Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/09/2004 B (Budget) September 9, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE BUDGET MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 9, 2004 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: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coy Ie Tom Henning Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ AGENDA September 9, 2004 5:05 p.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 September 9, 2004 --. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Hearing. A. Executive Summary - Fiscal Year 2005 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget B. Public Comment C. Resolution Approving the Special Assessment Roll and Levying the Special Assessment against the Benefited Properties Within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. 3. ADJOURN 2 September 9, 2004 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ AGENDA September 9, 2004 (Immediately following Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Hearing) Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 September 9, 2004 ----- IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - BCC - Fiscal Year 2005 Tentative Budget A. Discussion of Tentative Millage Rates and Increases Over the Rolled Back Millage Rates B. Review and Discussion of Changes to the Tentative Budget C. Budget Discussion Items Guardian Ad Litem (Barbara Kroll, 20th Judicial Circuit Director) UFR list (for consideration at final budget hearing) D. Public Comments and Questions E. Resolution to Adopt the Tentative Millage rates F. Resolution to Adopt the Amended Tentative Budget G. Announcement of Tentative Millage Rates and Percentage Changes in Property Tax Rates H. Announcement of final Public Hearing as Follows: I. Final Public Hearing on the FY 2004-05 Collier County Budget Thursday, September 23,2004 5:05 p.m Collier County Government Center W. Harmon Turner Building (F) 2 September 9, 2004 Third floor, Boardroom Naples, Florida 2. ADJORN 3 September 9, 2004 September 9, 2004 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I am calling to order the public conclusion of the previously noticed closed session regarding the Aquaport litigation against Collier County. And first and foremost, will you all please rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: With that, I will call on David Weigel, our county attorney. UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. I appreciate to be here today for the second part of a meeting relating to litigation. And as noticed for today's meeting, this is for the board to provide direction to outside counsel, Ted Tripp, Esquire, and the office of the county attorney as to settlement negotiations and litigation expenses in the litigation case of Aquaport versus Collier County. And there are in fact two federal cases and one Bert Harris case in Collier County court. This has been properly noticed, properly advised to the board at a prior meeting. And at this particular point, outside counsel Ted Tripp is prepared to address you and poll the board as to any direction it may wish to give us relating to these cases. So with this, Mr. Tripp. MR. TRIPP: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Ted Tripp. My firm, Garvin and Tripp, P.A. has the honor of representing the taxpayers of Collier County in litigation that is pending both in the Page 2 September 9, 2004 state court and in the federal court brought by Aquaport, LC; Conotel, LC; Norman Burke and James Allen, arising from zoning decisions related to the construction of improvements on Vanderbilt Beach. Since last we discussed this matter in public session, I would report to you that settlement discussions have occurred between the plaintiffs' counsel, Margaret Cooper, our office and the office of Northland Insurance Company, which is the insurer who represents -- I'm sorry, who insures Collier County in the claims presented in both state and federal court. As a result of those negotiations, we believe that a settlement of the litigation is possible, and I am coming before you today to ask that the county commission authorize the contribution of up to a total of $175,000, provided that Northland Insurance Company agrees to increase its prior offer by $75,000; in return for which the Plaintiffs, N orman Burke, James Allen, Aquaport, LC and Conotel, LC will provide a complete release of all claims against Collier County, its present and former commissioners, and all of its staff and employees for all claims and demands, including those which are now pending in the federal court, both the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit, as well as the matter that is currently pending in the circuit court in and for the 20th Judicial Circuit. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: What do we do from here? MR. TRIPP: I-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. MR. TRIPP: I would hope that someone would make a motion that the county -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle. Do I hear a second? Page 3 September 9, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could we put the amount that we're going to approve? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, he did. And a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. MR. TRIPP: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. And with that, I will close that meeting. And I will call the budget hearing meeting to order. And I'll turn that over to Mr. Mudd. Item #2- Pelican Bay RESOLUTION 2004-252: THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MR. MUDD: The first thing on the agenda is to do the Pelican Bay MSTU. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Ward's here, the Pelican Bay services Page 4 September 9, 2004 administrator. And I'll turn it to him. There's an assessment roll that needs to be adopted by the board. MR. WARD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson and members of the board. My name is Jim Ward, representing the Pelican Bay Services Division. Your primary purpose today is to consider the budget for the division for Fiscal Year 2005 related to the non-ad valorem assessments, and primarily for you to consider the adoption of the resolution attached to your agenda package related to the non-ad valorem assessments required to fund the division for Fiscal Year '05. Included in the resolution are the amounts that we are requesting funding for. It's $145.45 per equivalent residential unit for our capital program; $329.98 per equivalent residential unit for our operating and maintenance program. They cover a variety of services, including water management facilities, community beautification facilities, construction of landscaping, preservation of the Clam Bay conservation system, among other items within the division's budget. So with that, the resolution has been properly noticed. It has been advertised. And all landowners in Pelican Bay have been noticed of the impending assessment appearing before you today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: We have four speakers, but I don't believe they're on this subj ect. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Fine. Okay. MR. MUDD: So Mr. Ward is asking that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the resolution that's attached approving the special assessment role and levying the special assessment against the benefited properties within the Pelican Bay municipal service taxing and benefit unit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. Page 5 September 9, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have an appointed board. What is their recommendations? MR. WARD: Their recommendation was for the approval of the budget and recommendation that the board approve the resolution. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Ward. MR. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that will turn us to our budget hearing at this particular time. And I'm going to turn this over to Michael Smykowski and he will start talking about the tentative millage rates and increases over the rolled back millage rate. RESOLUTION 2004-253: REGARDING THE TENTATIVE MILl .A GE.RAIRS- A DOnED Page 6 September 9, 2004 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening. For the record, Michael Smykowski, county budget director. Those with the package, I'm on Page lA, there's a listing of the proposed tax rates for Fiscal Year '05 and the percent increases over the rolled back rate, pursuant to Florida statute. The first substantive issue that needs to be discussed during the budget public hearing are the tentative tax rates and the increase over the rolled back rate and the reasons for that. The general fund has a proposed millage rate of 3.8772. That's an eight percent increase above the rolled back rate. The rolled back rate generates the same amount of tax revenue as that levied in the previous year, exclusive of new construction that was added to the tax roll. This is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mike, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but this is one of the most confusing things to the public and to me that I've ever encountered in this taxation process. Every time people get their tax bills and it shows an increase of 8.0 percent, they think we're increasing taxes. Can you explain to us why, when we keep taxes exactly the same, it is reported as an eight percent increase from one year to the next? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. It's expressed as a function of the rolled back millage rate. And this goes back probably about 30, 35 years in Florida history. A number of years ago, the issue was rapidly escalating property values in Florida. And obviously at the same tax rate, if people's property doubled, tripled, quadrupled in a year's time, obviously, the taxes they would have to pay at the same millage rate were considerably larger. The concept of the rolled back millage rate, which is again the millage rate that would generate the same amount of ad valorem tax revenue as that levied in the previous year, exclusive of new construction. So it basically discounts for the increased valuation of existing property on the tax rolls. You are allowed, under the millage rate calculations, the new construction add Page 7 September 9, 2004 to the tax roll comes as a -- that is added to the tax revenue for the various taxing jurisdictions. But this is founded in statute. It's kind of the heart of the truth in millage movement that began, you know, in the Seventies, I believe it was. And it is -- it's founded in statute. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a meaningless figure and it's very misleading. But nevertheless, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that when you're talking about an increase, you're not talking about an increase in taxes, because we're leaving the taxes exactly as they were last year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Millage rate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're leaving millage rate exactly as they were last year. So this rolled back millage rate is a fictitious number that is meaningless to anybody, as far as I'm concerned. It certainly confuses me. But I just want it on the record, there's nothing here that represents a tax rate increase, although you will be talking about an increase over the rolled back millage rate, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There is no increase. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No millage rate increase. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No millage rate increase, that is true. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Only because the property value is increasing will the tax increase, but the millage rate stays the same. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And most property owners with a homestead exemption are then protected by the Save Our Homes cap as well, which the increase I believe this year was limited to, I believe it was 1.9 percent. Therefore -- and with the school millage dropping and the bulk of the taxing jurisdictions keeping their millage rate the same, most people who have a homestead again will see little to no increase or in fact a slight decrease in the -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mine went up 20 cents. Page 8 September 9, 2004 MR. MUDD: Mine went down about $25. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I would agree with you, that it is somewhat confusing. The trim notice itself has the three columns, here's what you paid last year based on the proposed millage rates, this is what you will pay this year, and then off to the right there's another column. If the rolled back rate were levied by all jurisdictions, this is what you would pay. And of course it may create some confusion in the tax collection process because given their druthers people would rather pay less, so they opt -- and they say no, I'm paying column three, which is the rolled back, which is not even the proposed rate, so it does create some inherent confusion throughout the process, not only in discussion mode, during the public hearings as well. Water pollution control, again, the millage rate is being held constant. That's an 8.1 percent increase over the rolled back rate. We're establishing a sinking fund for future lab equipment replacement to avoid any spikes down the road in the millage in the pollution control fund. The unincorporated area general fund is an 8.2 percent increase over the rolled back rate. Again, that is the same tax rate as fiscal year '04. And it's principally for funding landscaping projects and the infrastructure service plan for eastern Collier County. The Golden Gate Community Center has a decrease of one half percent. Naples Park drainage is an increase of 66.7 percent above the rolled back rates. And while the percentage increase is large in some of these very small MSTUs, we're talking about a $3,400 increase in the tax levy within this small MSTU for maintenance of the stormwater system. The Pine Ridge Industrial Park is an 86.6 percent increase over the rolled back rate. We're initiating drainage system improvements within the industrial park in Fiscal Year '05. Victoria Park drainage, again, a large percent increase: 188.4 Page 9 September 9,2004 percent. But the overall tax levy is only increasing $9,100. That's for the maintenance of a stormwater system solely within Victoria Park Unit 1. And we're also looking to fund replacement equipment, both pumps and an electrical panel within that system. The Naples Park underground is a new tax levied this year to bury overhead power lines. That was approved by the board. This past year is a one-time tax that will be initiated in Fiscal Year '05 and it will be a one-time levy. Obviously we're going to pay that bill to FPL for the burial of that power line. And then there will be no need for any subsequent taxation within this MSTU. It was created solely to repay this one-time expenditure. Golden Gate Parkway beautification is a 7.6 percent increase. Their citizen advisory committee recommends retaining the half mill levy for median improvements. The Naples Production Park maintenance is 178.7 percent over the rolled back rate. Again, though, we're talking about $8,200 increase in the tax levy for increase of -- increased cost of maintenance for mowing and litter control within the industrial park. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU is at 10-and-a-halfpercent increase over the rolled back rate. This is another constant half mill levy , as recommended by the citizen advisory committee to -- for improvements that are being prioritized as they develop and begin to implement the master plan within that community. Isle of Capri Fire's a 10.6 percent increase over the rolled back rate. That's a 1.5 mill tax levy, as recommended by the advisory committee. Ochopee Fire is a 7.1 percent increase over the rolled back rate. That's a constant four mill tax levy for fire control in the rural area of Collier County. Collier County Fire District itself is a decrease of a tenth of a percent. And that is a two mill tax levy for areas that are outside the boundaries of any other fire service provider. And that's provided -_ Page 10 ~".--_.." September 9, 2004 fire service is then provided contractually between Golden Gate, East Naples, Marco and Isle of Capri Fire. GoodlandlHorr's Island Fire MSTU is a decree of 8.1 percent. That's fire protection provided by the City of Marco Island via contract to the Goodland and Horr's Island areas. Radio Road beautification is a decrease of 46.5 percent. There's a quarter of a mill reduction from one-half mill to a quarter of a mill, as recommended by the advisory committee for median improvements and maintenance within that MSTU. Sabal Palm Road MSTU is a new levy for roadway maintenance within the MSTU boundaries. Lely Golf Estates beautification is an increase of 8.7 percent. That's a two mill tax levy, again recommended by the advisory committee to landscape the rights-of-way along St. Andrew's Boulevard. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU is an 880.3 percent increase above the rolled back rate. And translating that to dollars, we're talking about $14,100 increase in the tax levy. And again, we're fully -- funding reserves for two electrical pumps and an electrical control panel that are essentially aged equipment. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU is an 11.8 percent increase. That's a three mill tax levy to continue drainage improvements within the Forest Lakes area of the county. Immokalee beautification is a 1.2 percent increase. And that's a one mill levy to fund improvements. The principal improvements are going to be from 9th Street north to the Westclocks/SR 29 intersection. The Bayshore Avalon beautification MSTU is a decrease of four-and-a-halfpercent. There's a reduction from two mills to 1.75 mills proposed in FY '05. We're moving to a maintenance mode within this MSTU after a number of years. We were essentially constructing and implementing the improvements along Bayshore Page 11 September 9, 2004 Drive. The Livingston Road Phase II MSTU is a decrease of 100 percent. There is no tax levy. That was a one-time tax last year to repay in advance for upgraded streetlights within the MSTU. Conservation Collier is an eight percent increase. That's the second year of a quarter of a mill levy for acquisition of environmentally sensitive land that was approved by referendum. Parks GOB debt service, there is no tax levy. That debt was retired in '03. Isle of Capri municipal fire rescue debt, there is no levy. Collier County lighting is a decrease of 11 and-a-half percent. Naples Production Park street lighting, there is no levy. That MSTU was consolidated into the Collier County lighting district. And finally, there's an increase in the Pelican Bay MSTBU of 13.1 percent. There's some capital improvements: An equipment washing station and increased storage facility, and increased reserves, as recommended by the advisory committee within Pelican Bay MSTU. I realize that's a long discussion item early on in the process here. The MSTU s serve us well in terms of providing service to those who principally benefit from them, but it does make for a somewhat cumbersome discussion item, due to the volume of various millage rates and discussions thereof. RESOLUTION 2004-254: REGARDING THE AMENDED With that, if you would please turn to -- there's a summary of changes to the proposed budget on Page 1 B within your packet. It identifies the fund, what the net change to the fund total was, and there's an explanation provided therein. Overall, from the tentative budget, there is an increase of Page 12 September 9, 2004 approximately $27.4 million. And that's founded in a few principal items. One, the tax collector's budget was not submitted per statute until August 1st. That's approximately $15.7 million. But I want to be clear that his expenditure budget is only approximately 8.2 million of that. The balance of that is excess fees, which the excess fees are distributed to the various taxing entities in proportion to the taxes levied. So that is a fairly sizeable revenue source to your general fund. So while percentage-wise the overall budget for the tax collector looks much larger than it actually is, due to those excess fees for services provided in issuing driver's licenses, collecting the ad valorem and issuing fishing licenses, motor vehicle registration tags and the like. Some of the other changes. Within Pelican Bay services, there was a minor change to the assessment revenue: That was lowered. There was a revision to the number of billable units as common areas were deleted in the assessment role. That was approved by their advisory committee. Within the unincorporated area general fund, there was a net reduction in total fund appropriations of $1.7 million. There were some advances for FY '05 landscaping projects to get the design underway this year so that it would not be constructing landscaping projects in the height of season next year. And there was a correction in the available fund balance. We had appropriated -- in the belief we had some one-time money in fund balance for road resurfacing. We corrected that fund balance error, and as a result the one-time road resurfacing allocation was eliminated. Landscaping Fund 112, there's a change of approximately $200,000. Again, there was -- that's the flip side of that, the advance on the four landscaping projects. Therefore, since the money will be spent in FY '04, we reduced the budget appropriations Page 13 September 9, 2004 correspondingly in FY '05. Within Conservation Collier, that was a reduction of$100,000. There was a change there, we were budgeting for interest on the commercial paper loan that was used to acquire the American Business Park property that was approved by the board subsequent to the initial distribution of the budget. There was a slight change of the Immokalee redevelopment for an invoice that was paid this year. The Pine Ridge Naples Production Park debt service fund had a fairly sizeable change. That was a special assessment, a fund for improvements made within the production park itself. A number of property owners have prepaid their assessments. We had hoped to pay down some of that, but the -- we've reviewed in detail with our bond counsel the -- the principal retirement, the available call date to retire principal is not authorized until November, 2004. So that funds will carry forward and Mr. Mitchell will be bringing forth an executive summary probably in October, authorizing the early retirement of some of that debt, based on the prepaid assessments that have been received. Commercial paper debt service Fund 299 is an increase of a half a million dollars. In this case we are budgeting the interest on the American Business Park property that was acquired through the Conservation Collier program. The capital funds, the 300 series, which is the last item on I(B), Page 1 and kind of carries on through the bottom of 1 (B), Page 2, typically what we do at this point in the year is revise the budgets to reflect any changes in capital project forecasts. And in this