on assessed valuation but we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can't be. MR. YONKOSKY: -- we know what the -- what the valuation would be for what we're -- what the millage would have to be and what the revenues would be generated and that's why we did it that way. We took the total and then backed out the value of the land from the -- the last year's tax roll. And in the first study, we divided the county into zones and that's where we came up with the 30 percent. But what Mr. Watts is suggesting, that since -- if we have the actual amount of taxes that was paid on that lot the previous year, that we apply it evenly instead of -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I understand what you're -- what you're doing, but it seems awful cumbersome to do it that way when really what you're trying to do is a simple assessment per unit. It seems like you're making it awful complicated to get that accomplished. MR. YONKOSKY: Well, we can -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're trying to make it jump the legal hurdles, aren't you? MR. WATTS: Yes, sir. I am. There are -- and let me say there -- there are cases which say that you can base assessments on ad valorem value. There's a -- there's a case out of Boca Raton in which that was approved, but normally you try to identify some special benefit that you're trying to recover, some -- some benefit that this property is enjoying that properties generally within the county are not enjoying. The benefit that we've identified here is the benefit because of the quirks of our tax roll preparation calendar, the benefit of not paying takes is on a portion of the value of your property even though it's occupied and receiving services. Now, there are plenty of properties countywide which are vacant, unimproved, and they may receive a minimal level of -- of service but -- but not much. I mean, the Sheriff's patrol services don't do a lot of benefit for -- for a vacant lot. Maybe a little, but not much. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Most people don't even have alarms on their vacant lots. MR. WATTS: Yes. Exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually with the Norris-Hunter plan they'll be doing more on vacant lots. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They'll be doing well on vacant, that's true. MR. WATTS: But the idea is that the -- you -- you've got to find a way of quantifying that benefit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. WATTS: And we've quantified it by saying it's the free services that you're getting. Well, to the extent you're paying taxes, you're not getting the services for free. So, you get credit for what you've already paid for the services and you get a bill for the difference. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. WATTS: In some cases the bill will be zero, you're right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But not in all since land is typically not the largest portion of the overall improvement. MR. WATTS: Typically not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was, what did -- what does this adjustment do to the revenue projection? You know, we were doing this -- this 30 percent was how we got our revenue projection. What does this do? MR. YONKOSKY: The revenue projection is going to increase is what we suspect, that it's going to be a goodly portion higher than a 1,400,000 that we told you. This plan will take and eliminate the low income homes or the low value homes and the extreme upper value homes, but with the concept that we're recommending to you in this ordinance, it can go up to 21 months. Therefore -- before we were restricting it just to 12 months, so we don't know what the -- the total amount is but we do feel, based on some of our valuation, it's going to increase. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things that I think are important, because all of us have been immersed in this, we understand the concepts but those that are watching TV may not. So, I think two things that we need to state are that, one, what we're trying to solve here is a free-ride scenario where you construct a place of residence or a new home and receive the benefit of services without any compensation to those agencies providing the services. In other words, I think what was it; up to 21 months was the -- you know, the -- the -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- worst abuse? This is because this is how the state legislature has designed our collection system. We're here talking about this today because the state legislature year after year after year has failed to give the counties the authority to use partial year ad valorem assessments, which seems to make the most sense. If you're in the house six months out of the year, you ought to pay six months worth of taxes on the improvement. This isn't rocket science. If it were, John, we'd have you as a hired consultant. So, it's not -- you know, this is not an issue of -- of assigning new taxes, which I know is going to be an accusation or a charge out there. It's simply a way of recouping the expenditures already paid for by other taxpayers, those that don't live in the home. So, you know, we can obviously track through this ordinance the benefit, but where the state, I think, has failed us in a way is if I understand correctly, under state law we're required as a county to provide services concurrent with growth. We can't call you back and say, I'm sorry, we can't send a deputy's car to your house because you weren't on the tax rolls and improved property this year. We have to provide the service based on the anticipated population of that given year. If the state legislature does not give us any method in the ad valorem side to recoup those funds, what we're really dealing with is an unfunded mandate. We believe that the Constitution allows us to collect this benefit. We called it a fee earlier, but what's the top -- the -- the title du jour? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the title du jour is interim governmental services fee but I think it just as adequately or perhaps more appropriately might be called interim governmental services assessment. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We are provided by the Constitution to assess these amounts to recoup those funds that the state legislature has failed to give us the opportunity to gain. If we go through all of these hurdles, and let's assume for one reason or another a system of courts trips us up or says that they don't agree that we can do this. Do you think that more -- more than likely would come on the side of placing it on the tax bill or on the assessment itself? I mean, which is the -- the greater risk as we go through this validation process in your opinion? MR. WATTS: The -- the concept of recovering service fees is better settled in the law than the concept of special assessments. The cases are sometimes confusing between the two and there's a lot of overlap between the two. In the classical legal sense, a special assessment was something that you paid because your street was being paved or sewer was being put in rather than a service that was a bit more removed like the Sheriff's patrol service that we identified here. I was involved in some of the early litigation on user fees and impact fees and -- and -- and so forth. And in those cases we -- we found it necessary to explain to the courts the difference between three systems that local governments have available to them: Taxes, which are limited by the Constitution in general law; special assessments, which at that time were thought to be fairly confined; and, user fees, which we used to begin the whole universe of -- of impact fees and -- and -- and so forth. The user fee model has been approved by the courts for 25 years. The special assessment model has been less well explored in the courts, and I've told you earlier there's -- there's a back-and-forth block on the Supreme Court that likes some of them and doesn't like some of them. I think properly explained as to how we based it and the fact that it really is not much different than the fees you've been approving for 25 years, I think that -- that we are in good legal position for the validation. We -- we have that complaint ready to go so we -- there won't be any delay in finding out how the courts feel about it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So, all these requests for getting this attorney's opinion or that legal opinion, as you mentioned earlier, we're going to go one better? We're going to be proactive and get that opinion before we proceed down the road with -- with any haste? MR. WATTS: We -- the bills don't go out until November. By that time we should have finished at least a Circuit Court round of validation proceedings. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just one that just came up from this which is -- so we may find ourselves in the position of having to make a decision about assessment this year with only the circuit and not the Supreme Court validation having been completed? MR. WATTS: That's correct. It is possible for the Supreme Court to decide the case before November. The rules do require that bond validation appeals be given priority on its docket but they also provide that death penalty cases get priority on their docket and, you know -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And when you weigh those two -- MR. WATTS: -- you can only do so much, you know. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bonds are much more -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think it would probably do as we have in the past, which is don't count on it until we know it's going to happen and that's been prudent in the past. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thanks. Well, I think this entree perfectly into a little further discussion that -- that will probably be appropriate for the record and certainly for -- for your own edification, and that is the fact that to go forward with the exercise of a validation process, and I'm not a -- a numbers or a budget person particularly, but it does in fact imply that there will be in fact a concomitant budget, PRIM (phonetic) budgetary provision to be made in the course of the budget for this next year. Now, John, you may wish to address this a little more directly. As -- as has been stated, it's not that we're necessarily clearly looking -- clearly not looking for $1,400,000 as an amount to be validated in an anticipation note or a revenue note kind of process. But there is a number which will be appropriate and necessary and the board will have to address this in its other appropriate deliberations apart from this ordinance consideration today. And perhaps John and -- and -- and Mr. Watts can assist a little further in filling in that -- that part of the canvas. MR. YONKOSKY: The way that the ordinance is designed is that the money would actually be budgeted first in a special revenue trust fund in the same way that the additional court costs are set up so that you can identify all the money that's received, and then after you go through and look at the expenses that were incurred, do you have expenses that were less than the money that you collected and then it won't work. You can't transfer the money. So, what we're going to do is ask you to establish a special revenue trust fund and we'll budget the estimated amount of money in there for the subsequent year. But for this year since -- if you approve the ordinance, we will be putting together an amount of money that will be part of this budget year. And since we don't know whether it's there or not, Mr. Smykowski, your Budget Director, just suggested that we take and recommend a budget of the revenue in a budget, and put that money into reserve. So, really, what you're doing is increasing your -- your revenues and your reserves and if that flies with counsel's overview of it. MR. WATTS: The amount that would be collected for the -- for the next three months that would be allocable to the current fiscal year is something around a half million? MR. YONKOSKY: We anticipate that it would be a half a million dollars. MR. WATTS: Yeah. MR. YONKOSKY: But that's an estimation, so that's what we would be asking. MR. WATTS: And for this year, prudence would dictate that you put that in reserves until we have the -- the decree in hand. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions, comments? No? Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one; Bill Spinelli. MR. SPINELLI: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Spinelli. I'm here representing the Collier Building Industry Association today. We've been working with your county staff for more than a year and I'm sure that I've even heard conversations among certain of the commissioners on this exact issue over the last year. It's a very complicated structure to try and accomplish what is being said is an even or fair fee for the services being provided to the residents of the county. We all understand that. We all also understand that for some reason, and there may be some good ones, the state legislature has said, no, we are not going to have partial year assessments in the State of Florida. Okay. Part of the reason may be that there are some very complicated valuation models that inevitably will end up unfair. Part of the reason may be they just don't want it. They want people to move to the State of Florida. People want to come here. Let's look at some of the benefits aside from the real estate tax collection to the community's financing structure when an additional person comes to the county and invests 50,000 or 100,000 or 250,000 or a million or two million dollars. I've heard some conversation that the county's not really receiving any money to pay for its services and I can't help but just simply say that's not true. Okay. There are -- there are millions and millions of dollars coming to the county when -- when the next residence is built. Think of the sales taxes that are paid when somebody builds a house. Okay. So -- so that rationale is not entirely accurate. It's an issue that's being addressed around the state. The Florida Home Builders Association is aware of it. In all likelihood, it's going to be contested and I hold out one other caution. Maybe this county isn't the one that should be the testing grounds. Okay. Maybe this county should really wonder whether it's the right thing to do at all. And I just caution to move very slowly and carefully in the spirit of trying to find 1.4 million or maybe it's a half a million or maybe it's two and a half million. We don't know. When it's probably not the right thing to do at all, it's clearly a way to try and go around a system that -- that said, no, we're not going to do this. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Spinelli, that's also the same system that said they're not going to fund county court costs. That's also the same system that says we as a county shouldn't be allowed to adopt smoking standards more stringent than theirs. So, I don't hold the state legislature in high esteem on all issues. I think there are people trying to do their job. But after returning from Tallahassee last week and standing in the rotunda between the Senate and House chambers, I learned how you get somebody out of a chamber. I learned who's doing it. I watched it. And the reason we don't have partial ad valorem assessments for the most part is because the Florida Home Builders have sunk a tremendous amount of money every year in lobbying efforts to shoot it down. They're the premiere organization fighting against partial year ad valorem assessments. So we, as a county, are trying to look at how we can do what is right by our citizens, which plain and simple is not for me as a tax payer to pay for the EMS service that you as a homeowner received because you moved here in February for 11 or 18 months. Why is that fair? Why should I? You chose to make an investment in your home and that's your decision alone, but the services provided to you should be shared equally by each resident of this community and not borne more by one than by another with the exception of the obvious constraints of an ad valorem system. So, it's a little -- it rings a little bit hollow that when CB -- the reason we're going through this of putting it on the tax bill is because of CBIA really, really insisting that that's the way they wanted it to go. It would be a lot easier for us to just collect it at CO. We could make a much better ordinance that way and spend a lot less time in court probably, so I'm a little upset that we've been working with CBIA in trying to find a way to put this on the tax bill and then to hear as a representative of CBIA you don't think this is the right thing to do. The two, I think, are not terribly consistent. I understand your philosophical disagreement. Let's face it. When that person spends two million dollars on their home, county government doesn't get that two million dollars. We get long-term tax benefits but we also get service requirements. That two million dollars goes to the individuals who are in the business of building homes and selling land and selling homes. So, you know, I understand your point. We have a business, we have an industry here. We're just trying to treat the citizens fairly in the providing of services and I think this is a way to do it. MR. SPINELLI: All right. Can I make one comment to that? It's okay? What the Florida Home Builders Association does think is fair is to move entirely away from the impact fee system and -- and if the state legislature decided they wanted partial year assessments, that's fine, all right, and collect a one percent transfer tax so that whoever comes, right, and buys the next house will pay the tax. In fact, you may find this a little surprising. It will generate tremendous additional dollars past what is being paid today, all right, but it won't be borne on the home building -- the new home buyer. It will be borne by everybody equally. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess to me that doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the object of the game isn't to try to generate more tax dollars. The object of the game is make everybody pay their fair share. And when a new home comes on line, it does cost for new services. It does cost for additional things. And someone needs to pick up that tab and it shouldn't be equally borne by everyone. So, if you move down the street to another house, that doesn't create the same burden as building a new house and having one more house using the services in the county. So, I can't agree with your discussion there. Whether it generates more revenue or not isn't the idea. The idea isn't to tax as much as we possible can. It's to have a fair and equitable manner in which it's done. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we all understand that impact fees placed a directed impact on the cost of new construction to people buying homes. I think we understand that. We understand that you as a representative of an organization that is concerned about the impact of that industry would have the opinion that you do. I don't think that's a surprise to anybody. I think a transfer tax doesn't get to the heart of the problem, which is that if no more homes are built tomorrow, I don't have to add EHS units, I don't have to add staff in so many county departments. But every time a new roof is put on, I have to prepare for that and it cost money to prepare for it and we just want to make sure that nobody unfairly gets a free ride in the system because they bought a new home instead of an existing one. That's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Spinelli, did you -- did I misunderstand your thinking perhaps that -- that this assessment is a new -- something new, a new concept? MR. SPINELLI: Well, it -- I -- I guess I'll say that it would be a new special assessment or a new fee. It's something I know we've been talking about for a long time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, because I believe that it's amazing that this whole thing was brought up back about -- that I'm aware of, since 1984 in Collier County. There has been discussion about it in some way, shape or form. It may not have reached the County Commission level but there was another government body here in Collier County that was very instrumental in talking about this and trying to get some movement on it prior to the commission getting involved in it. And the amazing thing was that, you know, the demand that it's placed not only in county government but other county services; i.e., the public school system, is going to be one eventually if this stands muster with the -- with county government I'm sure is something that's going to come on line with the -- with the public schools. But -- and I'm sure Mr. Watts is -- is well aware of -- of discussion that has taken place in the past regarding this partial year assessment and -- and the impact of the growth and particularly growth counties. I'm sure there are counties in this state that this probably has no bearing on, those counties that maybe don't build many homes in a year and don't see an increase in population. But when you have counties such as ours right here, there is a tremendous impact on facilities and things like that. And -- and when you're basically told, not so much in county government, but in other governments as to how much tax you will levy and -- and you have new students coming through all the time, then tell me, what are the options open? You have -- we had -- in the school system, you have no taxing authority to speak of. You can't raise taxes. You are told by the state what taxes you will levy on people. The only way you have any control over would be for capital improvements. So, what is your -- where can you go with this? And yet you have how many new students coming in every year into Collier County and you've got to provide