Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/22/1999 B (Budget) September 22, TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5:05 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 22, 1999 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 NOTICE: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:05 p.m. ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - BCC FY 99-00 Budget. A. Discussion of Millage Rates Funding the FY 2000 Budget B. Discussion of Further Amendments to the Tentative Budget C. Wrap-up Items D. Public Comments and Questions E. Resolution to Amend the Tentative Budgets F. 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 G. Adoption of Resolution Setting Millage Rates H. Resolution to Adopt the Final Budget by Fund $. ADJOURN. September 22, 1999 Item #2A DISCUSSION OF MILLAGE RATES FNDING THE FY 2000 BUDGET CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting to order for Board of County Commissioners. This is a budget meeting. And if you'll stand for the pledge of allegiance, then we'll get started with the agenda. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. You're going to get us started -- confusing me. You're over here with Mike today. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, over here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Going to get us going? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Good evening. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. This is the final budget hearing on the proposed Collier County government fiscal year 2000 budget, which begins on October 1st. First I'd like to clarify some administrative issues. There are speaker sign-up slips in the hallway, if anyone is interested in speaking from the public. They'd need to register and provide the sign-up slip to Mr. Fernandez for public comment. That's Item 2(D) on the agenda. You need to identify that you are interested in speaking. With that done, I'll move immediately into Item 2(A), discussion of millage rates funding the fiscal year 2000 budget. General fund, the proposed millage rate, 3.5058 is an increase of 7.8 percent above the rolled back rate. And the reason for that, it's driven by increase support of the EMS and road and bridge operations, increased support of library stormwater, management efforts increased, sheriff's funding, and a decrease in carryforward revenue that's available in fiscal year 2000. Water pollution control, there's an increase in reimbursement revenues that results in a proposed millage rate of .0355, a decrease of 6.1 percent from the -- below the rolled back rate. Total county-wide millage is -- proposed is 3.5413, an increase of 7.7 percent above the rolled back rate. Getting into the special taxing districts, starting with the road MSTD. Road District 1, there is no proposed levy. That district has been deleted. Road District 2, the increased proposed millage is .1422, an increase of 43.4 percent above the rolled back rate. That's due to median landscape improvements proposed on the North Trail from Seagate to Gulf Park Drive, and from Goodlette to Solano to Pine Ridge Road. Road District 3, the proposed millage is .4587. That's an increase of 24.5 percent above the rolled back rate. Again, median maintenance, as well as construction on CR951, from Golden Gate Parkway to Green Boulevard, and on the East Trail, from Airport Road to Rattlesnake Hammock. Page 2 September 22, 1999 Road District 5, proposed millage is .33, an increase of 75.2 percent above the rolled back rate. And that's primarily due to Immokalee median landscape maintenance. The unincorporated area general fund providing general government services, the proposed millage is .5203, a decrease of 4.9 percent below the rolled back rate. That's attributable to an increase in value within the area. The tax levy itself is approximately the same as that levied in fiscal year '99. The Golden Gate Community Center, proposed millage is .2260, a decrease of 20.5 percent below the rolled back rate as a function of the decrease in budget capital outlay, as well as increased taxable value within the district. Marco Island beautification's been deleted. Naples Park drainage, there is no proposed levy. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, the proposed levy is .0356, a decrease of 63.5 percent below the rolled back rate. That's a function of available carryforward and decrease in budgeted expenses due to favorable bids. Victoria Park drainage, the proposed millage is .114, a decrease of 4.6 percent below the rolled back rate. It's an increase in value. The tax levy itself is a decrease of $100 from that levied in fiscal year '99. Golden Gate Parkway, there's a constant half mill levy within that MSTU, as requested by the advisory committee, an increase of 4.8 percent above the rolled back rate. Naples Production Park construction, there is no proposed levy. Naples Production Park maintenance, the proposed millage is .1570, an increase of 377.2 percent. And that's to repay a loan that the board approved this year due to a parcel of property within the district being declared nontaxable and exempt from special assessments. Isle of Capri Fire is a one-mill tax levy, an increase of 2.9 percent above the rolled back rate. Ochopee Fire is the same four-mill levy as that in FY '99, an increase of 4.8 percent above the rolled back rate. Collier County Fire is a two-mill levy, an increase of 3.8 percent. Goodland/Horr's Island Fire MSTU, that's a separate district that was newly created for fiscal year 2000. The proposed tax levy is 1.1750 mills. Radio Road beautification is a constant one-half mill, as recommended by the advisory committee, an increase of 3.3 percent of the rolled back rate. Sabal Palm Road, there is no proposed tax levy. The state is buying up the land within that area, and we're no longer pursuing permits for that road segment. Page 3 September 22, 1999 Lely Golf Estates beautification is a constant one and a half mill levy, recommended by the Advisory Committee, an increase of 2.4 percent. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU is .0601 mills, a decrease of 42.4 percent. Forest Lake roadway and drainage MSTU, they're proposing one mill in fiscal year 2000 for stormwater and roadway improvements to Forest Lakes Boulevard. Immokalee beautification levies one mill on an annual basis. It's an increase of 3.9 percent. Bayshore/Avalon beautification is again proposed at three mills to generate the funds for the construction of the median and right-of-way beautification efforts along Bayshore Drive, an increase of 2.2 percent. Parks GOB debt service is .0420 mills, a decrease of 8.7 percent below the rolled back rate. And that's an old bond issue that was used to construct the five community parks within Collier County. Marco Island coastal beach renourishment has been deleted. Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue is the debt service component of their budget, .1617 mills, a decrease of 8 percent below the rolled back rate. That's due to increased value within that district, as well as a slight decrease in the budgeted debt service requirement in fiscal year 2000. Collier County Lighting, due to increase in value and a slight decrease in budgeted expenditures, is a proposed tax levy of .1719 mills, a decrease of 9.4 percent below the rolled back rate. Naples Production Park streetlighting, there's a decrease in available carryforward, resulting in a slight increase in the tax levy. The proposed levy is .0616 mills, an increase of 893.5 percent. Marco Island Lighting has been deleted and assumed by the City of Marco Island. Pelican Bay MSTBU, the proposed tax levy is .2304 mills. No increase over the rolled back rate. For an aggregate millage of 4.1857, which is 7.3 percent above the rolled back rate. That concludes Item 2-A, which again is required by state statute that -- the first item discussed is the millage rates funding the budget. Item #2B DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET Item 2-B is a discussion of further amendments to the tentative budget. I'd like to walk through those. They begin on again Item 2-B, Page 1. The funds that have changed since the first public hearing approximately two weeks ago are highlighted in bold. And I'll Page 4 September 22, 1999 walk through those changes very briefly. The general fund reflects the revised revenue sharing estimate that we reported at the first public hearing. Budget savings due to financing the Domestic Animal Services building, the impact of the Sheriff's budget amendment from reserves, and additional training, membership dues and the county employee picnic that the board approved funding for. Within the Golden Gate Community Center, Fund 130, there was construction of a gazebo budgeted in fiscal year '99 that the advisory committee recommended postponing until fiscal year 2000, after the purchase of the property adjacent to the community center. On Page 2, Lely beautification, we just moved money from reserves to operating expenses for an increase in median maintenance cost, based on a contract approved by the board on the September 14th agenda. That will begin in fiscal -- in the new fiscal year, in approximately a couple weeks. Tourist Development 193 reflects additional support of museum operations. Tourist Tax Fund 195, we've adjusted the revenue budget to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't understand 193. How is there a change when the net change is zero? MR. SMYKOWSKI: When there was funding from reserves, we -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It hasn't changed the fund total. The reserves are within that fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In existing appropriations. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we've added some funds. We're expending additional monies for museum operations, it just doesn't have to -- it's not related to millage because it's coming out of reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. And it's within a TDC fund, a separate pot of money as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We are on the side of probably giving you too much information, but we feel it's very important that any changes made to the budget, even if they're just coming from reserves to be rebudgeted -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- the board should be aware of them from what we discussed previously. Tourist Tax Fund 195 reflects an adjustment for the partial year reauthorization of the third penny that was approved on September 14th. The Museum Fund 198, there's debt service and improvements at the Roberts Ranch property that is now budgeted. In addition, within the debt service funds, there were some changes in letter of credit debt Fund 298 budgeting the debt service for the approved North Regional Park and that additional property -- Page 5 September 22, 1999 adjacent property purchase. Commercial paper debt reflects debt service for the approved Domestic Animal Services building and the Roberts Ranch project. In Fund 301, the county-wide capital projects, the principal change there is the revised cost for the Domestic Animal Services facility that the board approved on September 14th. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do I read that to understand this is the net gain to the bottom line is this nine million dollars? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. What's the nine million mean? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The -- that is the total cumulative change to the fund total from the initial budget, as proposed to the board. Primarily a function of the Sheriff's building and Domestic Animal Services building, which were forecast to be under contract in the current fiscal year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So the real -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're simply budgeting those two projects next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if I wanted to know what was different from the last budget hearing to this one, it would be the 156-5 and the 676-4. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Parks capital, there's simply a revision in a project in terms of whether or not it was going to be under contract, so we're simply rebudgeting those funds in the subsequent fiscal year. Clam Bay restoration, there was a question the board had raised at the first hearing. We've revised the budget to reflect the increased WCI contribution for the Clam Bay project. On Page -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Jim, you're happy with that? That clarified that matter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think so. The question was, we were certainly not giving credit to WCI. MR. FERNANDEZ: We're leaving the contribution constant. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. So their contribution is constant and the tax credit goes to -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Pelican Bay residents. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- Pelican Bay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Pelican Bay residents, correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On Page 3, the road impact fee -- actually, the county impact fee funds, the principal change there is the impact fee coordinator position is going to be funded by reimbursements from the impact fee funds. So it's simply budgeting those expense Page 6 September 22, 1999 reimbursements to offset the cost of that position. So you see a whole host of changes from the bulk of the changes on Page 3 on through Page 4, the principal change again, fund by fund, paying a pro rata share of that position. On Page 5, at the top, the large increase, we simply budgeted for the correctional facility impact fee that was approved by the board. And the final two changes are on Page 6. There's a decrease in the solid waste grant fund of $1,900, based on a -- the actual amount of a state grant that the county will be receiving. And the Legal Aid Society Fund 652, the board had established that fund this year funded by a separate filing fee. And based on actual activity level within filing fee revenues, there's a slight increase in budget revenue and a slight decrease in expenses. So we're just simply budgeting the fund balance that is estimated to now be available within that fund. But all proceeds of that fund are used to offset costs of the Legal Aid Society. That concludes Item 2-B. Item #2C WRAP-UP ITEMS Item 2-C, Page 1, are budget hearing wrap-up items. The first of which is a GIS system overlay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. Which commissioner requested that be on a wrap-up list? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No commissioner. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm bringing that one forward. Non-commissioner Fernandez is the person bringing that forward. This one, Madam Chairwoman, if I may. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: I elected to bring this one forward for this meeting as a result of the information that we gained from the presentation that was made by the property appraiser on the GIS product. We were able to identify, I believe, some products that we could address in this budget and make some substantial progress in the coming fiscal year with respect to implementation of GIS. I've asked Mr. Ochs to put together a request based upon the best information we have. Admittedly, it's not very specific at this point in time, but I think it's important that we make an incremental step in this budget year so that we can make as much progress in the coming year as possible. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two problems with this. One, the board has already discussed this and set a direction and it just seems to me if the board sets a direction, the manager who works for Page 7 September 22, 1999 the board ought to follow that direction instead of bucking it. But secondly, you and I had this conversation three hours ago. About an hour ago, I sat down with Abe Skinner and asked him very specifically. I did go to his presentation, as did Commissioner Carter and the county administrator, and saw them talk about money issues, talk about the whole program and how different parts of the county government could use this and different ones could be making progress on it at the same time. But I understood something very different than what you did coming out of that meeting. And I asked Dave directly after that meeting about the funding issue, and he -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who asked? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked Mr. Skinner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, Abe, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who -- you know, what he saw as our funding requirements and all. And he said that day and repeated again today, there's no necessity for anything from us right now. He's not asking for anything. Today he couldn't have been clearer on some points that I understand he had a similar conversation with you today. He doesn't believe that we can be done one day sooner, when you say we can make substantial progress. Mr. Skinner, who along with his staff has done pretty much all the research and worked with the folks that bring in for this have said nothing's going to happen any sooner, nothing's going to be any more efficient, nothing's going to be any different if ~we go ahead and put money aside now than if we don't do any right now. It's not going to put us ahead in the time line. And he could not have been clearer. He could not have been more concise. He is asking for no money right now. He needs no money right now. He doesn't believe that any money set aside by us is going to move us ahead in having this as an operational system one day sooner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does he think -- I mean, when you say he doesn't need any money, does that mean -- is he taking into account the needs of the county administrator's agency? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He is. And he used a very good -- or his consultant used a very good description for the various overlays. If you remember when you were a kid and you would look in the encyclopedia at the human body and they would have a drawing, and then you'd lay one plastic page down, and it might have the bones and you lay another plastic page down and it would have the circulatory system and muscles and so on. A different page. Was an overlay system, essentially. But what you had to have to begin that was that original drawing of the body. You couldn't very well put the muscle system in or the bone system in unless you had that initial drawing of the body and Page 8 September 22, 1999 knew the size, the shape, male, female, et cetera. And he doesn't have that baseline yet. That's the primary information they'll be putting in place this year. And to try to do our overlays before you have that base simply doesn't make sense. But it just -- it's an unnecessary expense right now. And if that money is set aside in the utility funds and the community development funds, then they're not going anywhere. And they'll be there next year. And so I'm not sure I buy the argument that well, we want to set this aside so we don't have a big bite next year. It's not ad valorem money. But there's no necessity for it. And according to Abe Skinner directly, who, frankly, knows more about this system than anybody, there isn't one ounce of advantage. He shared that with you today, he shared that with Mr. Ochs today. And so I'm a little disappointed that here we are a few hours later and you're still saying well, let's get the extra money anyway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- differ from the conversation you had? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- if I could address. To use the analogy, in order for us to development the circulatory system on the model, it's only necessary that we have the outline of the body. And we understand that that level of information is going to be ready approximately in March. So we have the opportunity to fund the overlay, the beginning of the work on the overlay, from the period of March of next year to September 30th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did Mr. Skinner tell you something different than he told me? Did he tell you that you could be done any sooner? If we went ahead and budgeted and started working on this, that it would be in place and operative any sooner? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Skinner told me that it was necessary for the base maps to be completed in order for us to start the overlays. We understood from the presentation that the phases could go on concurrently, and I verified it just before the meeting that in fact from what we understand from the presentation, the flights that are going to be done in January, I believe, and February, that by March the base map -- the basis for the base maps would be established so that we could begin our work on the overlays. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we begin that work then instead of waiting till next fiscal year, are we going to be in operation? Will that system be usable or of any benefit to us or anyone in the county one day sooner than if we didn't do it then? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. It speeds up by one fiscal year our work on developing the overlays. It also allows the board to fund this project in phases, rather than facing a much larger budget request from me next year. Page 9 September 22, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which again is out of monies that are going to be there regardless. It's utilities. It's not an ad valorem request. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- how much time have you personally put into GIS? Where is your background coming from this? Because I know Abe has put in literally about two years on this. And what you're telling me is completely contrary to what he told you today and what he told me today. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm familiar with the GIS system from my previous job in Alachua County. We worked with the system there. It was developed while I was the county manager. I have verified what I have just told you with our GIS expert, our staff person, that in fact we can begin our work on the overlays in March. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, I've asked three times and you still haven't answered the question, is it going to be operational any sooner if we -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I said yes to your answer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- do it that way? MR. FERNANDEZ: I did answer your question. I said that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess Mr. Skinner is apparently mistaken. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- our portion of the overlays can be completed quicker if we're able to get started on it earlier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I had the same conversation with Mr. Skinner today, too. But I'd like for you to -- so far you've just talked in a little general terms. But what specifically is it that the county manager's agency needs to do in addition to what Mr. Skinner is going to do and his own agency? Because it seems to me that he's going to have the whole thing and we'll just piggyback on it. So what is it different that we're proposing to do that he's not going to do? Specifically. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could, I would like to ask Rick Cvarak to come forward to speak to that issue. He is the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- GIS expert that I referred to earlier, our staff person who's really spearheaded our effort in this regard. And since you've asked the specific question, he has the technical expertise to answer that. MR. CVARAK: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Rick Cvarak. I'm the GIS manager in the IT department. As I see it, beginning in March, when we have this deliverable of the imagery from the vendor that the property appraiser has contracted Page 10 September 22, 1999 with, there is specific engineering type of applications that we can begin. Specifically there are utilities such as stormwater, wastewater and water infrastructure that we can start building upon that the property appraiser has elected not to do. These are optional items that will be the burden of the Board of County Commissioner departments. At that point, I see that we would, by funding this this year, have about a six-month start on the system and we would be that much sooner to fulfillment on this work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the answer really to the question then, specifically we want to look at right-of-way issues with utilities and so forth that you're saying that Mr. Skinner is not going to include in his body of -- MR. CVARAK: Yes. Specifically there are a lot of transportation infrastructure that we'll be working on. A linear referencing system will be put into place. This can be independent. This can be concurrent with the system that's being built by the property appraiser. And that -- yeah, that's wholly right-of-way. And again, the engineering type applications. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask you another question that's related. What you're proposing to do, does it in any way duplicate what Mr. Skinner is going to be doing? MR. CVARAK: No, absolutely. What we want to do is completely work as a complementary. And in fact, some of this really is dependent on the property appraiser providing a deliverable in March. If we do not have a deliverable in March, then the $500,000 would not be able to be spent on this type of project. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me ask you this question: Will you be overseeing this process? MR. CVARAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you will work in conjunction with the property appraiser when they get their -- I was in that presentation. If I understood it, they will lay the baseline, the base data, down for us through the flights. They will be able to have this deliverable. There was something in that presentation that I remember, it was around January 1, there was another pop date that they were asking for information. Perhaps you can clarify that for me. Is that for his office or is that in relation to the rest of the county agencies? MR. CVARAK: Well, I hesitate to speak for his schedule and what deliverables will be delivered then. But I think he's divided -- or he's actually phased his project into four phases. There will be -- aerial photography will be flown in December, January. That will be delivered to the county or to the property appraiser in approximately March. At that time, there will be certain planimetric activities that the contractor will be working on directly for the property Page 11 September 22, 1999 appraiser. There could also be, which we are proposing, certain other activities related to engineering applications that could also be begun concurrently at that same time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have a more practical question, I guess. And that is, I have all -- I'm confused, bluntly, about what exactly we need to do and when we need to do it. And why -- what would be wrong with not changing this today, since this is a reserve account that sits there forever in the utility and development services, and when you know what you need to spend, to bring it to us as a budget amendment? MR. FERNANDEZ: We could bring it as a budget amendment. We felt that since it was a program that we intended to embark on next year, that it is our responsibility to bring it to you in the budget process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess what my thought would be is that you've notified us that we can expect to see a budget amendment coming. And you've told us when you started that this was iffy, you were pulling your best numbers out of the air, but they were numbers out of the air, kind of a heads-up that we shall see a budget amendment but that it would be more flushed out. I'll be more comfortable with it that way. I don't know how the rest of the board feels. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I guess it does not delay the -- my concern is I don't want to delay process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't either. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But if you come to us in March and say I need the money now, I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's sitting there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- I would feel that, if I'm reading this board correctly, then we would be amenable to granting those funds at that time to go forward as a process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much time have you or has our staff spent with Mr. Skinner on this? Because that's my primary concern is we've said we're going to do this joint project, and yet it seems -- I know you've said you hesitated to say what his schedule would be because we don't have any control over that. But it seems as though maybe we haven't spent enough time so that we're all on the same page. Maybe you have, I don't know. MR. CVARAK: Well, I directed many of my requests through the county administrator to receive -- or to coordinate with the property appraiser, and we've coordinated fairly well. I think there could be more coordination. Right now what we need to do is find out specifically what are Page 12 September 22, 1999 those scopes of services and what is actually being delivered so that we can go ahead and tailor our requests in a very, very detailed way. We have some very general -- safe general characteristics of our project and what we can go on that is not duplicative or redundant in any way, and I'm very comfortable with that. But there could be -- and I just don't think the property appraiser has that available to us at this point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess if the requests have gone through the county administrator -- how much time have you spent sitting down face-to-face with Abe going through this? MR. FERNANDEZ: When I sit with Abe, we don't discuss this level of detail, the technical detail. I've had maybe three conversations with him about it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because one of the things -- and that's why we're dealing with the clerk on finance issues, or the Sheriff or anything else, we seem to fall down sometimes on communication with the constitutional officers. And if we're going to do this as a joint, I understand you've got your process to go through if you need to put it through administrator's office, but we need to make sure our communication is clear back and forth with those constitutional officers. Because it doesn't appear to have been. What Abe told me tonight isn't the same as what we're being told now. And so I love your idea, great, let's have it when we have the details, and maybe at that time Abe can come and enlighten us a little, too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How does that sound? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay. I have only one other question. Vince Cautero, how does this affect your operation in this whole process? Because I know you have a vital stake in this survey. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. We're working very closely with Mr. Cvarak to determine when those overlays would be established and what money would need to be expended to buy the equipment and/or software to accomplish that. We're basically on the -- whatever the timetable is for the property appraiser, we're then going to follow and piggyback onto that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you really need to wait until this other baseline is -- MR. CAUTERO: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- put into place before you can do it? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. We couldn't -- I don't think we could do anything prior to that unless Mr. Cvarak has a different opinion. MR. CVARAK: There are certain transportation type -- transportation planning applications that can proceed quite soon once we have -- as of March, actually. There's some other applications where we intend to spatially enabled the CD-plus permitting application within community development. That development is Page 13 September 22, 1999 ongoing. But we are really dependent on a final product, the real -- the fleshed-out parcel layer that the property appraiser will deliver. And right now our best time schedule on that is approximately two years from today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My main concern is that we're not going to duplicate anything whatsoever that the property appraiser's going to do. If we have some additional items that we're going to need in the future, that's fine, but I don't want to see any duplication. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And couple that with what I've heard Commissioner Carter and myself and I think others say is that we also don't want any delay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, you know, those two -- MR. FERNANDEZ: And Madam Chairwoman -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- are the marching orders. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- that's really the intent here, not to duplicate what Mr. Skinner is proposing to go forward with, and to make sure we maximize the time, we not have any delay at all. And we're hoping to make some progress with this budget, as I said, in working on our overlays. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it just sounds like -- I think it's a pretty good consensus that we certainly don't want a delay. That's fair enough. But at the same time, it also sounds like this is a point that we can pick over. And what's our actual interest here? Are we interested in this GIS system? And if that's the case, and the expert -- or our county administrator comes to us and at least is telling us that he wants to have that amount of money available, he's certainly going to have to be accountable to spend it. I can remember in another project process that I was involved in that they did this very same thing. They knew they were going to need X number later on in the year. And frankly, I ended up voting against it in the budget because if you know it right now, then why in the world don't you put it in there -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's why he's got it here now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- instead of coming through? So all he's trying to do -- and all we're doing is sitting up here picking somebody apart. Now, the same thing would be true, you would pick him apart when he comes back with a budget amendment in six months and say why didn't you tell us when the budget was being processed? So the guy's in a no-win situation, and you're sitting up here playing God. I mean, this is ridiculous. Now, if you know the money's going to be spent and you know what it's going to be spent on, then approve the money and let him get on with the business. He's heard from us that we don't want duplication. Page 14 September 22, 1999 Duh, that makes sense. So what's the point? I mean, this is stupid, guys. You're not acting very smart. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I take offense at the suggestion of -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good, you can just take offense, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. -- at the suggestion that we're up here playing God. I'm up here trying to do the job. And we may disagree on how that goes, but I'm simply here trying to do the job that all five of us are assigned with. And when you say, gosh, you know, if we know what it's going to be spent on, well, we don't. And the county administrator can't tell us specifically right now what it will. We've -- it's kind of ironic that the Sheriff was criticized two weeks ago for bringing items at the llth hour of the budget by our county administrator, and yet here we are on the last few minutes of a six-month budget process and he's trying to add some -- the county administrator himself is trying to add something new in and can't give us all the details. All Pam is suggesting is he's made that red flag that okay, there may be some things later in the year, but the information from the expert, as you say -- in my opinion Abe Skinner is far more of an expert on this than our county administrator because he's spent two years on it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, what's this gentleman standing right here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's not our county administrator. COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's not our county administrator. Did he not just give you of what he was going to need in terms of these dollars and why he thought we ought to spend them? As far as I'm concerned, he's the expert that backs up what the county administrator has brought to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. And we can disagree on that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Fine, we'll disagree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's contrary to what Abe Skinner told me two hours ago. And I happen to be -- no offense against this gentleman, but I'd rather have those answers cleared up rather than have this unexplained difference before we say yeah, let's go ahead. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe he just cleared it up when he said that we were not going to be duplicating what Mr. Skinner was going to be doing, we were going to be doing some additional things, such as drainage and roads, et cetera. Did I understand -- or utilities, I'm sorry. MR. CVA/{AK: That is correct. And I do have a specific list of very itemized items that we will pursue. What I don't have is a Page 15 September 22, 1999 specific dollar amount attached to each item. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is probably the best reason of all why we should do that as an amendment rather than take some wild guess at what the number would be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have been attempting for months to get as much detail as possible. And the presentation that was made that we've made reference to was the first time that we had a direct discussion of what the product is going to look like. That took place after our first budget public hearing. So we were not in a position to be able to develop any specifics, because they were not forthcoming prior to that presentation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a favor to me and as an aside, will you present -- provide me with a copy of all the memorandums you've sent requesting information to the property appraiser prior to that time? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd be glad to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we just go for consensus on this instead of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we had. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we have. I think there's a consensus that we are going to see this as a budget amendment, the county administrator has raised the issue so we can't plead surprise when we see it in March or thereafter, but we'll proceed with it that way. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Through a budget amendment? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's the way the majority said to go. Okay. But you're right, he raised it -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: He raised the question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and if he hadn't -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and let's don't beat him down in six months that he didn't proceed properly at budget time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: they're all this much fun. COMMISSIONER BERRY: MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I think that's fair. Ail right. Okay. The next one, Mr. Smykowski. Hope Oh, they're going to get funner. Second item, there's an additional one-time general fund revenue. Item 2(C), Page 2. The first column identifies additional revenue that was made available through the first public hearing from additional sales -- or revenue sharing, excuse me, and the financing of the development services building, totaling approximately 2.7 million dollars. Page 16 September 22, 1999 The board approved uses of that money, $96,000, for capital projects. The Sheriff's budget amendment from reserves was approved on the September 14th agenda. And the balance of funds was placed into reserves to be carried forward and available for the FY 2001 budget. Again, the offset total expenses recommendations were also 2.7 million. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we spent that. We found 2.7 million, and we spent it by spending about 100,000 on the capital projects, about 850,000 on the Sheriff's reserve amendment that we just had last week, and by saying a million-seven goes as a carryforward, something. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It will increase reserves, and then by not being spent would be available -- that was the discussion the board members had -- resulting in the financing of the Domestic Animal Services building. Rather than paying cash for that building, the board opted to go with financing, freeing up some of that cash to be used in a subsequent fiscal year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And just so I understand what my parameters are tonight, the board could say we don't want to carry that whole 1,761,000 forward. We could say we want to spend that on something. True or false? MR. SMYKOWSKI: True. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I just want to be sure. We're not suggesting anything, I just want to know what my parameters are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just if my recollection is correct, the discussion we had had is next year is one of those years where we can potentially see a pretty healthy bump in the tax rate. And we were trying to carry forward as much as possible, just to avoid that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yep. Okay, I'm sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's okay. The middle column identifies some additional revenue. Sales tax, we should be in the neighborhood of a half million dollar surplus base. We just recently received the July figure, which was significantly higher than it was in the previous year for the same period. That is offset somewhat by a -- the oil gas severance tax the county receives as a function of oil-produced gas or petroleum products produced in Collier County. That's a volatile source. That's going to be less than anticipated. And within the Social Services budget, there's a forecast expense reduction of $550,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Essentially hospitalization costs for indigent care. The volume of claims has remained very high. We just have not experienced the more significant claims, you know, for things like cancer and the catastrophic type things that can cause, you know, Page 17 September 22, 1999 $100,000 or better for a single patient. As a result, we reviewed the expenditures to date and they will not be as bad as earlier anticipated. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this sort of like a turn back from Social Services -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- can we look at it that way? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's a good analogy, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, a half a million dollars were coming back from Social Services? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. That will not be spent that was originally planned to be spent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So it has the same net effect. So the grand total is $925,000. Recommended uses. There was one for agency pay plan, a general fund cost of $227,200. That is the equivalent of three additional months of the three and a half percent salary adjustment that the board had approved during this year's process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've got to say, this one bugs me. Sort of like he got his so I'm going to get mine. Sort of feels more like a play yard, playground kind of stuff. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I think it's more accurate that -- I believe it's important that consideration be given to consistent treatment for all county employees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would this 227,000, would that -- the property appraiser's employees be treated the same? And so are we treating everybody the same, or are we more the same than somebody else? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it deals with our own issue with county employees, Madam Chair. There's no question in this county that all employers have faced a major payroll adjustment in the last year. One engineering firm told me 18 percent. Another hotelier told me almost 10 percent. I know the average for the county has been 10 percent. I think we're playing catchup. I don't think we funded it enough when we were doing this discussion several months ago. And I think that's why the county administrator is asking for this adjustment, so that we can stay on the same playing field. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the equivalent of three months. What are you going to do, retroactively give that to people? How do you anticipate using that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, remember when we first came to you at budget time for budget policy, we requested four and a half percent to do a combination of salary adjustments, pay plan administration and pay for performance. The board awarded a three and Page 18 September 22, 1999 a half percent. That necessitated that we delay the implementation of pay plan adjustments until February. This would allow us to get closer to an October 1st implementation date of pay plan adjustments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So when we cut it to three and a half -- and I'm not suggesting this is outside of your authority, I'm just trying to understand what happened -- we said three and a half, you said no, I'm going to give them four and a half, so I'll give it to them a month later? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we only used three and a half. But with the pay for performance funding and the amount necessitated by the salary survey that we did, we could not fully implement the salary survey results October lsto CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I know that. But still, I want to be sure I understand, that we gave you a pot of money based on three and a half percent. I understand you couldn't spend more than three and a half percent, but -- so that people could get the larger raises that you wanted them to get, you gave them the larger raises later instead of the lower raises earlier, which is what we had suggested. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think part of what he said was that some of that three and a half percent was pay for performance, for example, and also adjusting pay scales. It didn't just go as a three and a half percent blanket increase for everybody. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ours has been a discriminatory process. If I'm understanding the county administrator's program, we do not just blanket people. Some people might get one, some people might get seven or eight, but you do discriminate based on performance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which is a good thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't fully comprehend it. It seems like we're comparing apples and oranges when we use the Sheriff's early plan as a formula to come up with a dollar figure, but then to say we're going to implement that in a different way. It seems like kind of a smoke and mirrors way of coming up with a dollar figure to add more in so that you can move back to the policy closer to what you had suggested rather than what the board approved. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and one other thing on that point, because it's related, before you respond to that, is we just can't say -- I mean, I know that all employees should be treated the same. I understand that general theory. But we cannot -- the Sheriff's implementation, this early raise, was because of an exodus of trained staff and the potential crisis. I mean, I try to be careful using words like that from this dais, because, you know, we should be careful. But the potential law enforcement crisis that could have resulted. He had to do that for an emergency. Yours is not the same. Page 19 September 22, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, our turnover rates for the last three years are 17 percent in '97, 16 percent in '98, 16 percent in '99. That's annualized from February of '99. 35 percent of exiting employees cite lack of pay -- cite pay and lack of promotional opportunity as the primary reasons for leaving the county. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Only 35 percent? MR. FERNANDEZ: 35 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is that different than numbers from 1995 or 19907 I would bet that a third of employees who have ever left the county would cite pay as one of the reasons they leave. You take a guy like Wayne Arnold, who was one of the highest paid county employees but had a great opportunity to go on and make more in the private sector. When you get to that level, realistically, we're not ever going to get to compete, you know, if somebody has a chance to get a partnership in a firm and so on. So, you know, it doesn't surprise me that one-third of the people say pay is an issue why they would leave. I suspect that's true in the private sector as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and let me just say, too, that I don't think even if -- even if it's the same number of people or more people are leaving, I would imagine that the training costs, because of having to send cops through police training, the training costs there would offset -- would make the Sheriff's issue more of a crisis. But even more commonsense-wise -- I don't want to denigrate everybody's job, everybody's job is really important, but frankly, my job is not as important as a cop on the street's job. And if we're losing cops on the street, that is a crisis. And losing other staff, including me, is not as important as losing a cop on the street. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, I probably would disagree with you. I think that when we lose staff in this county, it's an expensive process. We are in a market that none of us have ever experienced before. And if we tie the hands of our administrator so that we can't be competitive, we are just going to continue to face this same problem over and over and over. And so I'm an advocate of adjusting this, because I don't think we gave them enough to begin with. And I think we're in a situation where it would behoove us to make sure that we got all the tools on the table to deal with our issues. If we don't do this, we're going to remove a tool from the table, and that will be the decision of this board. But the consequences of that may not be pleasant. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I seem to remember a discussion that we had wherein we were going to have a joint pay plan study with the Sheriff and the board. What's happened to that? Is that out the window now? Page 20 September 22, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: That's in progress. What I anticipate what will happen from that is that we have the results of that study in order for us to do our budgeting for next year. Next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the crisis is so great that you have to implement this three-month back pay plan? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, as I said, we're currently having to delay implementation of fhe study that was done last February until February of 2000. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, why can't he start his pay plan in October? MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to be clear, that was a survey versus a full-blown study? MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think Commissioner Carter is right. I mean, every job is important, and trying to retrain and trying to fill those is tough. I think Commissioner Mac'Kie's point is just if you have a shortage of patrol deputies, that's a safety issue. If my secretary doesn't come in tomorrow, then my stuff gets typed slower. But there's a difference in this health, safety and welfare part of that. If we have EMS employees, for example, if we have a big void in that, that's a safety type issue, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. If we need to make sure that we have people to be in the back of ambulances or driving ambulances, that's that same safety issue that the Sheriff is facing. But two things about this bother me. One, a majority of the board put a policy into place, and again, you're bringing something back that had already been decided against the majority of the board's request. And two, we're using apples and oranges. I didn't really get an explanation for that. It's using one method to get a dollar number and then plugging it in a whole different way. And because the Sheriff, who's a constitutional officer and can do with his employees and his budget what he sees fit, chose to do something doesn't mean, okay, now everybody has to do that in order to be fair. I might not have made the same choice, but it's not my choice. That's the Sheriff's choice. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, and then Commissioner -- MR. FERNANDEZ: If that were the case, there would only be one budget public hearing, and you would be bound by what you decided at the last public hearing with respect to Sheriff's budget as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I recall our discussion when the county administrator brought to us, said he wanted a 4.5 percent pay Page 21 September 22, 1999 amount of money. And he actually got beat up pretty good on it because there was something to do with the pay study. And so he got beat up pretty good and we dropped it one percent. So he got 3.5 percent. I don't understand the difference in regard to the Sheriff's budget. It doesn't make any sense. If it was -- if that was the case then -- and now, I don't know, I thought there was a study going on, or there has been agreed upon a study to go forward now between the two -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We're just beginning it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- entities? This -- it just somehow, this whole thing just does not make any sense to me. I don't understand why the difference. And you are singling out one group of employees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If there's one group I'm willing to single out, it's Sheriff's deputies. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then we should have alerted all of the other constitutional officers as well. I'm sure that Dwight Brock, there are people who work in his office that are vital to his operation. There are people in Abe Skinner's office that are vital to his operation. I'm sure that Mary Morgan has got people that are vital to the issues that she has to deal with from time to time. And Guy Carlton, the same way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: guys. COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: really not the point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: management and budgeting. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But none of them protect us from the bad That's -- And that's fine, Commissioner, but that's It is. The point is -- no, the point is upper Exactly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Sheriff's pay raises that he was going to have to readjust his pay plan, should have been talked about way back when we were talking about our budget in June -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Or before that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- even before that. Because now here we are at the last couple of meetings and we're going to adjust pay plans and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, your suggestion -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it's upper management. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your point is actually a very good one. And what we might want to do if we're doing this pay plan study and we're going to include the Sheriff's folks and our folks, why don't we ask the other constitutional officers -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if they would like to. Page 22 September 22, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what I would do. And I would not support doing anything for anybody at this point in time. And don't forget, and it was brought up earlier, each constitutional officer can bring to this Board of County Commissioners in their budget any kind of pay proposals that they choose to do. And it's up to them. We can sit up here and allocate millions, but we cannot tell them how to spend that money. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER BERRY: And you can sit up here and allocate X percentage, whether it be to the Sheriff or to Abe Skinner or Mary Morgan or anybody else, and they can go out tomorrow and buy lollipops with it and not give one pay increase. So for us to sit up here and say that we're going to allocate the dollars for pay increases, I think you're misleading the public. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the place that we are right this minute, because we're all anticipating the discussion yet to come, because the item that we're on right this minute is $227,200 to give additional pay plan money to the county administrator, and he tells us that is in response to the fact that we've learned that the Sheriff implemented his pay plan early and that we want to be fair to county administrator employees. And I just have to say, I can't support that $227,200 addition, because I don't think that the crisis is the same as it is in the Sheriff's office. And we do have a process. We have this -- we have the study ongoing, and that this is something we can see in next year's budget. This looks to me like he got his, so I'm going to get mine. And that is also, you know, bad -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you blame him for feeling that way -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- when a pay raise was implemented that we passed for this next year and it was implemented early? What does that say to the public? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Barbara, here's the other thing that I guess I have to go ahead and say, you know, because I supported, if you recall, I think, the four and a half percent. I mean, I argued hard and long for more money than we ended up giving for our staff. The problem -- I just have to say this bluntly, the problem is that our staff couldn't make a case for it. They were ill prepared. I was -- frankly, of the criticisms that I've discussed with Bob that I had with him in evaluation processes, probably the biggest one was to be so unable to make a case for the need for this money. I couldn't understand -- you know, we ended up calling our human resources people to come in the room to come up to the microphone to try to help us understand what was the need for this four and a half percent. Convince us. I wanted to give it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But if you remember, that number -- Page 23 September 22, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the case wasn't made. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- that number was pulled out of the air and you criticized because of a study. And you didn't want to grant the money. If I recall. Was that not the issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, it was not exactly pulled out of the air. It was based upon the previous year's budget. It's the same amount we had in the previous year's budget. We indicated that we expect to have -- to use all of that. We didn't have the study completed yet, so we couldn't say definitively the pay plan adjustments were going to cost us this much, that would leave so much for pay for performance. We couldn't say that because we didn't have the study completed. So we said -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that was the problem. I mean, why not? You know, why not? MR. FERNANDEZ: Because of the timing that the study -- the time of the year the study is done every year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who controls that time? MR. FERNANDEZ: Florida League of Cities is the survey conductor. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So it's not something you had control over to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we have to compete on -- I'm going to come back, we had to compete in our own marketplace. And no matter what the Florida League of Cities says or anybody else, you know what's going on in your own marketplace and you better have all your ducks in a row to defend what you need. Now, I understand why he's back here and what he's asking for. And I am just suggesting loudly and clearly that because one constitutional officer did what he needed to do because he had a different situation, I'm not totally faulting that, because that constitutional officer has been here and tried to tell us that he had a problem and that he needed more money for road deputies, and that maybe it wasn't communicated the way I would appreciate it, and I've been through that with him, the fact still remains, when he made his move, he put us behind the eight ball, if you please, in this situation, and now we're going to play catchup. And if we don't do something about it, you don't think we have a crisis, I would suggest to you that we are going to have a crisis. And we're going to have some stuff happen that you're not going to like. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You've got two looming votes out here real soon regarding the union. And you also criticized our administrator earlier because he didn't do something more about that. Well, the quickest thing that's going to drive these people to a union is going to be money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then again, if the EMS -- for me, they fall into the same category that the -- Page 24 September 22, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- Sheriff's office falls into. And if they have a crisis regarding EMS, then I'm willing to listen to that pay question, but not general across the board. But judges said that's three. If three have weighed in on this, then we might as well quit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know what it was the three was for, but I'd just like to say I don't -- I agree with you on the Sheriff's -- you know, Commissioner Berry, I too was surprised and a little bummed when I found that it had been implemented early, but it has, and he did what he needs to do and that's his budget. That's separate from ours. But I don't want anyone to mistake, you know, you said we can't sit and do nothing. I don't think any of us are suggesting that. The pay plan study we're looking at doing isn't just a survey that Florida Association of Counties or Florida League of cities does. This is a full-blown survey that can actually substantiate what we need to do for each of these positions. And as was just said, if we have EMS people that if it shows we're losing those people at an unprecedented rate, and the pay plan study shows they're way behind and we're losing them, then we should afford them the same thing that the Sheriff's suggesting and that is take care of those folks early next year. But we're doing a full-blown pay plan study in the spring, and we're going to have some adjustments take place on all their salaries between now and then anyway, so this will give us a picture for the upcoming year for how much it needs to be. And if we find we're way behind, then we have the opportunity to make that adjustment. But we ought to have it based on that information rather than just kind of randomly plugging it in because the Sheriff got an extra couple hundred thousand dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Did you want to speak? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we got three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's sounds like -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three for what? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was just saying, though, what are you going to do, Commissioner Constantine, about what if this -- if you get this back and it says that it's going to require raising taxes? Then what are you going to do? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I present a list every year between 8 and 12 million of things I think we could cut, so I'll be happy to show you how we can give the increase to the employees and not increase taxes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll be anxious to see your list. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for teeing that one up for me. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I'll be anxious to see your list. Page 25 September 22, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have one more question and then -- but it's pretty irrelevant, because it sounds like I hear one, two, three, at least. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For what? You keep saying that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In support of the $227,200, because -- is what I've been told. Now, the next fallout question from that would be now that you have three in support of this, is there other constitutional officer fallout? Because what you've told us is that this implements it for your agency, the Sheriff's done it for his agency. Shall we expect to see the tax collector running over here any minute? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I understand he has to go back through his own system and put his budget in. So I don't know how he operates or what he has to do to address that issue, or whether he has flexibility or not. I can't answer that. I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet Mr. Fernandez can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the fiscal impact of this for next year as well? If we implement this extra, how does that impact fiscal '017 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Pretty straightforward. It's a quarter of a million that won't be there for carryforward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but it's also going to be an increase that then you'll have a percentage increase again next year. You're going to have a higher baseline to start with. MR. FERNANDEZ: Do you know the answer to that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can expect an increase. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So two questions. Maybe Mike can be working on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Same dollar amount is what we're saying. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, that's right. It's just an early implementation. So this is just a one-shot chunk of money. Because the percentages are -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no other impact whatsoever. So when you have an increase next year on their increased amount, that isn't more -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because they were already going to be getting this increased percentage. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You had a whole presentation prepared on the Sheriff's and showing how that was going to impact next year and so on beyond what the expense was this year. I'm assuming the same rules of logic and mathematics applies in our case. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. Because we were discussing -- you want to hear the answer? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. FERNANDEZ: We were discussing the proposal to put into place a new raise that has not been contemplated up this point up to June. Page 26 September 22, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the 840,000. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay? This is the same raise that we are already contemplating in February being moved earlier in the fiscal year. So the impact on the next fiscal year is the same. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's a one-time expense. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That makes sense. I get that. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's why there's a difference. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You did ask a question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, about the other constitutionals. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other cons -- the general fund impact across all constitutionals, including the Sheriff, is 726. Backing out the Sheriff is approximately $350,000 to the general fund impact. If you looked across all funds, every last utility fund, et cetera, you're looking at about $700,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, my question is, if every county employee gets the same raise in this concept of fairness, the Sheriff did it so the county administrator does it so now Mary Morgan and Guy and Abe, et cetera, are going to do it, what would be the budgeted impact of that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund impact is $350,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So those people don't -- shouldn't we likewise be giving them -- I mean, doesn't the fairness argument apply all the way across the board instead of just one agency? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. One, that's the responsibility of the constitutional officers. But two, do we know that they weren't going to implement their three and a half percent October 17 I mean, you were not. We were doing it differently. Do we know they weren't going to do that anyway? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just want to raise the issue of the $35o,0o0 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think we know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- because it seems like we're doing this out of fairness to treat everybody the same, and it's really not everybody. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If you would like to change that number from 227 to 350, we have funding to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would a total of 350 cover everybody, or would you have to add 350 to the 227? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, the 350 is the total general fund -- marginal general fund impact, inclusive of the constitutional officers, EMS and road and bridge. That includes -- it is not cumulative plus the 227. You're talking $350,000 is the net general fund impact. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess it's odd for me to put that forward since I didn't support the 227. But I just want to be sure those of Page 27 September 22, 1999 you who are supporting it know what's on the table. Do you want to make it a 350 instead of 227? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The answer from the manager was that the funds are available. And once again, we don't know, we have no way of knowing tonight whether the other constitutional officers are going to make that request. So we should just wait until they do and then use a budget amendment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the funds would be available for a budget amendment. MR. SMYKOWSKI: From reserves, yes. Any difference from what you might approve tonight would be available in reserves, because we're already talking about increasing reserves another $700,000 with this additional revenue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would prefer to the stay with the 227 too, if it's passed by this board, to deal with the request that was put in front of us, and let him use that in any way that he needs to deal with the issues that are in front of us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. That sounds like -- we'll move on then to the $700,000 reserve question. We're ready. Next one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that is simply the balance plug figure to put the difference of the 925 that would be available into available reserves, again to be carried forward into fiscal year '01. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sounds like we might need it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet we are. So take us to the grand totals, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The grand totals of? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the third column on the page you've been reading the first two columns of? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Yeah, it's just cumulative. Well, yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, the bottom line effect is -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 3.6. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The bottom line effect of the changes we just made is what to the general fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's my understanding you've added the 227 additional pay plan funding, and then the balance will go into reserves of $697,800. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bottom line, we found $900,000, we're spending $200,000, we're putting another 700 in reserve. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the way I want to understand it. Got to talk so plain for me, you know. I was an English major. No math. Okay. Any other questions on this one? What else? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ready for wrap-up? Page 28 September 22, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wrap-up? Is that where we are? Any other amendments, Mike? Any other amendments? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's it for that one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we're on to wrap-up, 2-C? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was wrap-up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was wrap-up. We're on to public -- Let's see. Item #2D PUBLIC COHMENTS AND QUESTIONS CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Public comment. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- comment and questions. We had two speakers sign up. I'll let Mr. Fernandez call them out. MR. FERNANDEZ: The two speakers that have signed up are Tom Stasko and Jim Coletta. Mr. Stasko? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. MR. STASKO: MR. STASKO: Before I begin, I need to verify that I'm looking at the right documentation. Does anybody have a current budget? Specifically Fund 306. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. We don't have it by fund. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, we do. It's in this -- here it is. Yeah, it's on Page 20, 2-E. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 22 -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Page 20. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Page 20. COMMISSIONER BERRY: 2-E. You're talking about the parks -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Parks and recs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- construction? MR. STASKO: Parks and recs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fund 306. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Capital improvement? MR. STASKO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Here, I've got it. MR. STASKO: And it should have 100,000 in there for Florida Boating Improvement Program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, it does. MR. STASKO: Okay, good. For the record, my name is Tom Stasko. I'm here to speak about the funds that are collected from boat owners for the little decal that they paste on the side of their boat. The monies collected here in the county, part of that money goes Page 29 September 22, 1999 directly to the Board of County Commissioners. There's another bulk of the money that goes to Tallahassee. That money goes through a formula since 1996, and that money is sent directly back to the county that collected the money. The funds for these stickers I feel should be spent on boating activities. And if you look at the appropriations on the next page, I believe, for Fund 306. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't have that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We don't have that information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's okay, go ahead and describe it for us. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What are we proposing to spend that $100,000 on? MR. STASKO: Well, and also the boat fees, registration and title. So it's a total of $275,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. Okay. MR. STASKO: There's one item called Bayview Park Improvements for fiscal registered budget, $78,500. So that's $200,000 to be spent on miscellaneous non-project, Pelican Bay Park -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting -- MR. STASKO: -- Vineyards Park, Bluebill Park and Community Park, Max Haas Community Park, Golden Gate Traffic Fitness. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm going to ask our parks director to come up and tell us if we're reading this right, that we collect $275,000 directly from boats and we are spending it on something other than boating. MR. STASKO: Okay, may I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. STASKO: Okay, thank you. Yes, I'd like to have -- that's one of my questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. STASKO: I also realize -- it's been shown to me that this money, the funds, whether it's -- from '97 was 273,000; '98, 289; '99, 305; and 315 projected coming in for boating activities. There's been a surplus over those years, and this is just going back to '97, of about $320,000. And I'm wondering if, on the page that you do have, if that money is the carryforward figure for all the years since 1989 when the law went into effect, collecting fees for these stickers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So your question is not just with regard to this year's budget, but totally what's been collected and what's been spent. MR. STASKO: Yes, Chairperson. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's great. Can you help us with that, Marla? Page 30 September 22, 1999 MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, parks and recreations director. I have a handout for you that I think will help to explain this a little bit for you. I've actually gone back to 1992-93 fiscal year, up through the present. I'll make sure you get one. And I have on the top of that piece of paper broken out expenses, revenues and then the FBIP project funding. And if you go to the far side -- I apologize for the handwritten totals on the side there, but we actually did them by year and then I did a total off to the side. And you'll see that the expenses for maintaining boat launch facilities for maintenance and rangers over that period of time has been $1,469,000. I've added in there one other revenue item that Mr. Stasko has not, and that is the launch fee revenues at the concession stands and boat parking fees. And the total for the registration fees and those launch fees comes to $1,323,000, which is a deficit of $146,705. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me ask you something, though. This looks real good, but I'm just again having trouble following it. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The numbers that he brought for this year are 100,000, plus 175,000, and you're saying there's an additional item for launch revenue. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that's at least 275,000, plus what looks like about 40 to 50 for launch revenue, so 320. MS. RAMSEY: The launch revenues actually come in our operating budget -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: -- not in the 306 Fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But your numbers like for '98 and '99, it only shows 173 instead of the 275. MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually, if you go down farther -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: -- there's a third revenue source there. That's the dollars we get back from the state. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's FBIP? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. That's the revenue that we get back from the state. That's -- there's two ways that this happened to begin with. The revenue money that we got back from the state, actually we had to request it at first, up until about '95. And in 1995, it just came back to us automatically. And if you'll notice that the revenue that we've received from the FBIP project has been $1,426,000 above that number. You will see the project costs of boat related launch facilities has been $3,894,000, which means that we've spent $2,468,000 more than we've Page 31 September 22, 1999 received in either boat launch fees, boater registration fees, or in the FBIP. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like the subsidy is going the other way. MR. STASKO: I've not had time to review these figures, okay. They were prepared by -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: County staff. MR. STASKO: -- county staff. And I'm sure county staff was aware of me coming here this evening. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Apparently. MR. STASKO: Apparently so. So for me to have anything to say about this, not until I review the numbers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would appreciate it if you do, after you've reviewed them, if you find problems, if you'd correspond with the board or with Mr. Fernandez. It looks like this will be the information that we'll have -- that will be the best information we have for this year's budget. MR. STASKO: Oh, great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you find anything else to bring forward to us, please do. MR. STASKO: I do have one other item I might mention. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. MR. STASKO: I've mentioned this to the parks and recs. In June of '99, FBIP faxed me, after I requested all the funds that the state had sent to Collier County since 1978. And in speaking with the parties up there in Tallahassee, they faxed me a copy, and in discussing with them what they had faxed me, these numbers. In 1996-97 -- prior to that, there was a trust fund that was set up in Tallahassee for the boat registration fees. And for counties to obtain the money from that, they had to fill out a form. So the state said okay, it's for boats, you can have your money. In '96 the law was changed so that a percentage of what you pay for the stickers just went to the county. What I don't know if anyone is aware of, but the state is, that they have an unobligated amount of, the best we could figure out, that's Tallahassee, is $267,187 still in that trust fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we should be applying for some kind of grant. MR. STASKO: Well, I would think somebody should call and make some inquiries as to if that trust fund is still in existence, and if it is, what happened to this unobligated money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. MS. RAMSEY: That's a good point. We will definitely check into that. One other note I wanted to make is that I brought to you earlier in the year some opportunities maybe for additional boat ramp Page 32 September 22, 1999 facilities, parking at Bayview, Isle of Capri, Goodland, et cetera. And part of the funding that we would use for that would be these types of fees. And of course we don't have those all of those nailed down at this point. And we have actually set up a separate line item now that will allow us to track funds coming back from state and our own funds so that we will know specifically how much is there that we can use for those various items and be able to carry them forward from one year to the other to make it easier for our tracking. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's great. Thanks very much. MR. STASKO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jim Coletta and then Sheriff Hunter. MR. COLETTA: For the record, my name is Jim Coletta. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association. And what I'd like to address to you tonight is about the Sheriff's budget. I have a real concern. A number of years ago, like a number of you, I had the opportunity to be able to ride with the Sheriff deputies and to see what the situation was they were up against. I talked to a number of them, a number of them are close friends, I deal with them every day. And our Sheriff's department's become nothing more than a training ground. These deputies become trained and then they move on to better paying jobs. And that's what it's all about in this world. We're all looking for enough money to be able to raise our families. And Collier County's an expensive place to begin with. And then when you try to get a professional force and keep that force, you're going to have to compensate them at a rate that's commendable to the situation they're up against. I sincerely hope that you'll meet the needs now for what the Sheriff's Department needs to be able to keep these deputies on the job and to prepare them for future use and to be able to staff them and to keep a close eye on the situation in the future. I'm an employer, and I know what the situation is out there in the work force, and it's very, very difficult to keep employees today unless you're willing to pay top buck. Competition's getting to be very tough. So I ask you to please give this serious consideration and just don't let it pass by without meeting the needs that are there. I thank you very much for the time this evening. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Sheriff? MR. FERNANDEZ: Sheriff Hunter. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good evening. For the record, Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County. Page 33 September 22, 1999 And I'm here just to reassert the request for reserve funds. I would like the board to review once again with us the need of those reserve funds and to restore the reserve funds for the fiscal 2000 budget year. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I was wondering about -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I know there's speakers over there. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, I'm trying to follow it, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's okay, everybody does it. Two weeks ago at the other hearing you made a firm commitment that you had no intention of touching the reserves, but it seems to me that you're saying you need those reserves to fund pay for your deputies. I don't -- I guess I'm not quite there yet. SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't have that transcript in front of me. I hope I didn't make a firm commitment not ever to touch reserves. What I did say is that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't say that. I said your commitment was that you had no intention of using them like you have never used them before until this year, '99. SHERIFF HUNTER: That correct. That I had never used the contingency before, and hoped that we would not have to use them again. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was your commitment. SHERIFF HUNTER: But that certainly faced with this particular issue of retention of quality law enforcement officers, that I felt the need to look at the salaries and that I would be petitioning the board at a future date to review the salary issue with me and see if we couldn't move towards a higher salary. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, based on something I read in the press lately, it appears that there might have been some change in position about this reserve question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Waffle, you mean? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I mean coming over to the right side. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to carefully consider a decision. I have one vote for that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And mine remains the way it was before. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've not changed my position, Sheriff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I may have some quarrels with you, but it's not on this issue, and we will work on that as we go along. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let me say, Commissioner Carter, that your message wasn't wasted on me. Pertaining to the need to keep the board informed as well as the other constitutionals about some of the crises that we're faced and then some of the action that we take certainly may have some spin-off impacts to you. And as I told you last time, we will do a better job Page 34 September 22, 1999 of keeping you informed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff, you and I have talked about it, and the board has been talking tonight about a joint pay plan study with the county administrator. And he's offered that in the past. I assume you are still game for that this coming year, that we do the joint pay plan study between your agency and the Board of County Commissioners' staff? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. We'd like to reassert our desire to be included in any board-sponsored pay plan study, and look forward to it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Who shares in the cost of the pay plan study? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe the plan is for each of the constitutional officers that are participating to share in that cost. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Proportionate to the number of employees affected, I would assume? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it wouldn't be fair to -- if it were Mary Morgan, for example, who has a very low number of employees, to say she pays half. SHERIFF HUNTER: We're not unwilling to budget the monies necessary, if the board will fund it, to participate in the board's pay plan study. That's not a problem. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it may be based on number of employees or total budget dollars. I mean, whatever the appropriate proportion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Have any of the other constitutional officers offered to participate in this study? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have invited them to participate, and I understand at this point they are all still interested. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: One question I have, Sheriff, and I guess I -- I understand you have a crisis, and I certainly -- I'll be one person to state up here, I don't begrudge your deputies a pay raise in any way, shape or form. I never have. But what I don't understand is how did we get to this point? When looking over the numbers every year and looking at the percentage increase from '96 up until the current point in '96, a 2.5 percent increase; '97, 14.4 percent; '98, 7.1 percent; '99, 5.2 percent; next year, 7.1 percent. How in the world did we get to the point where your employees and your deputies are suddenly jumping ship if during all of these periods of time you were giving them pay raises? Were you giving them pay raises? SHERIFF HUNTER: We were giving pay raises based upon board policy. And what we are hearing from the consultant is that we are not keeping pace with the actual market. Page 35 September 22, 1999 As you know, our increases in the budget, as have been represented to you, include not only pay adjustments, but in those years that you're quoting, we also had additional positions we were adding in order to keep pace with growth. Your county manager published a study at your direction which indicated that -- pretty much what the circumstances have been. 62 percent increases over the last 10 years, which we believe has been commensurate with growth. But all of that's not going to pay adjustments. That's going to buy new positions, additional vehicles for those positions, shotguns, vests, uniforms, all of the attachments to those new positions. So the numbers you would be looking at aren't necessarily translated into pay adjustments. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm not saying they were pay adjustments. What -- the numbers that I'm looking at, that I just quoted, were the increases of dollars that the Board of County Commissioners allocated to the Sheriff's Department. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, ma'am, and those -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For pay -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no, no -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- were percentage adjustments. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no, this wasn't -- because as you well know, we cannot dictate how he spends that money. But what I'm saying is this is a percentage of money over this period of time. And my point is, how did we get and how did he get into such a deficit situation? That's what I have a hard time understanding. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what I hear the answer being is that he gave pay raises in accordance with the board's policy. And my challenge to you, Sheriff, would be your situation is different from ours. You shouldn't, in my judgment, pay in accordance with board policy pay raises. I think they're entirely different. Obviously the majority of the board disagrees with me and thinks they are the same. But I wish that you would make pay adjustments as are necessary for the level of work that your deputies do. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I appreciate that statement. And let me assure the board that as we see the need to make adjustments, we hope to have the latitude, as I expressed last time, to make the necessary adjustments. And to have that board support is very important to me. We have made adjustments. There was a pay grade adjustment, I believe, in '96 was the last -- you might help me out, Commissioner Constantine. I think it was '96, Commissioner Norris -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't remember that. It seems right. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- where we participated in some joint pay adjustments. We did have an adjustment to the pay grades at that point. Every adjustment since then has been based upon board policy. And Page 36 September 22, 1999 we've tried to stay consistent with board policy. And our latest look just suggested we're significantly below competitive wage, and I'm asking for board's support to make a step in the direction to bring us back up. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me ask you one other question, Sheriff. When you brought your budget to us this year -- and I don't have it in front of me and it's my error, I should have looked it up, or certainly got in touch with you. Did you specifically -- and this year and past years, specifically ask for X number of dollars for salary adjustment in your budget? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, we did. But it was the amount suggested by board policy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was whatever we gave, he was -- if we gave three and a half percent, he was given three and a half percent. And that's why where I think the problem lays. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But, you know, unfortunately it's all stacking up at this point in time, you see. It's not something that -- if this had been a problem, it should have been a problem in something that was brought to us as we went along. And that's what I'm not understanding. But I guess, Sheriff, I'm going to continue to disagree with you, only from -- I don't want to be disagreeable, but I'm going to disagree with you from the standpoint of if you have to -- and I again, let me reiterate for the deputies that are listening out there, I don't begrudge the pay raises, and I never have. However, I think that is something that should be in the budget and not something that you take from the contingency budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we're -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't disagree. We're -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's where I get into -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A point that I want to be sure that this board understands and that we need to communicate better about, in my mind, is we say every year that we don't care how you spend the money, we don't have any say over how you spend the money, and then I want this board to hear that the Sheriff, however, takes our pay raise policy and applies it to the deputies. And I wish that somebody besides me would communicate to the Sheriff if you think that's appropriate, or if you think his situation should be based on -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Who's advising you? I mean, I'm sure you've got people -- a lot of people are probably telling you what to do, but MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think we've had that discussion, and we have agreed that our collective request to the board with respect to Page 37 September 22, 1999 salaries would be much more effective if we're together, if we participate in the study that we've talked about, if we use the same criteria, if we have our respective staffs reviewed in the same manner, that we'd be more effective in making our case to the Board of County Commissioners of what the right number is. Because as I said, three and a half doesn't work any better for me than it does for him. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Might his number be different from yours, Bob, if you worked together? MR. FERNANDEZ: It may be. And that's the kind of study that we're looking at. Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. MR. FERNANDEZ: Because it looks at the positions and the unique features of each position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I've interrupted Mr. Fernandez and he wants to finish and then we'll -- MR. FERNANDEZ: But the point is, we need to go through that process first and then formulate a budget request based upon the results of that process. That's the way it really should work. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Constantine, Carter, Berry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the important point, particularly in the joint part of that, is obviously deputies are very different than any other position. In our case, EMS may be, you know, absolutely essential. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if there is a clerical pool or a secretary pool, whether they're in Building J or in Building F -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a pay plan study is likely to show the same range where they should be. So if we're three percent behind and the Sheriff's on the same par, then he's going to be three percent behind on that as well. So I think by doing the joint study, we're going to find on a lot of those that if we're not at parity now, we need to be. But we may find we're in similar straits on some of those issues -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Carter then Berry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on the positions. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I've had some conversations with the Sheriff and with the staff about this issue, and I believe that he is -- first of all, he's a paramilitary organization, so he has some limitations in terms of what he can do in some of these areas. What I would prefer, that through these studies, whatever mechanism we end up with, that the Sheriff has a lump sum of money -- to get to Commissioner Berry's concern and mine -- is that the Sheriff has the discretion that if he needs to be more competitive in the marketplace and he has to raise road deputies' salaries up, you name the percent, that this is not an across-the-board situation in his Page 38 September 22, 1999 agency. He focuses on where he has to put the money. If secretaries, as we find out, are on equal bases across all agencies, they're not going to participate on the same basis. So I'm hoping that we will get to that point so we're not sitting here having this kind of a conversation a year from now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I would tend to agree with you, Jim. I think it's long overdue, frankly. But one of my main concerns is, at this point in time where exactly are we in terms of what are we doing? And the second thing, I want to hear on what this impact is going to be. We can look at today, but what is the impact, fiscal impact, going to be down the road? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We need to know that. We need to know that, because our listening audience -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: We do need to know that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- the taxpayers need to understand that if we do what we think we have to do, it's going to cost. It's going to be a tax increase somewhere, ladies and gentlemen. There's no other way to get around it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's bound to happen. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you want the level of service and quality of people that you have, you're going to have to pay for it. And it's no different than in the private sector, when they have to pay whatever they have to pay, you pay for it as a consumer. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's my concern. And again, I'm going to go back -- and I've only been here three years coming up -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Feels longer, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Feels like it's been a long time. -- that we have kept the tax situation artificially low. I mean, it's nice to tote low tax -- well, I know, and I don't like it -- I don't like paying more taxes than anybody else. But at the same time, what we're doing here, we're getting ourself into this box, and the sides of the box are getting narrower and narrower. And this is exactly what's going to happen. And I want to hear from our paid staff here, this is what we pay them to do, what's the number crunch and what is the impact going to be down the road? So I want this on record so when it happens there's not going to be any big surprises out there that everybody's going to have an idea that, hey, in 1999, on September, whatever the date is -- CPLAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 22nd. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- 22nd, they told us that there was this possibility. Now, it's now going to be cast in stone. It may vary a little, but it's not going to vary that much. It could get worse instead of better. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and an important part of that, I think both Commissioner Berry and Commissioner Carter have brought Page 39 September 22, 1999 this up in previous things, is what's the economic impact if we don't do this? If you start losing people and having to retrain and start from scratch, there is a cost to that. And what might be interesting is it may be in the long-term cheaper to make sure you pay -- take care of the people you have than to try to go out and get new people and retrain. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, I'm going to remind you of that when you're sitting up on the board and we want to vote about increase in taxes and you've beat us to pieces over it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'll tell you, it is cheaper to keep what you have than go out and recruit. And I've said it a lot of times. It's more than 100 percent of the base salary of the person that walks out the door. Now that may change over time, but right now we are in a crunch all over. Every business is facing the same thing. So yes, it is very expensive to lose people. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, Commissioner Berry, I think we can do both. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep the taxes down and take care of the employees. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, he's got another rabbit to pull out of the hat. We'll see what the rabbit is the next time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: In order to answer the question about the fiscal impact on fiscal years to come, it was necessary for us to make some assumptions about what we've been able to understand the proposal is. I haven't heard the Sheriff say today that there's any plan for the expenditure of the reserve fund. But what we have done is computed the impact, based upon what we understood from the press release that was released on -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's pause there, though. Let's -- what is the -- was it a six percent raise? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What the Sheriff and I had talked about was making sure that they were going to participate and that our agencies were clear that they wanted to participate in the pay plan study. And if we find, particularly in those areas, uniformed deputies that are out there on the street, if we find that we're losing them and they are behind, then we ought to do what we need to do in the spring or early summer to take care of those positions and keep them here. And the Sheriff's told us all the numbers he's been losing. And also that there's some rumors out there that there are more people ready to go. And so -- but if the numbers come back and say four percent, then it's four percent. But if the numbers come back and say six percent or above, we could put up to -- and that was the words I used, up to Page 40 September 22, 1999 and including -- six percent so that we don't lose those. I would think we'd want to do the same thing if we have, for example, EMS that we talked about earlier. If we have paramedics who are -- there's a mass exodus and we find they're behind, we don't want to get in a bind with that. If it takes three months for us to implement that on some of our administrative positions, that's one thing. But these life safety issues, I think we want to make sure we take care of those people up front and don't lose them and take care of that as soon as we have the information in hand. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The question then -- and I appreciate that. The question, I guess, for you, Sheriff, is so that the administrator can answer Commissioner Berry's good question, that is what is the downstream cost of this change we have just now have a majority to support, what's the number? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, we were talking -- Commissioner Constantine and I were talking about up to and including six percent as a wage adjustment effective June 1, year 2000, and that we would come back before the board upon the completion of a pay study and present the board with the evidence of whatever adjustment was necessary. But the -- I think what we were basing our conversations on, as the board knows, the earlier pay study that was completed that, as Commissioner Carter alludes to, is a -- we gave you a number. It was eight percent average below competitive market. But that doesn't mean eight percent across the board. It's 22 percent for captains and 11 percent for lieutenants and eight percent for road patrol. There are numbers throughout that study which are indicative of our lack of competitiveness with the rest of the market. Our conversations about six percent, as much as six percent around June of the year 2000, based upon and supported by a pay study, we come back before the board, make that presentation and ask for the board's support to make the necessary adjustments. Assuming that happens, six percent, then we have the three and a half that we had the adjustment for this year under board policy, plus six percent right at the end of the next fiscal year. And I don't know that we projected the number, but I'll ask. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The base salary? All right, then when you adjust that base salary -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- how will that raise -- MR. FERNANDEZ: What we did was we assumed a six percent number CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Assumed the max. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and we annualized that for the following fiscal year, and the year 2001, and did calculations based on that. Page 41 September 22, 1999 Also, with the same assumption that the same consideration would be given to county employees. Mr. Smykowski has the details on the numbers. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Six percent of the Sheriff's budgeted personal services this year amount to approximately 2.8 million dollars in round figures. Levying taxes to generate 2.8 million dollars, it ends up costing approximately 3 million dollars by the time you factor in the revenue reserves and tax collector fees to generate that 2.8 million dollars. That 3 million dollars on a taxable value of slightly above 24 billion is approximately one-eighth of a mill or $12 -- 12.25 per 100,000 of taxable value. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's assuming a six percent across the board for every position? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For every position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And in the county administrator's agency -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the six percent across the board. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So it's a worst case scenario. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. The general fund impact, if you factored in all of the other constitutionals, EMS, et cetera, would be about double the -- you end up a quarter of a mill, $25 per 100,000 as a ballpark number. Across all funds, six percent would amount to about 7.3 million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Across all funds, but do all funds have salaries? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, you're talking like utility workers, all the folks out in community development that are paid by building permit fees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, so take out the all funds and tell us the ad valorem related -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund impact would be about a quarter of a mill. $25 per 100,000, approximately six million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: About a quarter of a mill next year is what this will cost us. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In '01. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In '01. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In '01. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In '01. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In '01. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In '01. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, next year you're setting -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're setting the millage tonight for '00. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we find that every position is six percent. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. That is the six percent worst Page 42 September 22, 1999 case scenario, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That may not be the worst case scenario, though. We have a pay study to go through first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It might be 12 percent. We don't know that yet. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It could be worse. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or it could be that the, you know, needs are greater for road patrol and less for staff. But according to what Commissioner Carter is telling me, there's a lot of -- they're underpaid, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we'll find out when we do the study. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, sounds like there are a majority of three in support of that change as well. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Which change? Just so I'm clear for -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The budget policy reserve change for the Sheriff. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Move that 3.8 million dollars back into contingency that we had moved to cash flow on August 3rd. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Is there anything else? Perseverance pays off. SHERIFF HUNTER: No, I appreciate the board's support on this. And of course, this is a larger issue than salaries. But we seem to lose sight of all of the other unanticipated problems that we could be faced with. But I do appreciate the board's support on this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sheriff, before you leave, I just want to beat a point to death that I think was made, but I want to be sure you heard it if it was in fact made the way I think it was. And that is that I heard at least three commissioners say that you should not feel bound by the board's policy with regard to percentage of raises, that if we're doing three and a half percent, that doesn't mean you should do three and a half percent. You should do what you find appropriate for your agency. I heard that from Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think again, I want to come back to the pay plan study. But I also want to see the constitutional officer have the flexibility to take a lump sum of money and with discretion use it as he or she sees fit to meet the needs of an agency. I don't like saying well, here's three percent or two or five or whatever it is, and everybody says, oh, I get this. I like to pay for performance. I'm a pay-for-performance individual. And whatever discretion you can within your structure, I would hope that you could accomplish that. SHERIFF HUNTER: I do appreciate that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree with that. Was there one other person? Page 43 September 22, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, yeah, we just give him three and a half percent as a lump -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, what I'm saying is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- let the sheriff do whatever he wants. I mean, that's the way I think it should be done. If he's been adhering to a three and a half percent across the board raise, then that's probably not my intention. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just suggest that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, let me -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for the next couple of budget years, it's going to be a moot point, because if we're agreeing to go ahead with the pay plan adjustment next year, we're going to take care of that for the following fiscal -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- year as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I think it's been this way for so long that it's important to get the policy cleared up. And I've heard two commissioners say that you don't have to, Sheriff, adhere to board policy for raises, you should put in your budget whatever you think is appropriate for raises. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will tell you the Sheriff has taken a beating for that in the past when he comes to our meetings -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in June, though, when he has a different number and we say well, wait a minute, how come you're so special? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's why I'm trying to get it clear on the record right now. Do you agree, Commissioner Berry, that he should set his own percentage of raises and not be bound by board policy? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Kind of sounds like it. But, you know, I think again, going to the pay study, what -- you've got to have some basis, Commissioner Mac'Kie -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- in order to do this. I mean, you can't arbitrarily say gee, I want 50 percent pay increases for everybody in my agency. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd be surprised. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I would certainly hope that the pay study is going to give an indication. And then he's going to have to look at his budget and at his staff and decide where he's deficient and where he needs to catch up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And you will -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Some people may get one and a half percent and some people may get eight and a half percent. It depends on where Page 44 September 22, 1999 the deficiencies are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: it. SHERIFF HUNTER: May I? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's his job. the big bucks for. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me add -- Sounds like that's as clear as I want to get That's what he gets paid CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The Sheriff and then administrator. SHERIFF HUNTER: If I may add for the record, we had some commissioners who were seated in 1996 when we went through this the last time, and we did have a pay plan that supported the adjustments that were made. In fact, the pay plan indicated that we should have gone further up the range. What I agreed to do instead, in fairness and in support of the board's position that we put them in when we have these pay plan studies, because it is significant money, is we went to midpoint of range. We didn't do what the consultant suggested. In fact, possibly had we done so, gone further up the range, I wouldn't be here today, back in 1996. But I do want to reassure the board, we will do what is reasonable and fair. We're not going -- hopefully we won't have many more of these crises develop where we have people looking to go elsewhere rapidly. And I won't -- you have my assurance that I'll do all that I can not to catch you in the midst of a year with a request to make large adjustments to the budget. And I'm again reasserting the fact that I don't want to use the contingency reserve. I just want it to be made available. And if we do, it will be -- you'll have my assurance that it will be done, because we believe we have to use the contingency reserve. And I've already established a clear record of not using contingency reserve in the past. So you have all of those assurances built in. One other thing I'd just like to say and that is reassert again my desire to have a multi-year plan worked out with the board more on a strategic basis where we can agree that the county seems to be moving in a certain direction. We seem to need X number of additional people, positions, salary adjustments on certain years. We don't -- salary surveys each year, perhaps, so that we don't fall to far out of compliance or competitiveness, but salary studies, as envisioned by Commissioner Constantine and agreed to by us on a less frequent basis but as necessary. But a multi-year plan that would help us in these discussions with you that we would already know what the game rules are and you would have some prior knowledge about where the growth seems to be going and what that may mean in terms of impact for the Sheriff's office, EMS, fire services, all of the public safety elements. And I Page 45 September 22, 1999 would be looking forward to working with the board on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Sheriff. I mean, I really appreciate that. And I think we need -- you need to do it, we need to do it. I would encourage all constitutional officers to do that. No one would have known in 1996 that we would have been on an economic run that we are in today and projected out here further. So I don't think we need to fault ourselves too much. But we have to now take and factor that in and see what it's doing to us so that we can get much better in this process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: On another point, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to ask if the same flexibility that was granted to me for the three and a half percent of the division between pay for performance and salary pay plan adjustment is also the case for the additional money that you consider tonight -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- the 227,000, the flexibility between the two. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Certainly. Item #2E RESOLUTION 99-371 AMENDING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairwoman, I would like to make a motion that we adopt the resolution to amend the tentative budgets. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there any other additional speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume that it says that appears on Page 1 and 2 of 2-E? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 1 and 2 of 2-E. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. A motion and a second. All in favor? Any discussion? Sorry, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. Page 46 RESOLUTION NO. 99- . 3.71 SEP 2 2 1999 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TENTATIVE BUDGETS FOR FY 1999-00. WHEREAS, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, provides the procedure for fixing thc millage rates; and WHEREAS, Section 129.03, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedure for preparation and adoption of the budget; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received and examined the tentative budgets for each of the County's funds; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has prepared a statement summarizing all of the adopted tentative budgets which includes for each budget, the name of each taxing authority levying millage, the rolled-back rate, thc percentage increase, the millage rate to be levied, the balances, the reserves and the total of each major classification of receipts and expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 99-329 approving the County's proposed millage rates and setting the public hearings for adoption of the final millage rates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes,. an advertised public hearing was held on September 7, 1999, at 5:05 P.M. and Resolution No. 99-337 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners adopting the tentative millage rates and Resolution No. 99-338 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners adopting the tentative budgets for FY 1999- 00; and WHEREAS, a second advertised public hearing was held on September 23, 1998, at 5:05 P.M. to finalize the FY 1999-00 Budget and to adopt the millage rates in accordance with Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 96-211, Laws of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The amendments as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted and amend the adopted Tentative Budgets for FY 1999-00 pursuant to Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statutes. SEP ~ 2 l§gg second and majority vote. DATED: ~z~/p DWIGHT K, Clerk · '! ' '1~i "" Attes['-ms, to.'Ch&lnlia S Appi~0'~'6d fiSt6:'form and legal sufficiency County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman September 22, 1999 Item #2F PUBLIC READING OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY LEVYING MILLAGE, THE NAME OF THE TAXING AUTHORITYI THE ROLLED-BACK RATE! THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now the part I've been waiting for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski's reading. We love this part. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I love this part. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 2-F. It's actually gotten a little better. In the past you had to read the full resolution, as well as all the millages. Now you just have to read the taxing authority levying the millage, the name of the taxing authority, the rolled back rate, the percentage increase and the millage rate to be levied. Here goes nothing. General fund: Rolled back rate, 3.2512. Proposed, 3.5058. Percentage increase, 7.8 percent. Water pollution control: Rolled back rate, .0378. Proposed, .0355. A decrease of 6.1 percent, for a total county-wide millage rolled back of 3.2890. Proposed, 3.5413. An increase of 7.7 percent. Road District 1: There is no rolled back rate, no proposed millage. Road District 2: Rolled back rate, .1074. Proposed, .01422. An increase of 32.4 percent. Road District 3: Rolled back, .3684. Proposed, .4587. Percentage increase, 24.5. Road District 5: Rolled back, .1884. Proposed, .3300. Percentage change, 75.2. Unincorporated area general fund: Rolled back, .5470. Proposed, .5023. A decrease of 4.9 percent. Golden Gate Community Center: Rolled back, .2841. Proposed, .2260. A decrease of 20.5 percent. Marco Island beautification has been deleted. That's turned over to the City of Marco Island. Naples Park drainage: Rolled back is zero. Proposed is zero. Pine Ridge Industrial Park: Rolled back, .0975. Proposed, .0356. A decrease of 63.5 percent. Victoria Park drainage: Rolled back, decrease of 4.6 percent. Golden Gate Parkway beautification: Proposed, .5. An increase of 4.8 percent. Naples Production Park construction: Proposed, zero. Naples Production Park maintenance: .1570. Percentage change, 377.2. Isle of Capri Fire: Rolled back, Increased 2.9 percent. .1195. Proposed, .01140. A Rolled back, .4769. Rolled back is zero. .0329 rolled back. Proposed, .9714. Proposed, one mill. Page 47 September 22, 1999 Ochopee Fire: 3.8173, rolled back. Proposed, 4 mills. Increase of 4.8 percent. Collier County Fire: Rolled back, 1.9275. Proposed, 2 mills. 3.8 percent increase. Goodland/Horr's Island Fire MSTU: The rolled back rate is zero. It's a new levy. 1.1750 is the proposed millage. Radio Road beautification: Rolled back, .4841. Proposed, .5. 3.3 percent increase. Sable Palm Road MSTU: Rolled back, 4.5167. Proposed, zero. A decrease of 100 percent. Lely Golf Estates beautification: Rolled back, 1.4648. Proposed, 1.5 mills. An increase of 2.4 percent. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU: Rolled back, .1043. Proposed, .0601. A decrease of 42.4 percent. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU: The rolled back is zero. The proposed millage is one mill. Immokalee beautification: Rolled back rate, .9621. Proposed millage rate is 1. Increase of 3.9 percent. Bayshore/Avalon beautification: Rolled back 2.9352. Proposed, 3 mills. An increase of 2.2 percent. Parks GOB debt service: Rolled back, .0460. Proposed, .0420. A decrease of 8.7 percent. Marco Island coastal beach renourishment: That's been deleted, assumed by the City of Marco Island. Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue: Rolled back, 0.1758. Proposed, .1617. That is a decrease of 8 percent. Collier County Lighting, .1897 rolled back. .1719 proposed. A decrease of 9.4 percent. Naples Production Park Streetlighting: .0062 mills. Proposed, .0616 mills. A increase of 893.5 percent. Marco Island Lighting's deleted, absorbed by the City of Marco Island. Pelican Bay MSTBU: Rolled back, .2303. Proposed, .2304. No percent change. Aggregate millage rate: Rolled back, 3.9008. Proposed 4.1857. An increase of 7.3 percent. Item #2G RESOLUTION #99-372 SETTING THE MILLAGE RATES TO BE LEVIED FOR FY 1999-00 - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I get a motion to approve the millage rates? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion we Page 48 September 22, 1999 approve the resolution as it appears on Pages 1 and 2 of Item 2-G setting millage rates. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) MR. SMYKOWSKI: We need a separate motion on the millages for the dependent district pollution control, based on the strict reading of the statute. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second anyone? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. Page 49 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 372 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MILLAGE RATES TO BE LEVIED FOR FY 1999-00. WHEREAS, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, provides the procedure for fixing thc millage rates; and WHEREAS, Section 129.03, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedure for preparation and adoption of the budget; and WHEREAS, thc Board of County Commissioners has received and examined the tentative budgets for each of the County's funds; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has prepared a statement summarizing all of the adopted tentative budgets which includes for each budget, the name of each taxing authority levying millage, the rolled-back rate, thc percentage increase, thc millage rate to be levied, the balances, the reserves and the total of each major classification of receipts and expenditures; and WHEREAS, ON August 3, 1999, thc Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 99-329 approving the County's proposed millage rates and setting the public hearings for adoption of the final millage rates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes,. an advertised public hearing was held on September 7, 1999, at 5:05 P.M. and Resolution No. 99-337 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners adopting the tentative millage rates and Resolution No. 99-338 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners adopting the tentative budgets for FY 1999- 00; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 96- 211, Laws of Florida, a second advertised public hearing was held on September 22, 1999, at 5:05 P.M. to finalize the FY 1999-00 Budget and to adopt the millage rates in accordance with Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statutes, aa amended by Chapter 96-211, Laws of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Thc millage rates aa set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted as millage rates for FY 1999-00, pursuant to Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 96-211, Laws of Florida. This Resolution adopted this second and majority vote. ...'DWIGHT. E..BROCK, Clerk Appro~e~ a~. ~o form and legal sufficiency David C. Weigelv' County Attorney day of~~~_, 1999, cJEP 2 2 after motion, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman 2 September 22, 1999 Item #2H RESOLUTION #99-373 ADOPTING THE FY 1999-00 FINAL BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: And two motions, again, one for the final budget and one for the pollution control as a separate dependent district. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I get a motion on the final budget? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved, as it appears on Page 1 of Item 2-H. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second, anyone? Second. Ail in favor, please say aye. Passes unanimously. And now a motion on the pollution control budget. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: budget. COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I move we approve the pollution control Second. I'll second it. Ail in favor, please say aye. Passes unanimously. Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 373 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FY 1999-00 FINAL BUDGET WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, has held an advertised public hearing on September 22, 1999 to finalize the FY 1999-00 Budget and adopt the millage rates in accordance with Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 96-211, Laws of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the attached list of Budgets by Fund is hereby adopted for FY 1999-00. This Resolution adopted this o~,ie~ day of ~ 1999, after motion, second andmajority vote. stgaature', l/, Approved as to form and legal sufficiency County Attomey BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA September 22, 1999 MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'd also like to thank my staff. You see me at the microphone a lot, but I'm not the only one who does all the work in the budget office. Tony Gambino, Michelle Johnssen, Gary Vincent are here. Pat Lehnhard is not here, but she produces all of the copies and all the packages for us and the color coordinated books in June that make our task a little easier. And Phil Tindall, he's moving on to become the impact fee coordinator, so I'm going to have a vacancy there, but congratulation to him on a promotion as well. I'd just like to also thank everyone on staff and the constitutional officers. It's a long process, and I appreciate their efforts and cooperation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Mr. Smykowski, there's just no comparison between the first budget I saw on this board and the one that we have this year from an understandability, if that were a word. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It is now. And you just do a marvelous job making it understandable for us, and I really appreciate it and I know the whole board does. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Actually, one issue Mr. Fernandez has brought forth toward improving the process is a post-budget process critique so that we can move forward and hopefully make continued improvements to make next year's process even better for you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for your good work. 'We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF ~~TROL P ELA S. mC' K E, CHA O Page 51 September 22, 1999 ATTEST: DW~!~HT,,,'E.~ BROCK, CLERK .,,,, ,. . ........ ~',:..,, ~t.. : ,.<- .. , '..g~ % 5 ': ', '. ' .."ON' '- '//, '. I',t ~'2 · ~) .x'' , _ ',,,, "'~:-Tne. se 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 Page 52