case, the principal changes involve updating road impact fee -- not only road impact fee, but other impact fees funds as well, revenues estimates based on actual collections that have been received to date. There was a fairly sizeable increase in fund balance as a result of additional impact fees received this year, and that's principally a Page 14 September 9, 2004 function of that change where PUDs are required to pay 50 percent of the estimated impact fees for roads upfront, initially, as the development takes off. Obviously we've adjusted the budgets. Those are difficult to estimate when those might occur in the process, since that cash was received this year. We've incorporated that into this year's revenue forecast. In essence, the 400 series funds are along the same lines, they're just enterprise fund, capital project funds, similar situation there. Airport Authority had a minor change to the airport. There was a $6,500 reduction. And then finally, the office of utility regulation, there was a decrease in the budget of $106,800. The initial budget had shown a regulatory fee increase from two percent to 3.75. Subsequent to the budget, we took an executive summary to the board that was approved, and we are retaining the regulatory fee at two percent. As a result, we lowered the estimated revenue budget, because we are retaining that fee, the regulatory fee at the lower two percent level. And that concludes item 1 (B). Item I(C) is budget discussion items. There was one that was -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Mike just mentioned something -- Jim Mudd for the record -- the office of utility regulation. The reserves were a little bit high, and instead of raising the rate to 3.75 to kind of offset Marco Utility taking over Florida Water, which we lost a great chunk of those people that were basically paying a fee into that fund, we made the decision to let's lower the reserve on that fund to get it in balance with the population that you serve. And one way to do that is to not increase the 3.75 but to keep it at two. That was one of the reasons we did that. Why would you want to raise -- if you've got a reserve and it needs to come down, why do you want to charge them an increased fee for water and sewer, based on a franchise fee, so to speak, so we kept it at two. Go ahead, Mike. I'm sorry. Page 15 September 9, 2004 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Item l(C), budget discussion item, the guardian ad litem program. Barbara Kroll is here. She's the 20th Judicial Circuit director for the guardian ad litem program. We've included a basic outline of the program with some statistics in terms of there are volunteers that I'll let Mrs. Kroll speak about. There is a budget request, it's Item l(C), Page 2. They have requested $11,100. On that page, we have identified the costs that are mandated that the county pay for under Article 5. That amounts to $4,500. And then on Item 1 (C), Page 3, there is a breakdown of the various statutory sites relative to the costs that must be borne by the county relative to this program. And with that, I'll turn it over to Barbara Kroll, representing the guardian ad litem program. MS. KROLL: Thank you, Mr. Smykowski. I do want to make sure that the county commissioners can appreciate the value of a guardian ad litem program. It is primarily driven by our volunteers. Weare fortunate here in Collier County to have approximately 80 to 100 volunteers, depending on the time of the year. Those volunteers currently are serving almost 300 children, and the children that they deal with are the children who are in the court system, really through no fault their own. These are children who are abused, abandoned, neglected, and so forth by their parents or other caregIvers. The volunteers devote several hours every week. We gave you an estimate here. So far, just from June -- excuse me, from January to June of this year, in Collier County our volunteers have given us approximately 3,000 hours of service. They go out and they provide a very valuable service to the court and to the community at no charge. So my budget here is proposed to help ensure that the four staff members who are state employees here in this county will be well prepared to support those volunteers and their efforts through being able to provide them reference material, educational opportunities and Page 16 September 9, 2004 so forth. We do what we can in the office. It is a small office. And we would like to be able to, obviously, increase our service to our volunteers. But in order to do that, we have to be able to grow within the community. So we are continually trying to recruit additional volunteers. The court always looks for volunteers on these programs or in these court cases, because they very much appreciate the value and input that the individual volunteer can give when they spend that time one-on-one face-to-face with these children in a court system that simply does not have the time to go out and spend 3,000 hours in six months interviewing and dealing with the people who are personally involved with these children. So the volunteers do that, they bring that information, that personal insight as to what's going on in that child's life to the court's attention to better enable the court to make an appropriate decision regarding the welfare of these abused and neglected children in the community. Did you have any questions that I can answer about the program or volunteers, what they do? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What would you be using the funds for out-of-county travel? MS. KROLL: That primarily would be to enable staff to go to conferences and so forth. For instance, in October there is a volunteer conference. The state is only allowing myself and one other person in the entire circuit to attend that conference on the state's budget. If I have county funds, then I can send somebody specifically from this county to go with the volunteers who will be attending that conference and to network with them and then better be able to bring that information from those conferences back. That's a specific example. But that's primarily -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you done that in the past? MS. KROLL: Yes, we have. Page 1 7 September 9,2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you approached the bar association, Collier County Bar Association? MS. KROLL: Not specifically as to funds for this. They have helped us with smaller projects: Things for children, personal items for children, specific -- you know, the Christmas drive for toys for children, things of that nature. But we have not approached them regarding an ongoing budget allocation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. KROLL: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, do we -- MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item would be UFR. What I would say on this particular item, let me add it to the unfinanced requirement list and we'll talk about that at the last budget meeting, okay, on how to do it. It's an important service to Collier County. I believe the board all recognizes that fact. This just happens to be one of those Article 5 issues where part of it's the county responsibility, part of it's the state, and there's that little bit in between that doesn't get covered by anybody. And I believe Ms. Nohl is asking for that $7,000 difference for that stuff that's caught in the middle. It's doable. And I'll get it on that list and we'll try to hammer that out. The other piece on the unfinanced requirement list, which is the next item, you have those pages in front of you. I will tell you that I noticed when we were having our other meeting that was closed session that we were missing the 111 UFR list, okay? And I have that -- I have copies of that down here and I'll pass that out. But I would like to postpone that particular discussion until the last meeting and we hear from all the residents at this meeting as far as what their wishes and desires are. And then I believe that on the 23rd we'll know a whole lot more about how this hurricane is going to affect us and what kind of reserves we're going to have to use, at least Page 18 September 9, 2004 an estimate, to try to get this community back together if we get hit. But let me get a copy of the 111 UFRs for you. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would conclude Item l(C). That would move us to item I(D), which is public comment and questions. And Ms. Filson, I believe, has four speakers. MS. FILSON: I have three. Actually, Barbara was signed up as one of them. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We have three public speakers. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is William Dearborn. He will be followed by Pat Barton. MR. DEARBORN: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm here today as the representative of the Collier County Juvenile Justice Council. By unanimous vote of that council at noon today, they sent me here to make these representations. I'm also appearing as the chairman of the Juvenile Assessment Center Committee. I'm the chairman of that. I was appointed to that about nine months ago by Judge Ellis when I raised some issues about the operation of the assessment center. And she appointed me chairman, appointed members of the committee. And my mission was to get that thing up and running. And I've been working diligently at that for nine months. First let me say, what is a JAC? What is a juvenile assessment center? What it is, is a physical location, and you may have seen it over here, some people think it's a detention center -- and I'll get to that in a minute -- but what it is, is a physical location where co-located intake and screening services for arrested, ungovernable and at-risk children are brought to provide a broad array of youth-related services appropriate to the needs of the community. It is not a state mandated activity. It is not state funded. It was developed through a local initiative, based on a state statute that allowed this to take place. Page 19 September 9,2004 Why is it there? Well, let me just pose a rhetorical question. How many times have parents asked where can I go to get help? My child is out of control. The answer is at the juvenile assessment center where there are resources to address those kinds of issues. Not just for arrested youth, but for ungovernable youth and other at-risk children in our community. Briefly, I'd like to go over the history of the juvenile assessment center in Collier County. Now, let me say that in the State of Florida, there are 26 counties that have juvenile assessment centers, including Collier County. In 1994, the juvenile -- the Collier County Juvenile Justice Council approved, in its comprehensive plan, a priority to establish a juvenile assessment center here in Collier County. In 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved an ordinance, based on a state statute, to collect $3.00 in court costs to fund the implementation and operation of the juvenile assessment center here in Collier County, based on a written agreement signed by the sheriff, the department of juvenile justice, the chairman of the Juvenile Justice Council at that time, the chief judge, the clerk of court, are the ones that I can remember. So there was an involvement with agencies here in the county and the board at that time. The board passed an ordinance authorizing the collection of those $3.00. In 2000, in March of 2000, the Board of County Commissioners, again participating in this, the Board of County Commissioners signed a land lease for Collier County land for the state to build a juvenile assessment and detention center, and it's out over there where some of you probably know where it is. So again, involvement and support from the Board of County Commissioners. In April of 2000, there was a ground-breaking ceremony that resulted in that building that's out there. In September of 200 1, there was an opening ceremony; I think Page 20 September 9,2004 some of the commissioners attended that. And it opened the we call the JAC and the detention center. Now, let me digress here for a moment to explain that that is one big building. It's built on county land that you authorized be done. The detention center, which occupies the bulk of that space, is run by the state, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and it's, for sake of a better description, a children's jail. As part of that project, a certain amount of space, a relatively small amount of space, was set aside for use by the juvenile assessment center, which again I emphasize is a local initiative. Quite frankly, it sat vacant initially, and then it began to get into operation. The sheriff moved in, started doing booking there. Juvenile justice got in there and started doing intake, 24 hours a day. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, I have to ask you to wind up, if you would, please. You've reached the end of your -- MR. DEARBORN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Could I have -- I think there's a provision for a little extra time. I read that somewhere. May I have extra time? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you take it -- one minute, please, because we have other speakers there. MR. DEARBORN: I understand. Where are we today? Well, that $3.00 I mentioned is gone. It's been replaced by a Collier County ordinance that you recently passed that authorized a $65 court fee, 25 percent of which was to be allocated to teen court, juvenile assessment centers and other juvenile programs. What has occurred, and what I'm asking for, is a modification of the tentative budget. In that tentative budget, an estimated revenue representing that 25 percent was presented as $160,000. That entire amount of money went to teen court. The juvenile assessment center, which had been previously funded, was zeroed out. What we're asking is that that be modified. Page 21 September 9, 2004 And I've met with court administration, I've met with Chief Judge Hugh Hayes, who are in agreement with what I'm saying. We're asking that that be modified and that 25 percent allocated to juvenile be divided equally: 12 and-a-half percent for teen court, 12 and-a-half percent for the juvenile assessment center. We went for percentages rather than the budgeted amount, which is $160,000, because it doesn't look like we're coming to that. And just one concluding remark. I want to emphasize again that this is not an ad valorem tax issue. We're not asking for additional money in the budget, we're just asking for an equitable distribution of what's already there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Barton. She will be followed by John Van Dongen. MS. BARTON: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for these few minutes. I'm here on behalf of the juvenile council as well, the Collier County Juvenile Justice Council, and have been a member since its inception 10 years ago. The purpose of that council, by state statute, is to look at the needs in a community and come up with a continuum of care or a continuum of services that we should be seeking here in Collier County. And there are councils in other counties is as well. Number one on our priority list was always the juvenile assessment center, which has been built. We went out and got, if you don't mind my using the term "turkey", to build that. You all gave the land, the sheriffs department gave services. It truly was a community