Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/18/1996 B (Budget) BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:17 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie ABSENT: Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A DISCUSSION OF HILLAGE RATES FUNDING THE FY 1997 BUDGET CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I hereby call this public hearing -- meeting to order here on this 18th day of September 1996. Mr. Dotrill, an invocation and a pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening for the dedication and the effort that has gone into preparing this community's fiscal affairs for the coming year, and we thank you for the conservative approach that is this county and the reputation that we have. We thank you for the dedication and the hard work of the staff in conjunction with the county commission this year that has resulted in this budget, and we'd ask that you bless our time here together this evening. We pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, our first item is 3(A), a discussion of millage rates funding the fiscal year 1997 budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. The first order of business -- substantive issue to be discussed at the public hearing per Florida statute is the millage rates funding the budget and explanation of reason for tax increases. In the General Fund the proposed millage rate at this point is 3.8424 mills, a 13 percent increase over the rolled-back rate. And that's due to a function of a number of things: Decrease in available-fund balance, pay plan adjustments that were approved this year in both the county manager's agency and the sheriff's office, additional sales tax dedicated to debt-service requirements, additional support of EHS and road maintenance functions from the General Fund, the board policy decision to eliminate the utility franchise fee, and at this point, an increase in reserves due to legal concerns regarding the interim government services fee. Water Pollution Control Fund, the proposed millage is .0489 mills, eight-tenths of a percent decrease; and that's due principally to decreased operating costs in the small-quantity generator program. That results in a total county-wide millage rate of 3.8913 mills, which is a 12.8 percent increase. In the HSTD Road Districts, No. 1, the proposed millage is .1333 mills, a 5.7 percent decrease below the rolled-back rate, and that's a function of available carryforward revenue and decreased operating expenses and reserves. Within Road District 2, the proposed millage is .0736 mills, a 50.8 percent increase over the rolled-back rate, and that's a function of decreased carryforward and additional landscaping along Immokalee Road medians. Road District 3 is .3294 mills, a 234.1 percent increase, and that is a function of a number of expanded services including vegetation control and lime rock road improvements within the Golden Gate Estates areas, the Golden Gate Alleyways Program, and the median and right-of-way landscape maintenance on Airport Road. The Unincorporated Area General Fund is .5642 mills, a decrease of 5.2 percent, and that's due to available carryforward revenue. In the Golden Gate Community Center MSTD, the proposed millage is .3133 mills, an 18.2 percent decrease, and that's due to increased carryforward, and this year was the final payment on the outstanding debt that was used to -- on the bonds that were used to construct the original Golden Gate Community Center building. The Marco Island Beautification District is .1711 mills, a 2.1 percent increase over the rolled-back rate due to establishing a capital reserve. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, due to increased carryforward, the proposed millage is .1106, a 57.6 percent decrease. Victoria Park Drainage, due to decreased operating expenses and available carryforward, results in a millage of .3755, a 55.9 percent decrease. The Golden Gate Parkway Beautification, which is in part set by the advisory committees that we utilize, the advisory boards in these areas, there's additional landscaping -- or roadside mowing, excuse me, for 10 miles of additional roadway proposed, and we levy a half mill annually. That results in a 2.6 percent increase over the rolled-back rate. In Naples Production Park there is no proposed levy, a 100 percent decrease. Isle of Capri Fire, due to decreased carryforward, is .7932 mills, an 19.8 percent increase. Ochopee Fire, due to making the final payment on a tanker lease this year as well as elimination of the supervisor position, the millage is 2.6064 mills, a decrease of 15.7 percent. Collier County Fire, we levy 2 mills annually. That's an eight-tenths of 1 percent decrease. Sabal Palm Road, due to available carryforward, is 4.6987 mills, a decrease of 6.8 percent. Lely Golf Estates, they levy a mill and a half annually, and they're establishing a capital reserve. That's a 1.9 percent increase. Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU with available carryforward is .1713 mills, a 3 1/2 percent decrease. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage, there's no proposed levy in FY 97. Immokalee Beautification is .9999 mills, a 9 1/2 percent increase. That's establishing a capital reserve for future landscaping improvements. Parks GOB Debt Service is .0583 mills, a 13 percent decrease due to decreased debt service and available carryforward. Due to decreased debt service requirements in the Marco Island Coastal Beach Renourishment Fund, that's a 4.4 percent decrease; millage is .7022. Isle of Capri Fire Debt Service is .2047 mills, a 6.1 percent decrease. Collier County Lighting is an increase of 29.4 percent, .2536 mills due to a decrease in carryforward. Marco Island Lighting, .0686 mills, an 8.4 percent decrease. And, finally, the Pelican Bay HSTBU, due to increased reserves and payments to the tax collector and property appraiser, the millage is 3 -- .3012 mills, a 3.6 percent increase. Currently that results in an aggregate millage rate of 4.6094 mills or 11.31 percent over the rolled-back rate. And that concludes Item 3(A), Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any questions from the board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At what point -- on items that affect the ad valorem rate such as things that are bandied about like 4-H funding and cooperative extension services, at what point is that discussion appropriate, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wrap-up items. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Wrap up. Mr. Olliff is prepared to give an update on the agriculture. In addition, we'll discuss the General Fund millage reduction proposal, which is included in your package as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #3B DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we'll go on to our next item, 3(B), discussion of further amendments to the tentative budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. That's beginning on page 3(B), page 1. The funds that are in bold print reflect additional changes from what you adopted at your first public hearing on September 4th. Within the General Fund there have been a few changes: Commissioned salary changes as the final numbers were received through the state; $5,000 that you -- you all approved for the museum for the exhibition; the county, as well, has assumed sponsorship of the retired senior volunteer program and has replaced their $7,500 cash contribution with time service. In addition, the museum -- due to its being funded with tourist tax funds, we have opted to segregate that money into a separate operating fund for the museum so that we're not commingling the tourist tax money in with the General Fund. Road and Bridge, as discussed yesterday as part of the revenue report, there were additional gas taxes that we anticipate receiving next year. Within the Pelican Bay Operating Water Management Fund 109, there was a -- a slight change due to receipt of a reimbursement from the advance which funded the consultant study which the board approved within the last month; that was for $42,500. The Miscellaneous Grants Fund is budgeting for the -- the retired senior volunteer program grant at 51,500. The -- on page 2, 3(B), page 2, the Clam Bay Restoration Fund, we're reducing the reserves by 42,500 to repay that advance from the Water Management Fund 109. The Tourist Development Tax Fund reflects a change due to the transfer -- rather than transferring money to the General Fund to fund the museum, we're just transferring it to a separate museum operating fund. Consequently, the next change as well is Museum Fund 198, which is the establishment of that separate fund for the museum. Within the capital funds we've had some slight revisions to projects that we do not anticipate getting under contract by the end of the fiscal year. In addition, within 313, the revised gas tax estimates, and as we discussed yesterday as part of the revenue report within the impact fee funds, we've revised upward our forecast of funds to be received this year based on actual dollars that are in the bank at this point. And that concludes Item 3(B), Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions on 3(B)? Item #3C WRAP-UP ITEMS Then we'll go to 3(C), the wrap-up items. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. On page 3(C) is -- in accordance with the board direction at the first hearing to attempt to reduce the millage, there is a proposal which would reduce ad valorem taxes in the General Fund by $2,143,000; and that's a function of a number of factors. The reserves on the expense side of the budget would be reduced by 1.7 million. That was the reserve that was established due to the legal concerns regarding the interim government services fee. On the revenue side we have reduced the anticipated revenue from the interim service fee based on the preliminary consultant's report from a million seven annually to a million two hundred and thirty-six thousand. Due to an anticipated January 1 collection date, that would reduce our anticipated receipts in FY 97. Three-quarters of the million two is -- is the $927,000 revised estimate that we would utilize for FY 97. In addition, the sheriff has increased his turnback projection by $300,000. The clerk of courts increased his turnback by 300,000, and as I discussed yesterday in my revenue -- State of Florida revenue report, we will receive an additional $312,100 in state revenue sharing funds, which will accrue to the benefit of the General Fund this year. In addition -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on too far, you -- you mentioned the sheriff has 300,000 more in turnback than anticipated. He's giving us 300,000 more than we anticipated? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. We had anticipated nothing, and -- and actually, let me clarify that. He had anticipated drawing down the full $900,000 from reserves. At this point he anticipates only drawing down 600,000, so the net change is to the good -- to the benefit of the General Fund is $300,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I just look at that a little differently. When we're drawing 600,000 from reserves, I don't see that as turning back 300,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Our forecast, though, was predicated on the sheriff drawing down -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I understand. The reserves are set aside as though you might not spend them. And so because we're only spending two-thirds of it, doesn't seem like a savings to me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So he has made a -- a reduction in the amount he may request from -- from reserves from nine hundred to six hundred thousand, and the net result is we don't have to tax for the three hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. That -- there's 300,000 less forecast expenses resulting in $300,000 in additional carryforward revenue that, as you indicated, you will not have to tax for next year. Just for the record as well, the sheriff's staff has prepared that executive summary, and it is on -- scheduled for next Tuesday's agenda for the $600,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's just an important distinction, because turnback implies money that you didn't use as opposed to money you say you're not going to use, and I think that was the distinction that was being made. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. That -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. What this all boils down to is the General Fund tax rate is currently at 3.8424 mills. It would be reduced to 3.7241 mills or $372.41 per hundred thousand of taxable value for a savings of $11.83 per $100 of taxable value. So that would decrease your increase -- the increase over the rolled-back rate would then be 9 1/2 percent versus the -- where we're at currently, which is 13 in the General Fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Are there any additional wrap-up items by any board member? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a couple items to ask about. First of all, Mr. Dotrill, thank you for your work on the General Fund reductions and working with the constitutional officers to -- to reduce that amount. The one thing that is not on this sheet that we had discussed is a reduction in reserves relative to the General Fund. We talked about reserves that are held throughout the county in different budget areas and whether or not collectively those reserves could be reduced. Just for the benefit of everyone here who may remember that you and I have had this discussion, but I -- I'd just like a -- if you could, just provide a summary of -- of what work was done on that and what your recommendation is. MR. DORRILL: My -- my recommendation is -- is predicated in part on benefiting from the increased turnback from the sheriff and the clerk and also recognizing for the final quarter of the year higher than expected state revenue sharing receipts. And those two items, taken in conjunction with the $1.7 million reduction, my recommendation to you is to leave the $5.8 million in the General Fund contingency and -- for two reasons. We have forced the sheriff to budget attrition at 4 percent next year; and he, in all likelihood, will need to come back to you, frankly, at the end of next year and tell you that his attrition was less than 4 percent, which is good. But it will mean that he will need money out of the General Fund contingency in order to meet his, probably, final two payroll cycles. We -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You anticipate that being how much in the way of dollars? MR. DORRILL: I -- I don't know. I know that sheriff's representatives are -- are here, and they can give you a -- a good idea as to what a -- 1 percent of his gross payroll can be, but we have the sheriff budgeted 4 percent for attrition next year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, there -- he needed 600,000 this year of that 900,000, which was budgeted. This year we budgeted 3 percent, and it was, only on the sworn positions within the sheriff's office, $906,000. Next year we have budgeted 4 percent attrition but included it on all positions within the sheriff's office, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That 600,000 additional was over and above the number we see each June when we go through the budget hearings; and we say, okay, the -- the county budget is going to be X number of dollars, and the sheriff's budget is going to be X number of dollars. So this year the sheriff's budget is X plus 600,000 -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because they're taking that out of reserves? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Although what -- that reserve was established, though, last year for that express purpose that -- in case the attrition level did not materialize, that those funds would be available to meet payroll. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just concerns me, I guess, when I hear that that will probably happen -- from the county manager I hear that that will probably happen again next year, and then we're playing a little bit of a shell game saying, okay, the sheriff's budget is only X number of dollars and then two weeks before the fiscal year is over saying, okay, we need a half a million dollars more or a million dollars more; and we anticipate that happening again next year. That doesn't seem to me a very good, sound budgeting practice. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't necessarily disagree, except that I think the shell game is, in part, due to our direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We didn't want -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I understand the point. Just -- when we talk numbers, it's always confusing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But the point being made is that we anticipate the sheriff may need to return to request up to that $600,000, and that's one justification for not reducing the reserves even further; is that the crux of -- MR. DORRILL: Yes. And I said there were two. The others -- you have two unknowns that are apt to occur next year. One is the -- the gas tax-sales tax mix of funding road construction and road maintenance next year is apt to require more sales tax in support of the road and bridge maintenance function and puts you right back in the ad valorem dilemma again, if not as bad, potentially more so next year. And the fact that while we have removed our extra contingency for the first-year service fee in the event that we are challenged and lose on what we have said is a calculated risk that is worth taking, that could impact your $5.8 million contingency by an amount somewhere close to a million dollars. And I think the fact that we have cut the ad valorem revenues required by $2.1 million is sufficient for those two reasons to -- to leave the General Fund contingency at 5.8 where it -- where it has been in the tentative budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're looking at a potential of risk 1.5 million plus the portion of the General Fund that may need to go to road and bridge that we more or less deferred from this year to the outyears to avoid an excessive tax increase. Is that kind of a fair assumption of why you feel the 2.1 million is about as far as we can go without -- without having to make up a dramatic amount of reserves in another fiscal year? MR. DORRILL: I -- that's my professional recommendation to you without jeopardizing what I think are necessary fiscal reserves in order to keep a sound financial position and that coveted double A mod rating that -- that you worked so hard to get last year to your credit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If I may, let me just hit on the three remaining items. One is, I have no desire to change the budgeted amount on the interim services fee; however, between now and implementation, I think we do need to give staff direction regarding looking at the implementation and collection of that. I think it can be done better than has been proposed; and I, for one, am supportive of working with the building industry and improving the collection method there. The second or the next item is to ask if there is a consensus among the board. You may have received or hopefully did receive my memorandum regarding the public health unit, the breakdown of costs. And I was asking if the board would like to schedule -- we're not going to change the amount being funded to the public health unit, but I think we have an opportunity to prioritize and decide where our dollars go. I would like to ask if it's the consensus of this board, since it's related to the budget, is to place it on the next available agenda to discuss fully. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a great idea. I think -- I mean, ultimately Dr. Polkowski and those folks know what the priorities are; but I think for us to clearly understand that, which didn't happen in June for sure, and for the public to understand that -- because I think there are a number of myths or things that aren't true as to what's being cut or what's not going to be delivered. So I think it's a great idea. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So let's us answer the question. What do we feel is the role and responsibility of the county taxpayer and the public health unit and what is not, which is something they haven't been afforded. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if there is a consensus, I will ask Mr. Dotrill to place that on the first available agenda for board discussion and notify Dr. Polkowski of the date as soon as possible. And the last item involves Mr. Olliff, who has a presentation all ready, I guess, anyway; and some of you may have questions on 4-H. So those are the -- the items I had on my list. MR. OLLIFF: Good evening. Tom Olliff. Just a -- just a brief update. I think there were two items from the agriculture department that you probably want to -- to stay abreast of. The one was the vegetable agent. Now, since the last budget public hearing, we've actually received two more additional letters of support from the local large farms, so the local farming support is up to somewhere between thirteen and fourteen thousand dollars for the position. In addition, the university has agreed to fund the position at a 100 percent level for 12 months following whenever the private funding ceases, so there is full support for the position for probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 to 16 months today without any additional changes to the budget that you've already approved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, the 4-H programs will not be affected based on this budget, and I assume that there's no desire on the part of the board to alter that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, we had that discussion yesterday. I don't think anybody -- MR. OLLIFF: I did receive a letter from the foundation president, who's here; but I just think I can -- I can let you know that he's -- he's committed through the foundation to have some fund-raising efforts to try and generate some funding to offset Some of those costs. But they and the university are hesitant about charging fees. They feel it might be discriminatory to some of the __ the poorer children who participate in the program, and I think the university is taking that position as well. So they are proposing, in lieu of charging fees for this year, that they try and do some fund-raising efforts; and we'll see, you know, as we look at their budget next year, how that went. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be selling each of you 4-H tickets for whatever is going on. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Any additional wrap-up items -- MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- by the board members? Then we're ready for public comment. Item #3D PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MR. DORRILL: I have -- I have two people who are registered to speak. And for those in the audience, if -- if your desire is to speak, there's some slips in the hall so that we'll have your name for the record. And if you'll just fill those out and provide them to me, we'll call you. The first speaker is Whit Ward; he actually wants to discuss two items. And then, Mr. Pate, you'll __ you'll follow Mr. Ward. MR. WARD: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. As Mr. Dorrill told you, I'm here to speak on two issues. The first issue I would like to address is permit fees. The -- your staff at our -- the last time we discussed the county budget told you that we currently have a surplus in building permit fees. We've collected more permit fees than -- than he had budgeted and than -- than the staff thought we would collect this year. Staff told you that even adding the additional items -- the additional expenses to permit fees, that with the current projected collection rate, we would only need to increase permit fees by 7 percent across the board to meet this year's budget. You are currently projecting or proposing to raise your fees by 15 percent across the board. This is 15 percent -- this is -- this -- you're actually budgeting fees, collections, in excess of what it's going to cost you to provide the service even including the additional services that you've decided to charge to permit fees. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Ward, I -- I got that before, so I want to -- I want to just, you know, pause for emphasis that that is the -- the part of Mr. Cantero's presentation to us previously that -- that the board didn't -- didn't accept. I think it's real -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not all members of the board. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that a majority of the board did not accept, because just being real clear about that, what we're doing is -- as much as we're talking about not wanting to tax and over -- overtax for reserves, we are going to overcollect permit fees for reserves in the development services department if we go forward with 15 percent even transferring the full, about, eight hundred thousand dollars' worth of formerly ad valorem tax- supported activities. So we're -- we're going to actually be collecting more than they're going to spend, and I don't think that's what any of us meant to be doing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is -- MR. DORRILL: I have a suggestion. Mr. Cautero was released from the hospital this afternoon, so he's not here this evening, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he well? I mean -- MR. DORRILL: He's -- he's all right. He was hospitalized at -- on Monday with some chest pain and was in ICU, but COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're killing him, Whit. You see what you're doing to poor Vince. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whit. MR. DORRILL: But he'll be -- MR. WARD: I thought it was you all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection -- and if I'm not mistaken -- I've been mistaken before. But my recollection was that we did express concern in what you're saying, and that was the purpose for asking for the staff review in the upcoming year and working with you and trying to put together those exact numbers so that if we discover that three months from now, we can adjust accordingly. But most importantly for future budgets, we can deal with that more appropriately but that we wanted to stay with this more conservative number for now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason -- the reason I wanted to address the question to Mr. Cautero on this is that there are certain functions over there that certainly could be handled with a greater number of personnel and to a better degree with those personnel, and I need to know if those positions are to be funded out of this same fund or would the General Fund and support it. For example, code enforcement officers. We have a constant complaint that there are not enough code enforcement officers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's property taxes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that's what I'm saying; that's a general fund. And so I -- I wanted to ask Mr. Cautero, what areas do you feel we're short on that may require additional funding over the next year, and if none, then, Mr. Ward, your comments are -- are appropriate. If we just took the turnback every year or took the additional funds collected every year and knocked them off the top and changed the funds on an annual basis, what happens to the year when we get hit in such a way that we have to dramatically increase them? By not having any real cushion there at all, you're going to -- you may experience fluctuations that cause a up or down drive in the development industry. So I'm not so sure the need to match them penny for penny on an annual basis is a good pattern to set. MR. WARD: And we don't. That's why we have a surplus in the building funds now, and we are allowed by state law to build up a surplus, but the -- the amount of that surplus has to be reasonable. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: And is it? MR. WARD: It's -- it's reasonable now, but if we increase this -- the fees by 15 percent even over what Vince -- what Vince has told us that he's going to need to run his department, including the additional services this year, then we are budgeting somewhere in the neighborhood of a three hundred and fifty to four hundred thousand dollar overage over -- even over and above the surplus that we're currently generating. That -- I'm -- I'm here to tell you that I believe, in my opinion, that's going to be an excessive amount of money. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, is my recollection as you stated correct? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. And you also told us one other thing, which was in certain cost centers and development services to explore a timekeeping or card system so that we could directly charge certain land-use-related procedures, and we would intend to respond to both of those at whatever time we bring a fee resolution. We are not raising those fees this evening. We would need to bring that analysis and a resolution to adjust the fees at some time probably during the first month of the fiscal year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We kind of used up Mr. Ward's time here on discussion with the board members, so we'll give you another minute or two. And you had a second subject you wanted to MR. WARD: I -- I do. I just -- my concern about this -- and I'll move on to the next topic. My concern about this is that if -- if we use this money in general -- for general funds, then if it -- it turns out that we're going to have to refund it back to development services or to building permit fund, it -- it's going to have to be refunded back out of general funds. And there are about five counties I can tell you right off the top of my head: Palm Beach County; Sarasota County; Charlotte County; Pinellas County; and now, as of this morning, it looks like Lee County is going to have to rebate money back to the building department for this exact same thing. So I'm just trying to caution you that we need to be careful with that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the risk of taking up more time, I've just got to ask, are -- are we -- Mr. Weigel or Mr. Dorrill or whoever would know, are we there yet or -- the issue that he just raised about having to rebate to development services department for property taxes -- or will that only -- the potential for that only occur when the fees are actually raised? Right now we're just budgeting. We're not -- I mean, that's real too, but we're not actually raising fees. MR. DORRILL: It would be the latter. I -- I don't believe that we are there yet, and I think that before we ask you to adopt a fee increase resolution, we owe you a -- a better end-of-the-year carryforward analysis and then compare that against what the increased fees would raise, and that's why I said that we're not -- we're not goring Mr. Ward's ox here tonight. We're going to do that when we bring a resolution amendment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the point -- MR. WARD: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The message being -- and then I promise to hush. The message being that we are budgeting for that 15 percent increase but haven't yet adopted it. We don't know if it's going to actually be what's necessary. We're going to still look at the real numbers before we adopt it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So your point is not lost. If lack of action occurs tonight on that issue, it will occur later at some point. MR. WARD: Thank you. Interim services fees is -- is the real serious issue that I'm here to talk to you about tonight. As you were proposing interim service fees, my understanding is that the -- the school board may come forward with a request that you impose interim service fees on their behalf, also, on the building industry is the way it -- and actually the way it's proposed now is on the building industry. Our association has provided you and your staff with an attorney general's opinion on interim service fees; and if I interpret that attorney general's opinion correctly, it basic -- clearly states, in my opinion, clearly states that an ad valorem tax by any other name or a tax by any other name is still a tax. I -- I mean, you can't charge a fee to pay for a service that is delivered from taxes unless you call it a tax. I mean, it may -- you may call it a fee if you want to, but it's the same old story. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And -- and this interim service fee in its purest sense is -- is a tax. That's really about all there is to it. The biggest problem that my industry has with this fee is that, as it is currently proposed, you have left the burden of collection on our industry; and pure and simple, we don't want to be tax collectors. We don't even want to be fee collectors, but we sure as heck don't want to be tax collectors. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward. MR. WARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I know we used up some of your time, but could you wrap it up, please. MR. WARD: I'll do it. This -- this fee -- as I read the proposed fee, it pays a collection commission of -- of about 10 percent to development services for collecting it. It doesn't pay us anything. You have more people than we have. It can be collected by county staff at some time other than certificate of occupancy. We have the technology, and we have the people to do it. We have the staff to do it, but we would request that you consider imposing the fee at some other time than at certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. WARD: Commissioner Hancock, I had told you last -- this past week that I would talk to county staff. You've just heard that Vince Cautero has -- has been in the hospital. I tried to talk with him and -- and obviously was not able to so -- but I am happy to hear that he's out of the hospital. That's an indication that he's doing better. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will ask that the board direct our staff to work with Mr. Ward on scenarios for collection of interim services fee and present those scenarios to this board at a later time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I've been interested at -- in that issue from the beginning of this discussion; and I'm troubled, Mr. Dotrill, that -- well, let me just ask a question instead. Who's going to do that? Whose job is that to work with CBIA, because it's been very confusing between -- you know, Vince is very accessible to CBIA, but then we also had the department of revenue involved, and it became very confusing and very hard to get accessed information. So with whom should the CBIA work on alternate collection methodologies? MR. DORRILL: Well, I had hoped that -- that Mr. Ward, while he was at the podium, would have expressed to you how -- how open and accessible that your staff had been, because at the first hearing when we concluded the budget workshops, you remember he stood there and expressed some concern about not being at the table. And I think he's been at the table at every subsequent meeting for any staff discussion or staff and consultant discussion and, literally, there behind the scenes in meetings that he's not otherwise entitled to be at. So as different collection scenarios are developed or they choose to suggest some of their own, they will certainly be there and available and incorporated into any report that comes to the county commission. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, for one, am expressing an interest to see the variety of collection methods and timing to see which one works to the benefit of -- of the county and not to the detriment of any one party or industry. So I'd just like to see the -- the, if you will, the buffet; and we'll make the choices from there. That's all I'm asking. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pate. MR. PATE: Good evening, members of the board. My name is Steve Pate, and I'm here representing Taylor Woodrow Communities. I won't go into length. I think Whit covered everything I was going to cover very succinctly. My concern is, again, permit fees. We are budgeting well beyond, I think, what we need to; so I won't ride that dead horse. And also the interim services fee, again, concurring with what Whit has covered this evening, we feel that we don't need to be tax collectors and that there may be opportunities for other methods of collection. And I encourage and am encouraged to -- to hear that we're going to be working to try to resolve those, so that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That concludes your registered speakers, Mr. Chairman. Item #3E RESOLUTION 96-434 AMENDING THE ADOPTED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll move on to Item 3(E), resolution to amend the adopted tentative budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On page 3(E), page 1, there is a draft resolution amending the tentative budget for FY 97. That would incorporate the -- the changes documented in all the resolutions and that we have discussed -- I have briefed you on at each of the two public hearings. And I guess the question is, as well, would you want us to incorporate the changes as proposed reducing the millage by the 2.1 million incorporating those changes into the General Fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'm in favor of that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion to adopt this resolution. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move to adopt the resolution on page 3(E) -- it doesn't really have a number, but the resolution amending the tentative budget for fiscal year 96-97 to incorporate the changes as shown on page 1 of Item 3(C) on our budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution amending the tentative budget. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #3F 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 There's none. Public reading. Mr. Smykowski, this is always the fun part. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It is, indeed. There has actually been a change in the -- in the state law. I do not have to read the resolution; however, I do have to read each of the rolled-back rates, so I think I -- I came out a loser. I drew the short -- the short straw on that exchange with the State Department of Revenue on that. Incorporating the changes, on page 3(G), page 4, is the -- is the list of the proposed tax rates. The first one is the General Fund. The rolled-back rate is 3.4012 mills. The proposed tax rate based on the reduction of the $2,143,000 is 3.7241 mills, an increase over the rolled-back rate of 9 1/2 percent. The Water Pollution Control Fund 114, the rolled-back rate is .0493 mills; the proposed millage rate is .0489 mills. That's eight-tenths of 1 percent decrease. That results in a total county-wide millage. The rolled-back is 3.4505; the revised millage rate is 3.7730; 9.3 percent increase over the rolled-back rate. For the Road HSTDs, Road District 1, Fund 102, the rolled-back rate is .1414 mills; the proposed millage rate is .1333 mills, a 5.7 percent decrease. Road District 2, Fund 103, the rolled-back rate is .0488 mills; the proposed millage rate is .0736 mills, a 50.8 percent increase over the rolled-back rate. The Road District 3, Fund 104, the rolled-back rate is .0986 mills; the proposed millage rate is .3294 mills, 234.1 percent over the rolled-back rate. Road District 5, Fund 106, the rolled-back rate is .0513 mills; the proposed millage rate is .2281 mills, a 344.6 percent increase over the rolled-back rate. Unincorporated Area General Fund 111, rolled-back rate is .5950 mills; the proposed millage rate is .5642 mills, a decrease of 5.2 percent below the rolled-back rate. Golden Gate Community Center, .3832 mills is the rolled-back rate; the proposed millage is .3133 mills, an 18.2 percent decrease. Marco Island Beautification 131, .1676 is the rolled-back millage rate; proposed millage is .1711, a 2.1 percent increase. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, Fund 140, .2607 is the rolled-back rate; .1106 is the proposed millage, a decrease of 57.6 percent. Victoria Park Drainage, Fund 134, .8520 mills is the rolled-back rate; the proposed millage .3755, a decrease 55.9 percent. The Golden Gate Parkway Beautification, the rolled-back rated is .4875 mills; the proposed levy is a half a mill, a 2.6 percent increase. Naples Production Park, the rolled-back rate is .3652 mills; the proposed -- there is no proposed levy, a decrease of 100 percent. Isle of Capri Fire, Fund 144, the proposed millage is .7932 mills; the rolled-back rate is .6619, an increase of 19.8 percent. Ochopee Fire Control, Fund 146, 3.0927 is the rolled-back rate; proposed millage is 2.6064, a decrease of 15.7 percent. The Collier County Fire, Fund 148, the rolled-back millage rate is 2.0164 mills; the proposed tax levy is 2 mills, a decrease of eight-tenths of 1 percent. Sabal Palm Road MSTU, Fund 151, the rolled-back rate is 5.0427 mills; the proposed millage rate is 4.6987 mills, a decrease of 6.8 percent. Lely Golf Estates Beautification, Fund 152, the rolled-back rate is point -- 1.4717; the proposed levy is 1.5 mills, an increase of 1.9 percent. Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU, the rolled-back rate is .1776; the proposed millage rate is .1713 mills, a decrease of 3.5 percent. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU, Fund 155, the rolled-back rate, .3940 mills; there is no proposed levy; that's a decrease of 100 percent. Immokalee Beautification MSTU, Fund 156, rolled-back .9134 mills; proposed levy, .9999 mills, a 9.5 percent increase. Parks GOB Debt Service, Fund 206, the rolled-back rate is .0670 mills; the proposed millage rate is .0583 mills, a decrease of 13 percent. Marco Island Coastal Beach Renourishment, Fund 207, the rolled-back rate is .7345 mills; the proposed millage is .7022, a decrease of 4.4 percent. Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue Debt, Fund 244, the proposed millage is .2047; the rolled-back rate is .2179, a decrease of 6.1 percent. Collier County Lighting, Fund 760, the rolled-back rate is .1960 mills; the proposed tax levy is .2536 mills, an increase of 29.4 percent. Marco Island Lighting, Fund 775, the rolled-back rate is .0749 mills; the proposed millage rate is .0686, a decrease of 8.4 percent. Pelican Bay MSTBU, Fund 778, the rolled-back rate is .2906; the proposed millage rate is .3012 mills, a 3.6 percent increase. And that results in an aggregate millage rate. The rolled-back rate is 4.1411 mills; the initially proposed was 4.6094. With the changes in the General Fund, that brings us to an aggregate millage of 4.4911 mills, an 8.45 percent increase over the rolled- back rate. Item #3G RESOLUTION 96-435 SETTING THE HILLAGE RATE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Smykowski. We need a motion to adopt the resolution setting the millage rate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Item #3H RESOLUTION 96-436 ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET BY FUND - ADOPTED We need ares -- a motion to adopt the resolution to adopt the final budget by fund. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, that would incorporate the changes in the General Fund for the record. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a single -- a single motion to adopt that resolution is sufficient? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a single motion? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. It's a single resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I'll move adoption of the resolution to the final budget by fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to adopt the final budget by fund. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that concludes our business. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like to thank all the public for participating this year in our long, lengthy, tiring budget process. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'd also like to thank the budget staff. It's been a -- a tough year, and it's also been a new year with a virtual turnover of most of the staff. So I'd like to recognize Phil Tindall, the senior budget analyst; Sheila Leith; Jean Gansel; Tom Kukulski; and Hiss HcLarty, who has been -- since been promoted to become Mr. Oates' secretary. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a promotion? MR. SHYKOWSKI: But she was with us through the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On the pay scale, anyhow. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Host people that work for Leo don't feel that way, but -- MS. BILES: Thank you for finding some cuts. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And with that we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:02 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Drescher