for them. What's your alternative? And your -- your idea of moving down the street the guy who currently owns a house and moves down the street, nothing has changed there, but it is for that new family that comes in and it never occurs to them that their child wouldn't have a place in the classroom. So, eventually this is going to -- if -- if this goes in this particular area, it is going to go in other areas of -- of government in Collier County. MR. SPINELLI: I think we all agree that there's a little bit of unfairness in how the fees are being collected, the taxes are being collected. I guess the purpose of -- of my comments through the building industry is to -- for the record, just make -- make it known that it's going to be protested and maybe this county shouldn't be the one that is the -- the -- that goes to the expense and the -- to go through those waters. And -- and the state legislature has created the rules of how they want the alternative unfortunately. Okay. If the county needs to have more revenue is to raise the taxes. Nobody wants that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- MR. SPINELLI: -- of any kind. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can tell you, Mr. Hancock raised a very valid point when he said exactly what transpires in the legislature and where he was happened to be located is exactly what happens and has happened in the past. There have been some extremely heavy lobbying groups up there that nab those legislators every opportunity they got and bent their ear and said no, no, no. And we thought a couple of years ago that the partial year assessment had a very good chance of going through up there and all of a sudden it disappeared in a committee. I mean, we were all sitting there waiting for it to be heard and, bingo, the magic hour hit on the clock and guess what? Nothing happened. And there was a number of people in the room. We had all been told to be there to hear this and it disappeared. So, you know, it didn't have -- and that didn't happen just because it happened. It happened because somebody really got their ear bent. So, this is one thing and if Collier -- if Collier County doesn't do this at this point in time, who? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And what you'll see, Mr. Spinelli, is not a new -- not new revenue -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but replacement revenue. What you'll see from in the past the fiscally conservative position this board has taken is you'll see a reduction in the ad valorem rate. It isn't a new revenue. It's just revenue that's already being paid by people who are on the tax rolls for the services for those who aren't so, you know, your -- your -- your advocacy position I understand entirely. I don't fault you at all for making it and I -- I -- I'm not trying to be hard on you, but I'd certainly -- I bristle a little bit at any -- any idea that we're going after the building industry or after the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- construction industry. MR. SPINELLI: Don't misunderstand me. I don't -- I don't take it that way and the building industry doesn't take it that way and the building industry understands the problem. But it also understands that there are rules. And what -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Bad ones but -- MR. SPINELLI: And you know what, we don't disagree that there might be bad ones but nonetheless there are laws and rules. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then quit lobbying to keep them if you want this area. MR. SPINELLI: I can assure you I have never -- I have never gone to lobby myself, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We understand and -- and we're not trying to be -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not personal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're not trying to be harsh but there -- there definitely is another side to this issue as -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I'm sure you're aware. MR. SPINELLI: Oh, I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd much rather beat Whit up, but he didn't show up. MR. SPINELLI: I'd much rather that you beat Whit up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you say you're -- you're representing CBIA or Florida Home Builders or both? MR. SPINELLI: The Collier Building Industry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Collier, okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He said Collier. Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. You mentioned awhile ago that the alternative of this would be to raise taxes, but you see the -- the whole point of this exercise is not to raise taxes but it is to make sure that those who are causing a need for services are the same ones who contribute to the cost of those services, paying the cost of those services. And, so, it -- it's really a tax equity issue as bad as I hate to say that because I'm always saying there is no such thing as a tax equity issue, but that's what this is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It gets us a lot closer than where we are now. CONNISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It sure is, so I -- I just want to know the official position of the CBIA. I want you to make it clear to me. We -- we are trying to make sure that -- that people who cause the need for services are those who pay for these services, pay their fair share. Is the CBIA for that principal or against that principal? MR. SPINELLI: Generally speaking, I think the whole -- the building industry is in -- in for fairness. I think the reason the building industry is speaking to the line of thought that it's made here today is of the laws and rules that exist. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But -- MR. SPINELLI: Okay? Regardless -- we have our rules that we play under in the building industry and there are laws and rules and we must play by those rules and -- and so must the county governments. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. You -- MR. SPINELLI: And I've just -- the building industry is concerned that we're going to bend around in Collier County, okay, and whether it's six months or a year -- and I'm glad to see that -- that your consultants and attorneys are going to expedite this process to find out the answer because that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Save you some money. MR. SPINELLI: -- it's of paramount importance. It's going to save the county some money potentially. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. MR. SPINELLI: Right? But things have to be done fairly but they have to be done within the rules. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. You said two things. You want -- just reiterated it. You want fairness. You're in favor of fairness and you want to stay within the rules. MR. SPINELLI: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're trying to make a new rule that makes it fairer for everybody that you can comply with. What's the problem? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my question is, I -- I thought that we had some sort of an understanding with CBIA that if we didn't ask you to be the collectors of the tax, if we went to the trouble to do this on the tax bill, that we should not expect a challenge from CBIA. MR. SPINELLI: I'm not -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What happened to that? MR. SPINELLI: I'm not saying that you're going to get a challenge from the Collier Building Industry Association. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From the Florida Association then. MR. SPINELLI: That is outside of the Collier Building Industries. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that, but -- MR. SPINELLI: This issue -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- does the CBIA -- let me be clear. Does the commitment that Whit made to us, Whit Ward made to us, that the CBIA was not going to sue the county over this issue stand? MR. SPINELLI: Yes. If Whit made that commitment, it will stand. That doesn't mean that we still shouldn't be prudent about how we go forward because, you know, candidly the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will CBIA be active if Florida Building Industry Association chooses to pursue this legally? Will CBIA take an active role in that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or fund it in part? MR. SPINELLI: You know, it's hard for me to answer those questions because I don't think it's a -- it's kind of if this happens, what will -- and we have never discussed that at any length. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's not that much of a hypothetical because you just stood at that podium not five minutes ago and said we need to go on the record and need to be clear that the building -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- industry will likely challenge this and -- in court. MR. SPINELLI: No, I didn't -- I didn't say that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You did say that and we can pull up the tapes or record. You did say that. And I think that's why Commissioner Norris asked you, when you say the building industry is going to, do you mean Collier or do you mean Florida? And I think Commissioner Hac'Kie's point is Whit Ward has said -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'll not sue us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we won't challenge it. We -- we won't fight this thing. So, I -- I don't expect that only to be the Collier Building Industry but I would hope that you'd keep your word as an association and not simply hide behind some other label of the Florida Building Industry and still challenge it. MR. SPINELLI: Here's how I can answer that, okay, and I don't really have any -- any direct words from the Florida Home Builders Association other than I know the state as a whole, which is run by the Florida Home Builders Association, which the executive director here in Collier -- so he really can't take positions for the state and I would be surprised if he did, okay, but I can tell you that in the state there are several other counties that are looking at what's being done here. And we're a little bit of a testing ground and I think everybody here knows that and I guess we just need to be a little cautious. That is all I'm saying. The Collier Building Industry is not going to go to court over this. That I know. Okay. And that's been committed to you, but there are other areas. Let's say that the Florida Home Builders Association never sues Collier County, right? It is likely that this is going to be protested by some group somewhere around the state if it even holds water and through the internal process that you've instructed your consultants and attorneys to take it through so we just need to be cautious. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question was quite simple. Will Collier Building Industry take an active role if the state group decides to challenge this or will they sit that one out? MR. SPINELLI: I think -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The state does all kinds of things. Collier doesn't participate -- MR. SPINELLI: I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in all of them. MR. SPINELLI: I believe that Collier will sit that one out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be, you know, keeping true to what I understood was the -- was the -- MR. SPINELLI: But the caveat with that is that it doesn't mean that it's not going to come to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no. MR. SPINELLI: -- to be an issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course not. There may be one individual builder who sues. I mean, people have standing, but the association -- the relationship between the county and the association is important that we know that -- you know, that commitment hasn't changed. And I think you've reassured us about that. MR. SPINELLI: We're not looking to cause problems but we're just here to -- to express industry concerns and awarenesses. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You held up pretty well under the grilling so '- MR. SPINELLI: Thank you, sir. I tried. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whit owes you a big lunch. MR. SPINELLI: Yes, he does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, the -- that's okay. I don't have anything else from you. Ha'am Chair, I did also want to point out, Mr. Weigel has a list of counties and individuals that have been tracking this, that have been watching what we do. The interest is so broad within the State of Florida within the 67 counties. I'd say some 40 or 45 of them would like to do this same thing if given the opportunity that we have the potential should this become in any way a protracted legal issue to apply to the Florida Association of Counties Defense Fund. We contribute from the legal standpoint on issues that are of statewide importance, that the Defense Fund stands ready and if need be this is a statewide issue that Collier County just happens to be a leader in fairness on. So, I just offer on that as -- as an option should we arrive at a -- what I would call a decision point. We may want to have that in our bag with this public information. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the amended version of the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do -- did we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel is going to help me make a motion. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I probably am just a little bit. I think your motion is well taken but I do want to make sure that we have all of the housekeeping out of the way so that your motion is all inclusive. And I -- and, Allen, I'd ask that you maybe assist me here but I think that the record should reflect that the amended version that was handed to you and will be placed in record with the reporter today has certain changes on it from that which was purely advertised. And I'd like for that to be mentioned into the record and if, Allen, if you think that the -- if we need specificity to page and line number, we have that capability to do that right now. And while he's looking at that, I'd also just mention for the record the Executive Summary does state that the staff, County Attorney office, over the course of two years has had various dialogue with the municipalities within Collier County as to whether they were interested to participate and be a part of the ordinance process should the county so adopt. And it's fallen -- the response has fallen under two categories. This last year there