partnership. You -- this commission, not this particular one, but the county commission is by statute a part of our partnership. And actually you're supposed to be sending somebody to -- or a representative to sit in on our council meetings. But I think there's been some miscommunication, and I apologize for that and certainly Page 22 September 9, 2004 invite you to participate in the future meetings. Weare the defining group to make the needs assessment and to make the decisions -- not the decisions, but certainly to layout before you and other entities in this county what we need in terms of juvenile justice programs. Because of us we have DRILL. Because of us we have Pace Center for Girls. Because of us we've had several alternative schools. Because of us, and you all too, we have the juvenile assessment center. We don't have funding to run that because of a state glitch. They stopped doing prevention in the State of Florida. So once it was built, they did away with the funding for juvenile assessment centers. So we have been, actually -- we had a turkey for that, too, thanks to Dudley Goodlette, but the Juvenile Justice Department took it away, usurped it, if you will, within their own budget. So we don't have any funding right now at all. That $3.00 was all we had. And it's gone now. So what we're really asking of you is if you will reconsider some funding from the $65 court costs that you have just, you know, done the ordinance for, for part of that to go to us. By the way, teen court is a wonderful program. It's on our continuum. It was not the number one priority, but it is certainly a wonderful program, and we totally advocate for it. I appreciate your bringing this back and letting us at least say something about it and will reconsider it again. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Pat. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John, John Pierre Van Dongen. I'm sure I got that incorrect. MR. V ANDONGEN: Hi, good evening to you, Chairperson and gentlemen of the council, and ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Pierre Van Dongen. I reside in Naples, in 655 16th Avenue South. And very proud to be here in Collier County. Page 23 September 9, 2004 My issue this evening I wish to raise is a property tax on a certain area here. But before I start, I'd like to say I totally believe in taxes and specifically thank the commission for what they're doing with the money that we give. I own several parcels of land here in Collier County. I am very grateful for the services that I get. However, there's one property that I do own that I feel that there may be some form of inequity between the tax payed and the services rendered. Specifically that property is, for most of us we know it as Keewadin Island. I'm one of the owners of the southern part of Keewadin Island, those lots there. And there are about 35 of them. And should it be relevant to get their legal description, I can give that to you later. The question that I have and the request I have to the commission is that in my tax bill of last year, 2003, we were paying, as each property owner around, about $5,000 plus for our annual tax on that area. Now, this is an area that is beautiful, it's untouched, and that's why we live out there, or we stay out there and spend time. It has no roads, no water supply, no electricity, no mosquito spraying, no debris removal. We do have some services for which we're very grateful and respectful and we have to pay taxes for. We get a marine patrol that goes by there perhaps once a day, maybe twice on the weekend. We do have coverage by the Isle of Capri fire service, which is somewhat remote, but it's there. And there is coverage for medical emergencies with a helicopter. However, what my request to the commission is, is to perhaps look at this area; and I represent numerous people on the -- on the -- as property owners, to look at the millage rate of this specific area and see, you know, is it really justifiable and fair to put a millage rate on this property just as we do anywhere else in the county when the services are not really being rendered to them. And that's really my request to you. I'd be happy to field any questions, if there are any. Page 24 September 9, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: No questions. MR. V ANDONGEN: Thank you. MS. FILSON: We have one more speaker. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'd just like the county manager maybe to comment on the ad valorem property tax rates and the services that are provided or not provided. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we basically levy a tax rate against the properties in unincorporated Collier County, and that happens to be one of them. And there's the general fund rate of3.7, Mike, or 3.8? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 87. MR. MUDD: Yes, 3.8772. And there's the incorporated piece, which is .8069, is the millage rate. That rate is levied on all properties, okay, irrespective of the service that is rendered dollar for dollar. I mean, there are people in the City of Naples that would say that because they contribute about 25 percent of the general fund money that they don't get 25 percent of the benefit from that. I mean, there's people in Pelican Bay that would say that they don't get theirs either, and I've heard that lately. But -- and see, that's the fairest way, because if you take a look -- and if Dr. Van Dongen has an issue with the Value Adjustment Board, that might be one place and an avenue that he could go to to see if his property is valued and the taxes are levied accordingly, and that would probably be a more appropriate avenue to go. And we're about ready to do those in the -- Sue? MS. FILSON: Yes. The Value Adjustment Board, I believe it's within the next two weeks. MR. MUDD: Okay. But to get to that island, to -- you normally have to get there by a road that runs through somebody else's property or neighborhood or whatever. And then there's the services that you have for the sheriff, as he mentioned, the fire districts and things like that. They also have schools, and people will say well, you know, I'm paying the school rate but I don't have any school kids, how come I'm Page 25 September 9, 2004 paying the school rate? It's because you want the kids -- the kids that are growing up around you to be smart so they don't -- so they don't turn into juvenile delinquents later and rob your house; that would be nice. That's kind of a simplistic way to do it. But we don't differentiate between the rates as it applies to the county properties based on a dollar-per-dollar service provided. We just don't do it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about sewer and water fees and services? MR. MUDD: They would -- they don't pay connections on impact fees, nor do they pay water or sewer. And that isn't in your general tax rate, that would be on a regular bill for the services provided in those communities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I wanted you to clarify, because I thought the gentleman might have been under the impression that he was paying money for water and other service fees, which really are not included in that tax rate. MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. FILSON: And we might want to advise him, I'm not sure of the date, but I think it may be September the 10th, I don't have the information with me right here, to file an -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sue, I don't think the gentleman -- the Doctor was talking about unfair valuation of his property, he was talking about to give relief on the millage rate. And the discussion that I heard is the services that he's not getting are services that are charged a different way, like you get a sewer bill or a water -- sewer bill, you get a garbage bill, so on, so forth. So I mean, that's not in the -- MR. MUDD: That's not in your tax rate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's a service that's provided. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Chuck Mohlke. Page 26 September 9, 2004 MR. MOHLKE: If it please this honorable commission, my name is Chuck Mohlke. I'm a resident of the City of Naples. And my question has to do with dependent fire districts, a matter of some interest to me over many years. I noticed in reading this very informative budget, in examining Item I(E) on Page 3, I(F) on Page 2, and I(F) on Page 4, that there are interesting conclusions that a naive reader could come to regarding the adopted tax dollars, the adopted budget and the summary of budgets by funds, in which the naive reader may assume that there are some inconsistencies here. But I don't mean to dwell on that; simply I'm not an educated reader of this particular budget document. The point that I will struggle to make in the few minutes that I have remaining in my remarks is that unlike federal and state budgets in which there is a requirement, particularly at the federal budget level, to project activity five years out so that both authorized and appropriated funds can be scheduled in some systematic way to learn what the future may foretell in respect to both capital dollars and operating dollars, it is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that there is a lively negotiation going on between these two dependent districts, Ochopee and Isle of Capri, and one of the independent fire districts as to whether or not slowly but surely there will be in effect an assimilation of these districts into the independent district, and the consequences that that has at three levels: One, the millage rate levels are wildly dissimilar. Ochopee is supported by a four mill rate; Isle of Capri by two-and-a-half; Collier fire by two mills. Yet in a budget document like this, whether or not I'm correct in my assumption that there is under consideration by the independent fire district and the county and the dependent districts that at some point in time they will assume certain responsibilities for the management of these districts, and perhaps for the funding of them, it is just a general question to the board, to the manager and to the Page 27 September 9,2004 budget director, am I operating under a correct assumption? And secondarily, is there a means by which I can better understand the variations in the adopted budgets in some of the funds, as compared with the proposed dollars which coincide nicely with the initial presentation of budget dollars in first Attachment A and second Attachment A and proceeding attachments. Now that's a complicated matter and I -- but I don't know how else to raise it. MR. MUDD: Okay. Madam Chair, if I could help a little bit? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please. MR. MUDD: First of all, the discussions with East Naples, Ochopee and the Isles of Capri fire districts was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, and all three fire chiefs stood there at that podium that Mr. Mohlke is sitting at, asking if they could get into discussions. Mr. Mohlke is definitely correct about the millage rates being different between Ochopee and the Isles of Capri and East Naples. East Naples and the Isles of Capri are both at 1.5 mill. The Ochopee is at four mill. If they somehow merged, okay, with a millage rate, the millage rate that this enlarged independent could charge would be 1.5 mills. Something would have to be done for Ochopee so -- and we thought about it, and I've asked the county attorney for some advice on this particular case, and maybe having an MSTU for the Ochopee area at about 2.5 mills, they'd still have their four mills, they would still-- the one-and-a-halfwould be in the independent, and then they would pay their MSTU piece in order to basically work that unification. And Commissioner Coletta was sitting at lunch when we talked to some fire chiefs about this. And that was one way that I thought that that could be done on a fair and equitable practice. I will also say that there are probably some benefits -- and I know it's highly emotional, because everybody wants to have their own fire group, I'll just let you know. We're one of the last counties in the State of Florida that have more than one in their county, okay, so that seems Page 28 ,.-- September 9, 2004 to be a dying trend. Some day it might be unified. Until that time, these particular fire chiefs thought that there would be some efficiencies that they could gain while this is going on. For instance, Ochopee right now -- or excuse me, the Isles of Capri right now are having some high-rises that are being built at a particular area. And that all of a sudden gives them a windfall of dollars up front. East Naples is having an expansion and they're trying to service more over a wider area, but they don't get their big influx of residential for about five years. When that happens, the Isles of Capri will be going on a downturn as far as new construction is concerned, and East Naples will be having an upturn. Maybe there's a way to smooth that bounce around for the residents to provide good service to everyone and hold the millage rates pretty constant and provide really good service. Ochopee is out there hanging by themselves, rather small, sitting out in an area where they are going to get some development, but nothing in the magnitude of what East Naples and the Isles of Capri fire district are going to get. We're trying to give them better service, too. You don't want them to sit out there. And they're maxed had out at four mills as far as their millage rate is concerned and what they can charge. And you don't want someplace in Collier County to have very bad fire service, okay, you want to keep them up as good as you can. So this was a way to try to average that out for everybody. And that's what these fire chiefs have been discussing. Does that answer your question a little bit? MR. MOHLKE: It does to that -- to this extent. I think that, Mr. Manager, is a very good description of current circumstances. But perhaps in future budget discussions this time next year, it may be instructive to the citizens of Collier County and certainly to the board and those who attend these meetings to better understand what is likely to happen over the space of the next five years following that fiscal year that you'll be budgeting for next year, and some ability to Page 29 September 9, 2004 predict likely will the nature of the service change in some important respect, and will some of the tax ad valorem burden on certain areas of Collier County which are extraordinarily high -- not that the service is bad, it's just that in order to support the service at that level, it has to be levied at that amount -- that it could be, I think, better understood. And this kind of predictive aspect of a budget is not required of you or the board, but every now and then as these developments unfold, it's perhaps instructive to have public comment, get exactly this nice description that you've provided. MR. MUDD: What we've also tried to do, Chuck, is to try to provide the board with a three-year look. And Mr. Smykowski has a model and he tries to do that, to give the board a look at what the general fund would be and what the unincorporated general fund would be. We asked the fire chiefs as they looked at this merger to try to look out a little bit farther. I described a situation to you about the Isles of Capri having a series of high-rise come on line and East Naples following that five years later with almost 10,000 units coming on line for residential at different places and different developments that are out there on the East Trail and 951, in the hopes that when those units came on line for both of those entities, that they would reduce their millage rate of 1.5 mills and get it down to one mill, like they do in North Naples where they have more people there, they have a higher revenue source. And describing what I did with Ochopee, if they were at 1.5, part of that, even though they had a special MSTU at 2.5, they would be a beneficiary of having a less independent fire rate going from 1.5 to one mills. And they would too be beneficiaries of increased efficiencies and having a larger population and some rather high-scale neighborhoods coming on line. So that was the thought, yes. And we asked those dependent and independent fire chiefs to get together and try to project that out a little bit. We're working on it. We're not there for every MSTU though, looking out for five years. Page 30 September 9, 2004 Now, every one of the MSTUs are supposed to have a long-range plan of what they want to do with their monies in a comprehensive plan. For instance, Vanderbilt Beach Drive, that MSTU, they even asked the board for money to try to help them start their plan so they'd get a handle on it and get a long-term view of what they'd have to charge their particular constituents. But we're working on it, Chuck. MR. MOHLKE: Board members, the manager has been very forthcoming, and I think it certainly improves my understanding of what's likely to happen over time. And it's a feature, I think, of these discussions that it has an opportunity to inform the public as well as the board. And I appreciate the comments and the opportunity. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Okay, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to now go in, unless you have some conversations -- and again, I'd like to postpone the UFR discussion, the unfinanced requirement discussion, until the 23rd, the last meeting, if we have any, depending on what we see coming on board as far as the hurricane and that recovery process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can we discuss the juvenile adjustment center now, or does that have to wait 'til next time? MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, we can discuss that. It's doable. It's authorized within that $65 and that 25 percent cut that goes to teen courts and lAC. As I talked to Mr. Middlebrook on the bottom, who controls it -- and this is -- and I've had lots of conversations with Mr. Dearborn before in my office and with the sheriff on the particular item. You know, where does that reserves monies from the $3.50 surcharge reside? Who controls the program? And it's someplace between the clerk and the sheriff and Mr. Dearborn's committee, okay. And we need to figure that out. And I need to sit down and get comfortable on who's going to control this 12.5 percent. Page 31 September 9, 2004 I don't think anybody has a problem, the chief judge, Mr. Middlebrook or the county manager's office, to say, you know, that 12.5 is going to represent around $80,000, and making sure it goes there. How it's going to be controlled, you know, how are we going to worry about -- who's going to be in charge of the expenditures, cutting the checks, those particular things, and then you have a little bit of quality control that you look at. We need to work out that. And I'd like to come back to the board on the 23rd with some kind of a recommendation after I talk to those particular parties. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like that. They seemed like they really had a legitimate concern there. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. One of the things I'd like to make sure that the board understands is, Mr. Dearborn talked about this building that sits our there, and there's 26 of them in the state. One of the things that we got for an unfinanced requirement this year was a bill for $1.4 million to do the -- to do the incarceration part of that 26 buildings that are in the state, one of which resides over by our jail. So we've got a little bit of a piece of something that we hadn't had to pay for for a while. N ow we're worrying about that little cubicle that's set aside and how we fund that particular service. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now where do we go from here, Mike? MR. MUDD: Mike's got to do some resolutions, ma'am. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We need to adopt resolution Item 1 (E) to adopt the tentative millage rates, as proposed. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I'll make a motion that we approve the tentative millage rates as proposed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then I will point out they're the same millage rates that they were last year and the year before. Page 32 September 9, 2004 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. For the general fund and the unincorporated general fund, they are. I can't say the same thing for the MSTUs because they're controlled by advisory groups and they're making recommendations. CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're all self-governed anyway. Yes, okay. So we have a motion on the floor to approve by Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas. Some discussion from by Commissioner Coyle regarding the millage rate is staying the same as it was last year. Any other comments or questions from commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that passes 5-0. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. We also need a resolution to adopt the amended tentative budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning to approve and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? All those in favor -- MR. MUDD: And that's on page I(F) of your packet. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I(F), thank you. I(F). All those in favor, say aye. Page 33 September 9, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: That also passes unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENT OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. We have an adopted general fund millage rate of -- tentatively of 3.8772, that's eight percent above the rolled back rate, although it is the same tax rate as that levied in Fiscal Year '04 and as well as Fiscal Year '03. The unincorporated area general fund is .8069, that's an 8.2 percent increase above the rolled back rate, but also consistent with the millage levied in Fiscal Year '04. The overall aggregate rate, which is a weighted average incorporating the MSTUs that are adopted is 4.7949, an increase of 7.89 percent above the rolled back rate. And the final thing prior to adjournment is the announcement: The final public hearing will be two weeks from tonight at 5:05 p.m. within these chambers on Thursday, September 23rd. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And with that -- MR. MUDD: That's all we've have, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- any discussion? County Attorney, nothing? MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Meeting adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Page 34 September 9, 2004 meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:27 p.m. ***** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIA. .~¡p. ISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. IjJ~ d-~ DONNA FIALA, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK "a~(" '. ~;, . h~ '.1)fþ ., ~),,;,ij/~ k (¡'. .~.:: ,~., I ..:l : ..v., ';'- j"'"L., .< Attest .,:~;~\C,..,.~ ~~ 5 t~atud"l~~,;~;..~,,\ _ ., .,....~"\1';. "~ .' These rÌÍÎ~sapproved by the Board on Q~Å" I Ä, 200'1, as presented./ or as corrected . Page 35 ~""""<^h~"~'__""_'_