was a -- call it an affirmative negative response from the school board in the City of Naples specifically indicating that they were interested but that they did not wish to get into the process at that point in time. The City of Marco was not in existence at that time. With this current effort leading up to the draft or the ordinance before you today, our communication with the City of Naples, City of Marco was that no response or no official response, but the information had been passed on to them if they wish to become involved. Beyond that, I think the school board response of a year and a half ago maintains itself that they're anxious and interested to see what develops if the -- if the county deposits this ordinance. Another thing for clarification, you mentioned in Executive Summary but I'd thought I'd mention orally in the record is that the interim governmental services fee contemplated by Collier County is in fact a countywide fee. It has application within municipalities as well as in the unincorporated area. And I think that was already clear but I thought that I'd mention that again. Obviously it's not a fee imposed upon municipalities for any services that the county is not providing for properties that become developed and receive Certificate of Occupancy, things of that nature. It pertains specifically to county services that are enhanced or additional requirement upon the development of properties that happen to find themselves located within municipalities. And I wanted to mention that for the record and maybe Mr. Watts is ready to mention a couple of additional numbers for you. MR. WATTS: Madam Chair, I will move very quickly for the benefit of the public and -- and the record. I think you all have copies of this before you. There is -- there is one typo and all of the rest of the -- of the numbers that I had read you are -- are made purely to correlate this ordinance with the Tischler report. The typo is in Section 5.3.1 on Page 8. That is an assessment for services of the supervisor. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Supervisor of Elections? MR. WATTS: Supervisor of Elections, yes. Okay. Beginning on Page 7 of your agenda package, the initial numbers for the services of the Sheriff are single family or mobile home, 213.99, multifamily, 107.44, nonresidential retail, 50,000 or less, 806.59, 50 to 200,000, 604.94, 200 to 500,000, 483.96, and the same for over 500,000. For office space, 10,000 or less, 412.11, ten to 50,000, 350.16, over 50,000, 308.80. Industrial uses; manufacturing, 204.60 per thousand, warehousing 139.34, light industrial, 256.34, business park, 348.49 and hotel per room, 115.89. For the unincorporated area only; services of the Sheriff, single-family residence or mobile home, 36.41, multifamily, 18.36, retail, 50,000 or less, 136.76, 50 to 200,000, 102.87 and 200 and up, 82.06. Office space, 10,000 or less, 69.20, ten to 50,000, 58.40, over 50,000, 51.90. Industrial; manufacturing, 34.48 per thousand, warehousing, 23.48, light industrial, 43.20, business park, 58.73, and hotel per room, 19.62. For services of the Supervisor of Elections, this is residential only and countywide; single family, 117.49, multifamily, 86.79, mobile home, 103.62. Code enforcement services; single family, $8.63, multifamily, 8.48, mobile home, 7.45. Nonresidential code enforcement, retail 50,000 or less, 10.38, 50 to 200,000, 7.78, 200 and up, 6.23. Office uses, 10,000 or less, 14.40, ten to 50,000, 12.23, over 50,000, 10.79. Industrial; manufacturing, 5.74, warehousing, 3.91, light industrial, 7.19, business park, 9.77 and hotel 1.89. For the courts and related services, residential only, countywide, 27.65 for single family, 20.43 for multifamily, 24.49 for mobile homes. MR. WEIGEL: 49 or 39? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 39. Yeah. I've got 39. MR. WATTS: 24.39. I'm sorry. Slow down just a bit. 5.6, animal control. Countywide assessment, residential only, single family, 3.09, multifamily, 2.29, mobile homes, 2.73. Public services for libraries, residential, single family, 23.14, multifamily, 17.09, mobile home, 20.40. Public services, parks and recreation, countywide; residential, single family 38.66, multifamily, 28.55, mobile home, 34.09. Unincorporated area only for the special services of the incorporated area, single family, 14.74, multifamily, 11.07, mobile home, 12.72. Public health services, countywide, residential, single family dwelling, 4.58, multifamily, 3.39, mobile home, 4.04. Nonresidential uses, all retail is 82 cents per thousand square feet. All office is 36 cents. All manufacturing is nine cents. Hotels are six cents per room. Public services for the medical examiner, this is again countywide, residential only, single family, $4.20, multifamily, 3.10, mobile homes, 3.70. Public works assessments, countywide, residential, single family or mobile home, 2.93. Also the same for multifamily. All retail uses, 13.17 per thousand square feet. All office uses 5.85 per thousand. All industrial uses, $1.46 per thousand, and hotel, 5.85 per room. And, lastly, support services. We're on Page 16 of your agenda. This is a countywide assessment. For each single family home, 56.26, multifamily, 41.56, mobile home, 49.62. Retail uses, 50,000 or less, 69.55, 50 to 200,000, 52.16, 200 to 500 and up, 41.73. Office uses, 10,000 or less, 96.48, ten to 50,000, 81.98, over 50,000, 72.30. Industrial uses, manufacturing, 38.44 per thousand. Warehousing, 26.18. Light industrial, 48.16. Business park, 65.47, and hotel, 12.66 per room. Those are the changes from the originally circulated version. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my motion to incorporate the changes noted by Mr. Watts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll amend the second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Watts? MR. WATTS: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you start over and repeat those numbers, please? MR. WATTS: I'll be glad to. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any further questions from the board? I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Additionally as referenced in the agenda item, Executive Summary, would be the direction from the board to authorize the updated additional report and any appropriate budget amendment to accomplish that result. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other questions? All those in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: And lastly, I believe, would be the board giving direction to staff in the County Attorney office working with Mr. Watts to expeditiously prosecute the validation process and report back to you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Weigel, is there anything further? Just a moment. There is one item since this is a meeting that has been advertised and this is a -- just a clarification over a comment and I would like Mr. Weigel, if you would, please, to clarify a point, please, that has been made publicly through our newspaper. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you close the public hearing before you go on? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Well, you did ask if there were any more speakers. The answer was no -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was no. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- prior to the vote. MR. WEIGEL: I think the record can reflect closure. I -- I take this opportunity to address an item concern to the Board of County Commissioners, which is the collective client of the County Attorney and the office of the County Attorney. And I noted in an editorial published in the Naples Daily News this past Sunday that it has made -- continues to make reference in regard to the broad -- broad discussion of ethics in government. And it stated once again incorrectly that a commissioner had been advised by the County Attorney in regard to accepting and reporting on gifts. And it -- this appears to be a bit of a pattern. Certainly there is a repetition in this because checking back in the ethics files that our office keeps and has for many years, we noted that in regard to some of the reportage of ethics this past year, that on Tuesday, October 21st of 1997, referring to the same commissioner, it mentions that the commissioner is not pointing fingers at the County Attorney's office for providing disclosure makes it okay advice, that -- that commissioner followed. And what this does with the continued reporting of something that is absolutely inaccurate and which the Naples Daily News has never come to me to confirm is that I have concerns that the Board of County Commissioners collectively and the board as individual commissioners may have questioned about the efficacy, the legal opinionability of the County Attorney and his staff if they read the newspaper and continue to see the same inaccurate statement made time and time again. I think the individual commissioners know that I'm not one to meet frequently or lobby in regard to issues of this nature and I -- I come forward actually rather rarely over the past nearly three years that I've been County Attorney with issues of general concern to me. However, I am concerned that this board and the individual commissioners hearing this statement repeated in the newspaper with no response being made in the newspaper or in any other forum to the contrary may actually think it's true. Additionally, the public who subscribes or reads the newspaper or comes across it in one form or another with these continuing editorials with these misstatements concerning the County Attorney would logically after time perhaps not have the faith and confidence in the County Attorney that advises their elected officials, the Board of County Commissioners. This office and I personally deal with other attorneys in the community, whether it's in commercial development matters, services, lawsuits, construction issues, sexual harassment cases, the whole milieux of -- of the practice that makes things dynamic and interesting for a County Attorney and his staff. However, if they continue to see the inaccurate statement repeated, that the advice of the attorney to its singular client, the Board of County Commissioners or the individual commissioner, is erroneous and clearly erroneous with no statement to the contrary, the big lie becomes the big truth and unfortunately it affects not only the County Attorney but his office, his staff, the morale of the staff and our interrelationships with the client. I think this is an extreme disservice that's been done to the County Attorney and to its client, the board, in this regard and that the record has not been corrected. Additionally, over the course of three years as being County Attorney, eight and a half years as Chief Assistant County Attorney, I've certainly witnessed and -- and prior experience with the County Attorney office, I've certainly experienced not only growth of the County Attorney office but the departures that occur from the County Attorney office. And in part then it's response -- part of my responsibility is to hire people from within the community or beyond and I think that the hiring process is additionally hurt if we see these kinds of misstatements made because, of course, there are the -- the typical understandings that people have when they come into county government, whether it's in the staff or the administrative side or in the legal office, and there's some very good points that come with that kind of employment. But when the drumbeat continues to be inaccurate through one of the larger purveyors of mass media communication, it concerns me greatly. Why? Because I'm a professional and I take my job seriously. Now, I can state on the record here publicly for this board and -- and for the public generally that the record as such is that David Weigel, County Attorney, nor any of the County Attorney's staff or Assistant County Attorneys has ever advised any individual commissioner or the board collectively that it is okay to accept gifts over a hundred dollar value from developers, entrepreneurs, business persons or any others that statutorily classify as a lobbyist and that the reporting on Form 9 disclosure forms make it all right. Until the latter part of 1997, this County Attorney had never been asked to review reporting individual Form 9 gift disclosure forms prior to their filing by individuals in Collier County that are statutorily classified as reporting individuals. We have welcomed the opportunity to review those forms but we always have made apparent to those commissioners or others that have spoken to us that the filing of the form or the review of a gift issue prior to the acceptance of the gift or the filing of the form is all together different from after the form has been filed, months have passed and someone may come to the office of County Attorney and indicate that there's a question. It's at that point that the County Attorney, and that's me and my staff, have uniformly indicated to those persons who have spoken with us that there is a distinction between the County Attorney advising the board as a collective client and the inability of the County Attorney to advise individual reporting persons of the consequences that come from an act that's already occurred. And with that, I -- I just want to close and say that I appreciate the opportunity to bring this before the board. Obviously the communications that I have with the board and the -- and the individual commissioners are important and will continue to have the general privacy and -- and professional legitimacy that they always have had. I look forward to your comments in any form that you wish to provide them. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I have just one response? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I just want to say David and I have talked about this ahead of time and certainly every bit of written advice I've ever gotten from the County Attorney's office on this point was correct legal advice and I have continually said and will repeat again that it's nobody's responsibility but mine to know what my obligations were. If I understand them, whether through a staff or your predecessor, Mr. Weigel, or otherwise, that is totally my responsibility. And I appreciate your need to correct that on the record and -- and have the integrity of your office protected because you deserve to do that. I have never gotten bad advice from you on that point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, you raise what to me is a larger issue and one that -- that may be -- since you've taken a look at this particular application, can give some advice and that is regularly we find editorials in particular to not just be lacking in fact but to be patently false in the presentation in the content. I have seen and read editorials about why I made decisions that were not -- not on the record, that were not resulting from a phone call or inquiry, that were sheer assumptions, that were false and most times unflattering, which I believe is the intended result anyway. The problem I have and the problem we may have in this issue is that until you've come out now and said that what they've been writing is false, is there any recourse for the newspaper on the editorial's side basically misinforming the public, because I believe the public assumes that a newspaper, whether it be an editorial or a news column, at least verifies facts. However, it appears that in an editorial that's not necessary. When this pattern continues, as it has for at least three and a half years with me now, what recourse is available since it falls under the editorial banner? Are you aware of any that this board collectively when the paper serves to undermine the confidence this community they have in its decision makers or whether it chooses to undermine an individual commissioner for its own political agenda, what recourse is available when it's under the banner of editorial? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm challenged to come up with actual facetious statements but I'm afraid that that's probably all that we're left with, quite frankly, dealing with the Fourth Estate and the protections that exist based upon the jurisprudence of first amendment freedoms that exist for the publications. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, it's just -- there's really no requirement that once it's under an editorial banner that they have to do any research whatsoever, that the -- that what they state is positions need no factual basis. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't be reckless -- MR. WEIGEL: It takes -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is my understanding. MR. WEIGEL: It gets us into the account of whether there is -- when you're dealing with public officials, the standard is very broad. It's not very restrictive in regard to what they do, but you -- it pulls you into the areas of malice aforethought, things of that nature, which are very difficult to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Difficult to prove. MR. WEIGEL: -- to prove. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments? Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, if we're through with this subject, I have one more to bring up before we adjourn -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We are. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- very quickly -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As far as I know we are. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- if I may. The board had established the dates for workshops in June to be June the 17th, 18th and 22nd. It's come to my attention that this conflicts with the Florida Association of Counties meeting at Marco Island where Collier County is the host county, and we felt it may be necessary to change the dates. We have changed those dates to June the 15th, June the 19th and June the 22nd. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 16, 19th and what? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. 15. 15 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: 15. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 19 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- 19th and 22nd. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and 22. MR. FERNANDEZ: So, the 22nd didn't change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What were the previous dates; the 16th -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The 17th -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 17th and 18th. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and 18th were the previous dates. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are those both days of conflict with the FAC annual meeting? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: The meeting is from the 17th through the 19th. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have an agenda as to whether or not those -- well, see, one of those dates are going to be more important than the other. Usually the first day is key notes and that kind of stuff. The second day is what I would call the business session and Friday being the -- the wrapup. MR. FERNANDEZ: Legislative wrapup. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't you go ahead and go to the wrapup on the 19th because -- so that's when all the District 4 budget items come up and we'll take care of them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, good, because District 4 is really not my concern. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would be me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: District 2. I'm -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Just checking. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Specifically, what will -- I mean, what's being interfered with here? What are we going to miss on the 18th if -- at FAC. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What happens in June as we begin the process of adopting the legislative program that we're now lobbying for on behalf of our residents in Tallahassee? So, it's something that I think I need to be able to monitor on those days. I also am the chairman of the Growth and Environmental Policy Committee and will probably be required to report on some of those activities. It's just one little me and it may cause me an afternoon on one day. If the 15th, 19th and 22nd doesn't cause a tremendous concern, great, but, you know, if -- if you want to meet on one of those two days and I'll just keep my schedule as -- I mean, I'm willing to do what I need to do for the balance but I -- I would like to have the opportunity to be there because I think it resulted in things such as Article V legislation, which means of hundreds of thousands of dollars returned to our taxpayers, and just like -- I would like to -- to give it the time necessary. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't make any difference. I'll be here every day anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine with me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can't wait for the VAB, the valve adjustment -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The valve -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The valve adjustment board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So 15, 19 and 22nd are the new dates? Is that okay with everyone? I -- I appreciate that. I just think there may be some -- there may be some issues as critical as Article V to deal with again next year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't imagine that we have anything else booked on those days but can we all at least have a -- take a peek at our calendars to make sure something else isn't already booked? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anything further? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Say goodbye. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:43 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR