Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/04/1996 B (Budget) BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 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 5:14 p.m. in SPECIAL BUDGET 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 Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Michael Smykowski, Budget Director Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Deputy Joseph R. Scott CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the budget hearing to order on this 4th of September 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could we have an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening for this opportunity to bring the business and -- and finances of the people of Collier County before this community. Father, we give thanks for the many hours of hard work and dedication on the part of not only the board but the staff and the citizens who did choose to participate in the process throughout the summer. And we gave thanks for the wonderful quality of life that this community enjoys and the support of its elected officials, and we'd ask that you bless this time together here this evening. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #3A DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER ROLLBACK CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, I guess our first item is discussion of tentative millage rates -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and increases over rollback. MR. DORRILL: We -- We have some statutorial provisions that need to be adhered to as they pertain to the millages, and I have asked Mr. Smykowski to be prepared to walk you through those. And for those people who are here in the -- and in the audience, if you have an interest in speaking this evening, there will be an opportunity afforded you to do that, and I would only ask that you fill out one of the slips that is on the table in the hallway. And if you'd bring that back to me, we'll call your name at the appropriate time. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Dotrill. For the record, Michael Smykowski, the county budget director. The first order of business on our agenda tonight is to discuss the tentative millage rates and the increase over the rollback rate. On page 1 of the agenda package, in the general fund, the proposed millage rate is 3.8424 mills, 13 percent increase over the rollback rate. And that's a function of a number of things, including pay plan adjustments in both the county manager's agency and the sheriff's agency, additional sales tax required to fund debt service next year, additional support of both EMS and road maintenance functions from the general fund, the policy decision not to invoke a utility franchise fee this year as well as the decision to increase reserves due to legal concerns regarding the interim government services fee. In addition, there are some expanded services, for instance. Just a few of the larger items, additional deputies and youth -- youth relations officers within the sheriff's office and the opening of the Sugden -- Sugden Park next year. The pollution control fund, due to decreased operating costs in the -- principally in the small-quantity generator's program, the millage is .0489 mills, 8/10 of a percent decrease. That results in a total countywide millage rate proposed of 3.8913 mills or 12.8 percent over the rollback rate. Road district one, there's a tax decrease of 5.7 percent. The millage is .1333. Within road district two, there's a 50.8 percent increase over the rollback rate, and that's a function of decreased carryforward revenue and as well as expanded service for landscaping along the Immokalee Road medians. In road district three, the increase is 234.1 percent over the rollback rate. There were a number of expanded services within this road maintenance district for vegetation control and limerock road improvements in the Golden Gate Estates, median and right-of-way landscape maintenance on Airport Road, and the addition of the Golden Gate alleyways program. In road district five, due to decrease in fund balance, the proposed millage is .2281 mills, 344.6 percent increase over the rollback rate. The unincorporated area general fund, there's a 5.2 percent tax decrease. That's due primarily to available carryforward revenue. Within the Golden Gate Community Center, there's a tax decrease of 18.2 percent due to available carryforward revenue as well as there is no debt service. The final debt service payment on the bill -- on the bond that was utilized to construct the Golden Gate __ the initial Golden Gate Community Center has been paid off this year. So that's -- facility in the HSTU at this point are debt-free. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, there's a tax decrease of 57.6 percent. The Victoria Park drainage, a tax decrease of 55.9 percent. Within Golden Gate Parkway beautification, essentially we levy a half -- half a mill annually. That's a 2.6 percent increase over the rollback rate. And in addition, there's additional mowing proposed due to additional roadway miles proposed to be added within the boundary of that HSTU. Within the Naples Production Park, there -- there is no proposed levy next year. Isles of Capri fire, due to a decrease in carryforward revenue, there's an increase of 19.8 percent over the rollback rate. Ochopee fire, due to their completing payments on a lease/purchase of a tanker truck as well as the elimination of a supervisory position, there's a tax decrease of 15.7 percent. Within the Collier County fire district, we levy 2 mills. That's an 8/10 of a percent decrease. Sabal Palm roadway MSTU, due to available carryforward revenue, the proposed millage is 6.8 percent below the rollback rate. Lely Golf Estates beautification levies -- in accordance with the wishes of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, levies annually a mill and a half. They're establishing a capital reserve. That's a 1.9 percent tax increase. Hawksridge storm water pumping MSTU is a decrease of 3.5 percent. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage, there is no proposed levy due to available carryforward revenue. Immokalee beautification MSTU, there's a capital reserve being proposed. Essentially they levy approximately 1 mill per year. That's a 9 1/2 percent tax increase over the rollback rate. Within the parks GOB debt service, there's a decrease of 13 percent due to a decrease in debt service expenses. Within Marco Island coastal beach renourishment, due to decrease debt expenses, there's a 4.4 percent decrease below the rollback rate. Isles of Capri debt -- fire debt is 6.1 percent tax decrease. Collier County lighting is a 29.4 percent increase over the rollback rate due to decreased carryforward revenue. Marco Island lighting has an 8.4 percent tax decrease. And within the Pelican Bay MSTU, there's a slight tax increase, 3.6 percent over the rollback rate. That results in an aggregate millage at this point of 4.6094 mills, 11.31 percent over the rollback rate. That concludes item 3(A) at this point in time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Item #3B REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'd like to move on to 3(B), review and discussion of changes to the tentative budget. Those begin on item 3(B), page 1. Essentially what you have is a couple of pages. They indicate the fund, what the net change to the fund total was, and a brief explanation, and I will cover those quickly. In the general fund, total fund balance increased $1.7 million, and that's a function of a number of things, elimination of the utility franchise fee, increasing ad valorem taxes and reserves by $1.7 million as a -- as a result of legal concerns regarding the interim -- interim government services fee. In addition, that was also impacted by a shift of the community development functions to fees. Within the property appraiser and tax collector budgets, those are approved by the state and those -- there was adjustments based on their actual budget submitted as per state statute. The HSTD road district three, that change is a function of the addition of the Golden Gate alleyway construction program which was approved by the board at the time in which we adopted the proposed millage rates. There was a slight change in the Pelican Bay adjustments, revisions to match the final assessment roll. Within the unincorporated area general fund, the major change there was the shift of community development functions to fees as well as the revised -- a revised capital project for -- forecast. Community development, of course, the -- on the other side of the shift of the ad -- from ad valorem taxes to fees, there's a proposed increase. Those are the additional fees required to fund programs that were previously funded by ad valorem. Emergency services grants, there's an increase in the anticipated receipts from the county emergency management preparedness grant. Within the tourist development funds, there were slight administrative changes resulting from the decision to fund a museum from tourist tax revenues as opposed to general revenues of the general fund as well as the reimbursement to the general fund for administrative costs for staff time in administering the TDC functions. The last item on page 1 is the commercial paper program and that's -- The change there was due to loan proceeds for the Naples Park drainage project. Page 2 are the bulk of the capital funds, and these revisions have been made in accordance with the adopted budget policy to revise -- revise project forecasts in August to determine which items would we anticipate getting under contract by the end of the fiscal year, thereby the changes were done to minimize a number of budget amendments required in the beginning of the new fiscal year. There were also some changes to the impact fee estimates as well. Page 3, there are just a couple of slight changes outside of the capital funds. The water/sewer district, 408, there was a reallocation of some billing charges among the utility operating funds. The county water/sewer district was originally budgeted to pay all the expenses for billing costs associated with the county water/sewer district as well as Marco water/sewer and the Goodland water district. And what we've done is apportioned it out based on the number of bills -- bills cost to -- to each of their respective funds. Within the water and sewer capital funds, those were also changes to impact fee estimates as well as revisions to project estimates based on what we anticipate again getting under contract by year-end. And then, finally, the Pelican Bay fund 509, the Clam Bay restoration, there was a -- a revision to match the final assessment roll within that fund. That concludes item 3(B) which is the changes to the tentative budgets. Item #3C WRAP-UP ISSUES You have an item 3(C) for wrap-up issues. At this point, staff does not have any wrap-up issue to bring forth to the board. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do any board members have a wrap-up issue you'd like to discuss? Right now is the time to do it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just, when will we get the final information about the interim government services fee? MR. DORRILL: I'll ask Mr. Ochs to -- to help me. I believe we have had the -- and we may be in receipt of the draft report. We had a -- a meeting with the consultant just last week or so, but we haven't had a final date. MR. OCHS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. Commissioner Hac'Kie, we anticipate the final report from the consultant somewhere around the middle of this month, September. The preliminary report was an estimate of about $1.4 million in revenue that could be collected through this intergovernmental services fee. That's the number that we're -- that we received in the preliminary report, and we're awaiting the final report in mid-September. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So will we have that before this process is finalized? Because I understand that we've kept some money back in reserves for that, but I'm just uncomfortable that we're adopting a budget based on a fee that we haven't yet adopted or decided to adopt. We haven't seen the ordinance. MR. OCHS: I believe your next hearing is on the 18th. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Budget. Correct. MR. OCHS: Right. So that -- receipt of that report should coincide with your final hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing like the last minute but -- Okay. That was my question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock, you have One? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And I'm not going to take authorship for this because that would be work that I didn't perform, but I have some folks -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not running for reelection this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neither am I. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a lot of discussion about carryforward, about reserve amounts, what's necessary, what's traditional, and there has been fringe discussion about the tendency to overestimate expenses, underestimate revenues, and play it a little safe throughout the budget. For this particular year where we're looking at a potential increase of -- of a few tenths of a mill in ad valorem rate, it may be the appropriate time to examine the disparity between our proposed expenditures and revenues, and if there is a year in which we may take a chance that the revenues are going to come in a little higher and the expenditures are going to come in a little bit lower, this may be it. Not having a five- or ten-year history that comes to mind immediately of -- of that track record, Mr. Dorrill, if we were to make an assumption after looking at the last five years of the disparity between the expenditures and revenues that that disparity would be less this year and reduce the overall budget by that amount, what problems would you foresee in that type of move? MR. DORRILL: I -- I think there -- there are two issues as they pertain to -- to revenues, and I'll -- I'll dispense with the first one as it concerns revenue reserves. We -- we -- We cannot under Florida law act as though a required statutorial revenue reserve can be available in the event that we need to spend it. And we'll run into problems with both the Department of Revenue and also our external auditors if we attempt to -- to increase on the expense side our contingency funds by anticipating the revenues will be higher than the 95 percent that we are allowed to calculate and you -- The point being, you cannot double-count those. But we always take that into account as we determine the year-end forecast to set our beginning fund balances on October the 1st, and so the taxpayers do get the benefit of the actual forecast revenues that are reestimated after the annual audit to be as precise as -- as we can, and that's why at the beginning of the meeting this evening Mr. Smykowski has gone through a list of changes from the tentative budget on both the expense and the revenue side where we think it's appropriate so that your budget reflect as close as possible reality on October the 1st. On the expense side and the contingency funds and the reserve for cash flow that we utilize, in just the last, I'll say, four years, they have been as high as -- as $7 million for the total. But, depending on the year, we have spent up to $3 million during the course of the year -- for example, the year of Hurricane Andrew going into fiscal '93, and for other reasons on occasions the board have __ have had to spend up to $3 million annually to take money out of reserves for one reason or the other. This past year the -- the total reserves were at, I believe, $5.8 million. And through close of business in July, we had spent about 1,250,000 of that. Mike, you can correct me if I'm wrong. We have really put the screws to any programs or any last-minute requests to move money out of the reserves. And at the same time, I issued an administrative directive at the beginning of this week to freeze any unnecessary spending for the Board of County Commissioners for the entire final month of the fiscal year in order that we meet or exceed the forecast turnback for all of the departments under the Board of County Commissioners. The point being that your employees not go on a spending spree the final four weeks of the fiscal year because they can, and that cannot take place now because we've taken steps through the purchasing department to eliminate any of that. My -- My point being -- and, Mike, I'll need some help as to where we're at with both the contingency reserves that is anticipated for next year, but keep in mind that -- that in any given year we'll spend as little as 1.2 million, but in a bad year, we'll need 3 1/2 million for hurricane events, and that's admittedly a worst-case year. But I think as your reserves are between 5 and $6 million in -- in total, my advice to you is -- is you can take a little bit of that. I don't know how much of it that you can -- can take and actually save in terms of the millage rate but it's -- I - - I think you need to maintain the reserves where they're at, anticipating just what it takes to run the business here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understanding, of course, that the -- we haven't seen the worst of a hurricane event that could hit this area. We haven't had a landfalling hurricane since Donna in 1960. So we haven't seen the worst of what can occur in recent history. MR. DORRILL: We -- We spent $2 million paying costs of overtime for the sheriff and public works crews. And the extraordinary costs it took, a -- a -- obviously a portion of that was recoverable through FEHA. We spent $2 million cleaning up the community after Hurricane Andrew. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What portion was recoverable through FEHA? MR. DORRILL: I don't know if Mr. Finn is here tonight. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 550,000 of it? MR. DORRILL: I -- I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Finn's here. MR. DORRILL: He's your FEHA expert. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems that the net number is the more appropriate one for us to use. MR. DORRILL: I agree. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You keep all those numbers in your head, don't you, Mr. Finn? MR. FINN: Yes, I do. For the record, Edward Finn. We were very fortunate with FEHA. FEHA [sic] being as big a hurricane as it was, federal government approved 100 percent funding for that. Normally it's only 75 percent. Based on 100 percent funding, we received almost $1.9 million. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the net expenditure was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 100,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- about 100,000 bucks? MR. DORRILL: It is, and my only -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your point. I just -- I understand Commissioner Hancock's point too. MR. DORRILL: It -- It is. And -- And my only point being, it's nice to have the cash on hand because when you need to spend it, you need to spend it now, and -- and it may take you six months to get it back, and it sure would be a crying shame if you had to go across the street and borrow money from Barnett Bank as part of a, you know, declared emergency as opposed to having it on hand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The clerk has everything in such short-term I don't think we need to do that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In -- In addition, there -- there's another factor that needs to be considered. As part of the carryforward -- positive carryforward variance that have been realized in previous years, one component of that has been additional turnback revenue from the constitutional officers above and beyond what we had anticipated in the budget process. To mitigate that, what we have done is up the Clerk of Court's anticipated turnback to historical average levels. So we up that by 300,000 this year, even in spite of the fact that he's also had a pay plan implementation. And by your policy with the sheriff, the turnback last year from the sheriff was slightly over $1.1 million, but what you have done in the adopted FY '96 budget was budget for that attrition up front and not give him 100 percent and then on the back side he returns that unspent portion. So you have, in effect, realized the benefit already of -- I think it was $900,000 in -- in -- in attrition that was anticipated and '- so the -- the sheriff would have $900,000 less, in theory, that has been a component of his turnback revenue in previous years. You've taken that up front by not giving him the money in the first place. that -- You've already mitigated that to a certain degree already. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm really trying to accomplish here is -- I think we all recognize that several factors came home in one single fiscal year and kind of hit the table all at the same time, and because of that, we're facing a jump here that even though the millage rate is lower than it was four year ago, people are seeing a potentially substantial increase to their tax bill. And what I'm trying to say is, we haven't faced, like, a year -- anyone on this board has not been faced, like, a year with this since beginning serving here, and I'm trying to find ways to defer, to reduce, to go out on that limb if we have to a little bit this year to reduce the tax increase impact to our citizens, and if it means taking a little more risk than we've taken in years past, if it means holding our breath a little bit longer, I'm willing to do that. And I'm looking for an amount and a level that based on the vast experience of our county manager and office management in budget is one that we feel is a safe level; otherwise, if I grab something out of the air, I'm going to be a heck of a lot less specific than you are. That number is not going to be available tonight, I would -- I think we can be assured. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1.21 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But in the -- Before the final hearing on the 18th, I would like to take this idea -- and, Mr. Dotrill, I'll work with you individually on it -- and let's find out where we can take a little bit of an increased risk this year that we haven't in the past to reduce the tax burden. That's really the -- the main thrust here, and we can do it to some extent. We can find it in some areas. And I understand that by doing that, it may mean that the -- the nut that comes in at the beginning of next year is smaller and has to be made up, but better to have a lower tax increase and then a -- a -- a steady level the next year than a jump and a slightly reduced level. I mean, if -- if -- It's kind of "pick which way you want it." MR. SMYKOWSKI: In response, one thing I'd like to remind the board is you have already taken, quote, "a step out on that limb," or a couple of steps further out on that limb by budgeting for a 4 percent attrition. In addition, as part of the adopted budget policy, you deferred that final transition of gas taxes from road maintenance to road construction. So you're looking at a nut of $2.1 million a year from now that you will have to crack going into that budget be -- before it ever begins. So I'd just like to remind you of that. You already have taken a few steps further out on that limb and have taken some one-time -- MR. DORRILL: Combined budgeted reserves in the general fund are '- MR. SHYKOWSKI: They're at -- MR. DORRILL: -- 5.7 million? MR. SHYKOWSKI: They're actually at 7.4 at this point, but that is inclusive of the $1.7 million for the interim service fee. MR. DORRILL: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the second item I wanted to bring up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My compliments on the first item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And thank you, Mr. Smykowski. I'm aware of what we've done, but until we see the sheriff with a saw standing on that limb behind us, we should be okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In -- In addition, I guess for -- for your benefit, a $100,000 reduction in taxes in the general fund would save a taxpayer with $100,000 of taxable value 55 cents, just to put things in -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be -- That would be a comment regarding the attrition, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, okay. I just didn't get it with the sheriff with the saw. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- The second item is the 1.7 million in the interim services fee. That was a split vote. I think it was 3-2 when this board looked at it. I was in the majority of saying place that into reserves, because the legal -- the legal position of the county seemed unsure at that time. My recent discussions with Mr. Weigel haven't seemed to improved that scenario, but I think we need to take another crack at that discussion. I think we need -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First we need -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think now would be a great time to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we need to be realistic. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, first we need to know if it's 1.4 million. I mean, that's what's so frustrating to me about not having the information -- MR. DORRILL: That's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- yet. MR. DORRILL: That is the draft findings. I don't expect that to change one way or the other plus or minus $100,000, and that's slightly less than what it was originally projected to be, but I -- I think 1.4 to 1.5 million is -- is probably going to be a good annualized number. But by the time you can get it adopted and begin collecting it, we -- we need to be able to prorate it based on the number of months that is delayed beyond October the 1st. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're probably looking at this point, at the earliest, probably a January 1 implementation, and obviously that would be part of the consultant's report, I would think, as to __ MR. DORRILL: Every month will cost you about $120,000 just in simple terms. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where I'm really coming from on -- on that is that I understand that it's open to challenge, but as Mr. Weigel has informed me individually, the municipalities were charter governments that have implemented this -- this type of fee, which we are not a charter government, those that have -- have experienced no challenges. Now, we're not under the same state laws as a charter government is, and maybe that opens the door for a challenge that doesn't exist in these other communities that have - _ have implemented the interim fee, but I have to realistically ask who is going to challenge this and -- and why. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- I -- I went to a CBIA round-table meeting on this issue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I heard about that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whooo! Took the rope so they could lynch me because they were not a happy crowd. And -- and what they -- they -- One of their primary complaints is about the implementation and adoption of this interim governmental service fee, and I heard pretty darn clearly that we can expect a challenge. before you change your vote on that, I wish you would check also that side of this discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously I wasn't at that discussion, but maybe you can help me because I have talked with Whit Ward, and it seems to me their primary concern is not so much the fee but the formula by which it's proposed, and they're suggesting that should be charged at the end of the year instead of the beginning of the year for -- for the upcoming year instead of the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That it should be only -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- past year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That -- That was one factor, that they don't want to be the collectors of it. There -- there were -- There were a lot of issues left open on that interim government services fee that troubles me that we're going to have to decide on the last meeting at the last day. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think the time for that discussion is between now and the 18th because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll go ahead and declare an intent now. My intent is to wipe the 1.4 million out of reserves and let them -- let them bring the suit, and maybe with that they'll be willing to work with us. Mr. Weigel's over there staring a hole through me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Making plans. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, again, there are some other facets in which I think, if we took the magnifying glass out, we could find areas in which, say, our road network is not being funded at the level it needs to be funded -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Through the impact fees. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- through impact fees. There are things that are not being done that could be done that would be more expensive than this. So you know -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There -- I think whoever wants to challenge this needs to make those considerations in the interim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right, and I think we need to operate on our best guess of what will happen, not operate on someone's threat that they might sue us. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not an effective way to do things. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me give you an example of where we have done what we felt was right in the face of a state agency such as the South Golden Gate, South Block Estates. We were threatened by the state ten ways to Sunday on that particular issue, but we went ahead with what was right. This interim fee in some form is right. There are people in new homes getting a free ride for -- some in excess of a year -- on county services without paying a dime. If anyone can argue to me that that's somehow fair, I would be surprised. So, again, this is a case of trying to do what is right by the people who are living here who have bought homes or have bought, you know, other places, and we just need to find a way to accomplish it. So my intent by September 18 is with -- with or without the help of -- of CBIA, to find some way to pull at least 1.4 million out of reserves, and we can either do it in a mutually palatable way, or we can do it in an adversarial way, but it -- it needs to be done. I'm just -- I'm not comfortable anymore leaving that in reserves and -- and taxing people for it when it -- when the concept is right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to misrepresent what I heard at CBIA either, so let me just be a little clear about that. I didn't hear threats. I didn't hear, "We're going to sue you." I heard there are a whole lot of issues that are real important to them in that industry about that tax -- or that fee. Excuse me. That's not a tax. It's a fee. And -- And the implementation of it is going to be critical, but I didn't hear threats. I just heard, "God, you're going to make us do something else. You're already making us collect the garbage bill. Now you're going to make us collect this," and, you know, that stuff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And not -- not necessarily our local chapter but the state CBIA is the one who is fighting -- fighting partial-year ad valorem assessment every year at the state level. So that doesn't surprise me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But by the 18th my goal is to find a way to remove all or -- or most of that amount from reserves and take it off the peo -- the folks' tax bill. And, Mr. Weigel, I know the reservations are there but I just -- I think it's fair that I at least state that as an intent, and if there are two others, then that sounds like a direction. MR. WEIGEL: If I may comment briefly, and that is, your discussions this evening in regard to the interim government services fee essentially are budget discussions, and what you intend to do from a budget standpoint or a contingency standpoint should there be a challenge, a successful challenge, I've advised the board previously of a legal view that has been taken by the county attorney and by outside counsel working for the county in regard to the interim government services fee, and -- and that view hasn't changed whatsoever. And if the board should adopt the interim government services fee, obviously on behalf of the board we will accept the challenge that comes and -- and work to defeat it to the extent that the challenge can be defeated, but what you're talking about this evening are just merely a budgetary consideration. I will repeat, though, that as we -- as the county attorney works with staff and with the board in going forward with this project with the consultant, that we will endeavor mightily to bring the consultant and the legal counsel assisting the consultant into a contractual relationship with the county so that we have Some indemnification in this regard, because not unlike the tourist development tax lawsuit a few years ago, ultimately the dollars add up to a quite a -- a sum, and in the meantime litigation can be protracted. And if the county should lose in any forum, be it the trial court or beyond, we would need to pursue -- pursue it to its ultimate end which could mean that funds that may or may not ultimately become the county's are certainly tied up for a period of time. So at least from a contractual standpoint with the professionals that are coming forward and stating that it can be done and stating that it legally can be done, we will attempt to get the protections that we can be afforded from them. MR. DORRILL: From a -- a practical standpoint, we -- we will develop some scenarios for you to review, and it's just so that we're not sitting here until midnight on the 18th recalculating millages that have to be part of the record. We will try and share that with you either on the 10th or the 17th with respect to both reducing reserves for the calculated risk associated with the interim service fee and also showing you some scenarios as to -- if you eliminate by a function of increments of $100,000 and the general fund contingency and reserve for cash flow, how that equates to property taxes. And I think the only cautionary note that we have is that the board worked very, very hard the past year with the clerk and your staff to develop an implied, uninsured, double A bond rating from Moody's and Standard and Poors, and they pointed in particular to the very conservative and sound fiscal practices of the Board of County Commissioners. And if you'll just keep that in the back of your mind and knowing -- I wouldn't want us to save potential property taxpayers $10 each on their property taxes if we were risking the Board of County Commissioners' double A bond rating because we wanted to eliminate the -- or reduce the reserves by a million dollars next year as part of a -- just a short-term tax fix. And I think the earlier we share all of that with you -- Let's don't wait until the 18th, and we'll work with Commissioner Hancock, and maybe we can have some of that as early as this coming Tuesday. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, you said there was no wrap-up; however, there was discussion and direction at our last meeting regarding the ag extension office, a lot of talk about private sector bringing money in to fund some of those positions. When -- and if -- are we going to hear anything about that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That won't affect the ad valorem picture though, but we need the update. I just want to -- That won't have any impact on our ad valorem rate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it -- it won't -- Not on ad valorem, but it needs to be included as a revenue before the budget is finalized. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff. Just as -- in the way of an update, there was one position that was left being discussed which was the county's current vegetable agent. The -- What has happened is that several of the local large vegetable farming interests have faxed, at least to me, letters over the last day or so offering to provide to the county certain sums of money towards that position's salary. The other idea that's come forward is actually splitting that position between Collier County and Hendry County because it's -- it's our understanding that Hendry County has a desire for a vegetable agent type of position. I'm meeting with the district ag representative tomorrow to discuss the split of that position between Collier and Hendry and then hopefully the industries are supposed to have all of their funding commitments in place before your last budget public hearing. And the worst case I would say would be that you would add some -- some private donated money back into the budget for the support of that half of a position for Collier County but -- Like Commissioner Constantine said, I don't see any impact on the ad valorem tax base at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Item #3D PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I have five. Mr. Baughman, if you would, please, sir. And then Mr. -- or Ms. Henley, rather, if I could have you stand by. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While the public speakers are getting ready here, we'd like to remind them that we need you to state your name for the record, and -- and we'll ask you to limit your comments to five minutes, please. MR. BAUGHMAN: My name is Howard Baughman, and I'd like to know what CBIA is. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. Collier Building Industry Associates or something like that -- MR. BAUGHHAN: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the construction industry. MR. BAUGHHAN: Okay. Several years ago Senator Edward Dirkson said, "You spend a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you've got a lot of money." COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Some real money. MR. BAUGHHAN: And I'm here to more or less complain about raising our taxes locally while the people at -- nationally are trying to decrease our taxes. We have a 5 cent-gallon gasoline tax. We've got a 10 percent raise in our real estate -- county real estate tax and a 1 percent raise in school board tax. So I think that we're approaching the time when we're choked up to the neck with taxes, and I -- I don't think that we can stand any more, and I'd like to hear who's ever running for county commissioner this year to give us a read-my-lips pledge of no new taxes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. Next, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Or Ms. Henley. Mr. Henley. And, Mr. Watler, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. MR. HENLEY: Jerry Henley, and I just have a couple of questions too. The -- What is the HST unit? It's spelled out in our '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a variety of different types. I'm up here, sir. Up here. Sir, in the front of the room. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The other way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the front of the room. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Over here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, I'm in the front of the room. MR. HENLEY: Oh, in the front of the room? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. HENLEY: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This fellow right here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The speakers are out there unfortunately so -- MR. HENLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MSTU is a multiple service taxing unit. They're -- They vary from being set up for specific purposes of drainage or lighting in different areas. MR. HENLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you would like to know what on your bill -- which MSTU -- MR. HENLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- what -- what it is -- MR. HENLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when it was established -- MR. HENLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I have one on my tax bill that I have no idea what it's for -- this gentleman can -- can give you that information. MR. HENLEY: This right here, the HST unit right here. (indicating to Hr. Smykowski) I would just like to know these things if I can find out. It's $86 and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Were those the questions that you had for this evening? MR. HENLEY: There are more. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HENLEY: I also had a raise in my assessment of 24,000 bucks for the one year. That's a lot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're able to appeal that to the property -- MR. HENLEY: This is Pine Ridge -- Pardon me? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're able to -- MR. HENLEY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- appeal that to the property -- MR. HENLEY: But -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- appraiser's office. MR. HENLEY: -- there again, I'd still like to find out why in this one year -- You must have an idea. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Because the home sales on your street in all likelihood increased -- MR. HENLEY: That was what I wanted to know. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in valuation over -- MR. HENLEY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- previous years. MR. HENLEY: So, in other words, regardless of the value of my property, the property of my neighbors is controlling my assessment? MR. DORRILL: In part. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In part, yes. That's correct. That's true. Well, again, Mr. Skinner is your -- is your property appraiser, and I -- I would say he's better equipped to answer that. MR. HENLEY: Well, thank you. That takes care of that. And also 6 -- This may be related to the same thing. Six percent increase in the taxes -- normally 2, 3, but not 6. Now, is that something this gentleman has to answer too, or is this something that I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I never felt so alone in my life, but yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're doing such a good job. Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are several reasons why there's an increase this year. MR. HENLEY: That much? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me? MR. HENLEY: That much? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The majority of the increase to the general fund was an increase in operating cost to the sheriff's department, a great majority of it. Again, your sheriff. Beyond that, there's one thing that -- that I haven't seen, and that is, I've only been -- This is my second term. Those of you who have been here longer -- the last two years your ad valorem rate dropped. MR. HENLEY: Yes. I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we didn't see you up here saying how great it was back then. It goes up one year and here you are. MR. HENLEY: I like -- I like that. I like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- What has happened, at least over the last four years, is that this board has tried very hard to match income and -- and expenditures. If that means reducing ad valorem, that has happened, as it did last year. This year because of pay plan increases in the sheriff's department, pay plan increases in the county departments, several large-ticket items hit this year that have caused them to bump up. MR. HENLEY: And that may go down next year? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It might. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Possibly. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- It better. Let's just put it that way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the first year in five years -- is that right, Neil? -- that it has gone up. We've gone down four consecutive years. MR. HENLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- I mean, obviously our preference would be that it goes down always -- MR. HENLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but unfortunately not. Our goal will be next year, as always, to keep it as low, and hopefully that's lower than it is now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it can be. MR. HENLEY: Another question quickly. The -- on the -- I have 47,780 exemption. Now, the homestead exemption is 25,000. I am -- I'm at a loss to know with the other exemptions -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you find out, let me know because I'd like it on my tax bill. Your exemption is 47,780? MR. HENLEY: Forty-seven thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars it says here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- that's something -- Is that Mr. Carlton or Mr. Skinner, Neil? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's Skinner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that Skinner? Mr. Skinner, the property appraiser, also would be able to -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Skinner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to provide that answer for you. MR. HENLEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Watler. Then following Mr. Watler I have Ms. Silver. Mr. Watler, go ahead, sir. MR. WATLER: Eric Watler, GNCA county budget task force. We need to go on the record as opposing the proposed tax increase for one specific reason. Earlier in the year Commissioner Constantine, as I remember, said we should shoot for a 1 percent reduction, and that was adopted by the board also, if I remember correctly. The manager's responsible for the budgets, coming back with some pretty significant increases, and so one has to wonder whether the intent was the way it should have been. In other words, if the board issues a directive to take certain actions like a 1 percent deduction and the managers Come back with increases, then one has to wonder what their motives really are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just respond to part of that? It's Pam. Up here. Hello. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Up front. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Up front. It's me. MR. WATLER: Oh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those speakers must really be confusing. Everybody who -- who is included in this budget doesn't work for us. I mean, we can't -- We can ask the sheriff to please reduce his budget, and he said, "I can't. I need a significant increase." MR. WATLER: But what it -- what it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I -- what I'm saying -- MR. WATLER: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is I just don't think it's fair to lay all of that at Mr. Dorrill's doorstep. MR. WATLER: I really wasn't, and maybe I didn't explain myself very well. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the board approves all those constitutional officers' budgets. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we have budgetary oversight to a very small degree, but we're not the final authority on it. All of the constitutional officers have the -- the right to go to the governor's office -- MR. WATLER: Yes. I understand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to override whatever we say. MR. WATLER: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're almost a -- well, I -- I'm not sure exactly where we fit in on this, but we -- we're -- we're almost ceremonial in their budget process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess in fairness to the board and to the sheriff and the constitutional officers, I mean, we went through an elongated dialogue this year, and we had a discussion ranging anywhere from 500,000 to -- I think it was 3.1 million in cuts at one point and -- and came out somewhere in between. I think we ended up at 1.7 or 1.3 or something in cuts from what they had proposed. And I understand your point, that a directive was put out and wasn't necessarily -- MR. WATLER: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- followed. MR. WATLER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But at the same time, with the constitutional officers or not, it did go through extensive -- and I think you were here for some of that -- but extensive discussions. MR. WATLER: I was here for quite a bit of it, yeah, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can't direct the sheriff and the constitutional officers. We can direct Neil, but we can't direct -- we can request -- the constitutional officers, and that's about the extent of our authority. If we cut more than we had cut out of the sheriff's budget, I think you would have taken it to the governor's office because you feel that strongly about it. MR. WATLER: Okay. If I can ask one more question. What if you told the sheriff to cut his budget by 2 percent, what would be the result? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We did do that. MR. WATLER: What was the result? I really don't remember. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, he -- he wasn't willing to do that to -- to any degree. We -- We finally got him to cut it a small amount but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- he wasn't willing to -- to do that. You know, GNCA is a very valuable organization. You -- You do some good work. We're on your side. I mean, we want to cut the budget as well too. But, you know, when you come up here and say cut it 5 percent or cut it 1 percent, that's a fairly nebulous thing to say. Why don't you give -- MR. WATLER: Well -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- us some specifics. Tell us which of the basic necessary services that the county provides that you would like us to eliminate, and maybe we can talk about that. But this board has in the last four years eliminated a lot of the fluff and the unnecessary stuff that -- that's in our budget and that the county used to do. We don't do a lot of the functions that the county used to do. We stick to the basic, necessary functions. So if you have some of those basic functions that you want us to stop providing, tell us. MR. WATLER: I understand what you say, but that really wasn't what I was getting at. You, in fact, as a board went through many of those items trying to find out what was right and the fair thing to do. When that fails, the only alternative is to go across the board, and it's usually a very small percentage, and nobody gets hurt. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm -- I'm going to disagree with you there. MR. WATLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a -- a constitutional form of government. You elect your sheriff as your lead law enforcement person. You elect your Clerk of Courts as your lead in that area. To ask this board to then take the information presented from the sheriff's office and after a careful review that results in a reduction of some $1.4 million, tell him to cut it more to say we know more about what the community needs for law enforcement than he does I think is -- is an arrogant position for me to take and one I'm not ready to do. I wasn't elected to tell you what law enforcement steps are necessary and personnel are necessary to serve that need in this community. We performed the oversight function I thought rather well. We picked that budget apart. We argued about it. We discussed it. And to then say, "Well, you didn't get where we wanted to go, so here's an arbitrary cut amount," is putting me in the position of - of -- of taking, in -- in the sheriff's words, officers off the street. So with -- with that being presented, sir, I -- I -- I just don't think that's -- MR. WATLER: Well, maybe -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that's a -- MR. WATLER: -- we can talk some more, but my time is up. Maybe we have the opportunity tomorrow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one thought though. GNCA has done, particularly since I've been on the board, an increasing amount every year, and it kind of elongated the amount of effort or the time-line of the effort on the budget process and are now in very early and -- I don't know. I'm -- I'm saying this from ignorance but you may -- it may be worthwhile for the association to sit down with each of the constitutional officers individually early in the process as well because I know you do come and sit with the board members. MR. WATLER: We have been to them, but we were not particularly early in the process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. WATLER: But you're quite right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- Just a thought because that can help us in that process as well. MR. WATLER: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Silver and then Ms. Schneider. MS. SILVER: My name -- Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just pull it right on down. There you go. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. MS. SILVER: My name is Jeanette Silver, and I'm here to protest the same thing, the raise in taxes. You know, we elected you so that you could save us money, not to spend more money and it was __ I got a big raise in my taxes which is very hard for me to pay because I'm a widow. And I want -- I -- I took an article out of the paper that also talked about it. When was the last time a government told us how it was saving money? When was the last time a program was cut out? When was the last time our elected officers looked for -- to themselves rather to the taxpayers for solutions. That's it. I'd like an answer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll answer all those. When was the last time -- Up here, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've got to get that fixed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- the -- As far as when was the last time we cut programs, well, two months ago. I mean, we cut a number of things out this year. We were just talking not 20 minutes ago about the agri -- about the agricultural extension service. We've talked about down on Horseshoe Drive, what they're doing with the developmental industry, the health department, our parks department. We've cut all kinds of programs, and we've done it each year. And -- And while it's higher -- going to be higher this year than it was last year, we still have a lower tax rate than 1992. You said, Gosh, I elected you to -- to cut taxes -- MS. SILVER: My tax rate is up since 1992. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, no. No. You're mistaken. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your assessment may be up on your home which does drive part of your tax rate but the -- up here -- but the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the bill. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the millage rate is what we assign. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- And, frankly, if you look at the very top line on your tax bill, unless you're in a very unusual situation, that went down, even with the adjustments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there were a couple of areas where with the assessments it went up, but almost all areas it still went down. School board budget has gone up. We don't have any control -- We don't have anything to do with that. MR. WATLER: Well, why -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if you look at the county budget, then -- take a look at your last four years' tax bills and look at the amount on the very top line where it says "County," and that's going to be smaller three years in a row. This year it is going to be higher, and I acknowledge that. MS. SILVER: Well, is there any chance it's going to cut somewhat? Because I heard you talking about that you're going to try. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. There -- There is. By September 18 I will -- I anticipate some reduction in the ad valorem rate. To what extent, we have until the 18th to work on, and we are still trying to -- to do just that. MS. SILVER: Well, I hope so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Schneider and then Mr. Sulprizio. MS. SCHNEIDER: My name is Beverly Schneider. I'm a brand new resident here, and my tax bill is more than double from Pensacola, and I've lost my widow's exemption and homestead until I'm here a year and can file in January which I don't truly think is fair when you move within the state, which certain amounts of these funds go to state funds. But I do want to start and say that I appreciate all the hard work everybody here is doing because it's not easy to do this, and I'm sure I couldn't do half as good a job. But just remember, everybody isn't wealthy in Naples. We have a certain amount coming into our checkbooks, and when these things go up, other things have to be cut. And I know we have to do that, and I'd like to see public officers do the same thing and sit with the balance. Try, will you? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I fall into that category of not being wealthy so the -- I -- Just a comment. The editor of the daily newspaper in Pensacola is a good friend of mine, and she sent me down some things. This is probably five or six months ago. She sent me down some clippings, and part of the difference there is the average home sale in 1995 -- the average value of a home in Pensacola was about $55,000, and the average home sale -- yeah -- and the average home sale in 1995 in Collier County was one seventy-eight or something. There -- There's a difference in the cost there as far as a community as well. So it's just a -- It's a different ball game. It doesn't make it any easier to pay the bills but a different ball game. MS. SCHNEIDER: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sulprizio and then Mr. Baker. MR. SULPRIZIO: Good evening. My name is Paul Sulprizio. I'm a newcomer to Naples. My question is very simple. What impact do we have on taxes? It's very simple. What imp -- How can we influence it? I'm hitting here -- I'm sitting here. What I'm hearing is, Well, maybe if we reduce the reserves by 1.4 -- You're saying it's going to be 50 cents or something like that. You know, it's -- it's -- it's chicken feed. Let me tell you about the real world. Somebody asked a question, Well what about deducting 5 percent or 3 percent? I ran manufacturing companies that supplied Ford Motor Company, that supplied General Motors, BHW, Audi, both here and in Germany, and the customer dictated to us what the price was, and quite often he dictated a reduction. We had to meet it or we lost the customer. Why can't we do that here? We changed processes. We changed ways of doing things. We saved money. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir -- MR. SULPRIZIO: But no one -- no one talks about reducing. No one talks about cutting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We do talk quite a bit about reducing and cutting and if -- if -- MR. SULPRIZIO: Well, but you -- but you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I respond? MR. SULPRIZIO: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You asked a question. I'd like an opportunity to respond. MR. SULPRIZIO: You've got it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mentioned the past three years we have cut -- each of three years in a row we did cut. We had a decrease every single year. Part of the difference is, in business if Ford Motor Company -- if -- if the economy is slow, they sell fewer cars. The economy also dictates. There isn't as much of a demand, so they can make a number of things. MR. SULPRIZIO: That's a false assumption. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't matter -- MR. SULPRIZIO: They do that in good years as well as bad. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Ford's inventory and the amount they sell is the same every single year, I guess. In -- In government it doesn't matter whether the economy is strong or weak. You still expect us to have our parks open. You still expect us to pave the roads. There -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would like the sheriff to show up if there's a problem. MR. SULPRIZIO: But it can -- My question to you was, what can be done in order to cut spending? Everyone talks about, if we reduce something here, well, we've got to pay for it, but no one talks about cutting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We do talk about it. This is just not -- MR. SULPRIZIO: But you -- you yourself said, Well, we can't influence it really because -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- Let me respond. MR. SULPRIZIO: -- if they don't like what we say they can go to the governor. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could I respond to you? MR. SULPRIZIO: Surely. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You seem to have gotten into the process a little late here. We've been at this since March and -- MR. SULPRIZIO: Well, I just moved down here in Hay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand, and -- and I'm going to respond to that as well. But we started this process back in March, and we have done a number of things to reduce spending. I think the point is that you're just not aware of them. Now, another thing. You say you moved down here in Hay, and you're -- you're -- you're here to -- to tell us that you would like to have lower property taxes, but I do want to point out to you that Collier County has the lowest property tax rate in the entire State of Florida. Sixty-seven counties, we're the last. MR. SULPRIZIO: Could well be. I don't know. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not "could well be." It is. MR. SULPRIZIO: I -- I don't dispute that at all -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. SULPRIZIO: -- but that doesn't answer -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I just want to put things in perspective for you. MR. SULPRIZIO: I just want to address the question that I -- I posed to the board, and that is, what can be done to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I'll answer the question -- MR. SULPRIZIO: -- do something. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- directly for you right now. Next year -- See, you're coming in at the very end of the budget cycle. We're -- We're done with it essentially. You Come in early next year when we're -- we're doing the -- the early budget hearings, and you start talking to us then about the specific things you want us to cut and we -- you know, we -- perfect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or just come watch because -- MR. SULPRIZIO: I'll be here. Believe me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if it's like this year, we -- we cut like -- There was blood on the floor there was so much cutting going on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's the important thing, is as we go through the March meetings and May meetings, we __ we have our department heads sit right here, and we go through items by items by item in each department. And we cut things from parks. You said we haven't talked any about cuts, and we have. We cut things from parks, from the health department, from social services, from our road departments. We cut things virtually everywhere. MR. SULPRIZIO: But the bottom line is a 10 percent increase. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, it is. MR. SULPRIZIO: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that wasn't your comment. Your comment was, I don't hear anyone cutting about -- talking about cutting. And perhaps you weren't listening because we did a lot of cutting. MR. SULPRIZIO: I listened, but I wasn't satisfied because people really -- It's like the lady said here before -- who was before. Not everyone here is a millionaire in this country or in this state or in this community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, in fairness, I probably have as low a net worth as anyone in this room. So this hits me as hard as anyone, and -- and somehow suggesting that I don't care about the average person -- MR. SULPRIZIO: No. I'm not suggesting that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's -- as a group effort, that -- you know, it hits people, and we're not aware of that -- all four of us are trying to do that, and -- and we have cut any number of things in our effort to do that. MR. SULPRIZIO: What I'm hearing is your hands are tied -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. MR. SULPRIZIO: -- because if people don't like -- If the individuals with whom you are dealing with really don't like the demands or the -- the cuts that you're requesting, they'll simply go to the governor. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the cuts -- MR. SULPRIZIO: Right? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the reductions this year are not deep enough, sir, I would like you to get enough folks together and petition us to reduce the hours at our libraries, to stop maintaining our county parks, to shut down the beach parking areas __ MR. SULPRIZIO: That's -- That's not a fair statement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're asking -- MR. SULPRIZIO: My -- My time's up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- me what can you do. No. Well, I've used up some of your time. But you're asking me what can you do to make us lower taxes. I can't tell you that every ounce of fat in our entire budget has been trimmed. No one person can go through $350 million of expenditures and feel 100 percent satisfied that every single finite penny that is not necessary has been moved out. But the point that the chairman was trying to make is that through the entire course of this budget process that attempt has been fevership times, it's been sincere, and -- and I think without viewing that, your question in itself is a little unfair and uninformed. MR. SULPRIZIO: Why? I've been dealing -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because you weren't here to see it -- MR. SULPRIZIO: -- with -- in the industrial world for 30 years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You weren't here to see it happen, sir. MR. SULPRIZIO: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Just in order to maybe answer or at least provide a sense of what this board has done, the majority of this board has been here for -- for four years, and in looking back at - _ at my budget book, four years ago when the first commissioners came this board, the -- the countywide aggregate millage rate was 3.9 mills for every $1,000 of value that you have in your home. This year it's 3.5 mills. And it's -- it's down almost 3 -- almost 4/10 of a mill __ MR. SULPRIZIO: But the assessments go up so -- MR. DORRILL: Well, no, they don't. MR. SULPRIZIO: -- the bottom line is -- MR. DORRILL: No. They don't always -- MR. SULPRIZIO: -- you can pay more taxes. MR. DORRILL: -- go up. And, in fact, another -- the other best comparison that I have is that four years ago in this county there were 12 1/2 employees for every 1,000 people. And next year there's only going to be 10 1/2 employees for every 1,000 people, but in those four years 40,000 more people have moved to this county. So this particular commission, from my historical perspective of 16 years, is the most cost-cutting, the most frugal, the most get-more -- you know -- bang-for-your-buck. And -- And you can look at any number of -- of barometers of performance in comparison to any other county in the State of Florida, and we beat them, period. And it's -- It's just as simple as that. You can look at employees per capita, millage per capita. Yeah, there -- there are a lot of homes in Port Royal or -- or Pelican Bay, but they're not the majority anymore. There's only 18,000 people who are -- are living in those homes that are assessed at more than a half a million dollars. The rest of us and everybody else in this room can be thankful that for all those things that I mentioned, this county commission over the last four years, their employees are down almost 20 percent per capita, and the millage is down almost an entire half a mill in four years, and I think they deserve a lot of credit for that. MR. SULPRIZIO: Unfortunately I don't have that information available. I -- I believe every word you're saying. MR. DORRILL: And I -- I would be more than happy -- MR. SULPRIZIO: But my -- MR. DORRILL: -- to share it with you. MR. SULPRIZIO: But it's very unfair for anyone on the board to say to me, "Tell me what you'd like to have cut." That's not a fair question. All I'm asking is that people who are generating these budgets, that the people who are reporting to you or discussing these budgets with you -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm sorry, sir, but -- excuse me '- MR. SULPRIZIO: Hay I finish? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- your original question -- When you stood up there, the first thing you said was, "How can I have an impact on the budget," and I told you to make some specific suggestions for cuts, and now you're saying that we didn't respond to your question. MR. SULPRIZIO: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So, you know, your time is up. MR. SULPRIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have a seat, please. MR. SULPRIZIO: All I'm saying -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go on. Have a seat, please. MR. SULPRIZIO: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Baker. He's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. MR. BAKER: I wasn't listed to speak, but I couldn't resist the opportunity because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You've been here. MR. BAKER: -- I think this is a learning experience for all of us. My name is Richard Baker, and I guess I'll say I'm representing GNCA. We've also formed an ad hoc committee to look into budget reform this year, and Commissioner Hancock is the member of that ad hoc committee from the commission, and we appreciate his -- his participation in it. To try and put some of this in perspective in my mind, I believe that if you would take out the sheriff's budget from the overall budget, am I correct in saying that the budget has gone down from the previous year? I think I am, am I not? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- The actual overall budget? MR. BAKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. In fact, the overall -- MR. BAKER: And, in fact, if you took -- if you took the entire ad valorem budget and compared this year without the sheriff against last year without the sheriff, I think the budget -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd have to rely on Mr. Smykowski to answer that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think it actually -- it -- it grew but less than the rate of -- MR. BAKER: Growth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of growth within the county. MR. BAKER: It would have? Yes. Okay. So -- So the net effect was it was a lower rate? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. MR. BAKER: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Yeah. You're right on that. MR. BAKER: So -- So then we come down to the sheriff's budget which is about a $7 million increase -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. MR. BAKER: -- which is primarily responsible for the increase in the total amount. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm-hmm. MR. BAKER: And, again, we come up against this -- and I'm looking at this from the budget reform type of aspect. We're looking at it from the standpoint, okay, you say the -- the sheriff comes in and says what he needs. You examine it closely. You can't dispute it because you have to take what he says obviously and also because you're not an expert in that field, and I grant all those caveats. If this were a charter government here, what would your - Now, this is a learning experience for me and hopefully maybe some other people. If this were a charter government, what authority would you have in that regard? Could somebody please -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that would be -- MR. BAKER: -- help me on that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- dependent on how the charter was formulated, but -- but most of the charters would make the -- the sheriff or top enforcement officer as a -- a hired or appointed person rather than an elected official. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which would give the Board of County Commissioners a final budget authority over that department if that were the scenario. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That doesn't -- I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. Charter -- MR. BAKER: There are many forms of charter -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a lot of flexibility in how you -- MR. BAKER: You can make exceptions too if you want. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, you can. You can exempt some out and continue them in a constitutional format while others become dependent or -- or appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- You're not proposing to start a charter government discussion, are you? MR. BAKER: When you're looking at the reform of budget process and these issues come in, I think everything is on the table. The -- The sheriff is not in the category of social security where we keep social -- where we keep social security off the table. So I -- I think it is something that should be considered, and I just want to be sure of your understanding of it so that we are in sync with anything that we might evaluate in this regard because I think there -- there must be some unified control. When anything is fragmated [sic] -- fragmented, it cannot be properly controlled, and I think we're seeing this here. We're also seeing it with the other constitutional officers. Of course, their budgets are much smaller, but they also operated on a -- a -- a system that I can't fully understand. They appropriated so much money, and they turn something back. And, of course, there's a tremendous amount of publicity when the money is turned back. "Look what I gave you." Maybe you didn't need it all to start with, and maybe you could have turned back more. This is what goes through your mind. So I -- I think, with all due respect, the board has tried very, very arduously to hold the budget or reduce it this year and I think -- As I have tried to point out, I think the -- the reason for the increase is primarily the sheriff's department, and maybe it's justified, and maybe it is not, because I don't think anybody here was in a position to really evaluate it as carefully as the sheriff did himself or the knowledge that he had, and I certainly am not -- I spent 28 years in law enforcement myself on a national level, but in no way am I going to say that I'm competent today to sit down and go through the sheriff's budget and say where money can be saved, but I'm sure there are people who can do that. So I just wanted to get those points across, and I appreciate the board's work on this budget process, and I hope you'll bear with us as we come forward with perhaps some suggestions that might be beneficial. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. We -- We appreciate your help on the budget cycle, and we do appreciate you getting in early like -- like you did this year and helping us with actually reformatting our budget process. Miss Kinzel is in the back of the room if you would like to -- to discuss the sheriff's budget. MR. BAKER: She -- She greeted me when I came in and asked -- made a -- put a question to me for which I said I have no comment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just in case you're curious, Mr. Baker, it -- if a five-member Board of County Commissioners initiates a charter government discussion, we're seen as greedy and a grab for power. But if you want to initiate a citizen discussion on the issue and get 10 percent of the voters to put it on the ballot, that -- that's an option. MR. BAKER: Yeah. Well, that -- that would be the end of the road which I can't predict, but I -- I do -- I think -- do think it may bear some study and consideration -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. BAKER: -- and I hope you'll listen to it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all? Item #3E RESOLUTION 96-406 ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED Okay. Next item, 3(E). MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. At this point we need a res -- a motion for a resolution adopting the tentative millage rates for FY '97. There is a -- a resolution in your package on page 3(E), page 1. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the understanding that there are two items on the table to be discussed on the 18th which are the interim service fee and a possible reduction in necessary reserves, I'm going to make a motion to adopt the tentative millage rate to be carried forward to the final hearing on September 18 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as presented in the resolution. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to adopt the tentative millage rate. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #3F RESOLUTION 96-407 ADOPTING THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED We need a resolution to adopt the amended tentative budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will also make a motion to adopt the amended tentative budget or approve -- adopt the resolution adopting the amended tentative budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, item G, please. Item #3G ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROPOSED MILLAGE RATES AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX RATES MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The general fund, a proposed millage is 3.8424 mills, 13 percent increase over the rollback rate; pollution control fund, .0489 mills, 8/10 of a percent decrease for a total countywide millage of 3.8913 mills for a 12.8 percent increase over the rollback rate. The aggregate millage rate which is a blended average of all the taxing authority through the Board of County Commissioners is 4.6094 mills or 11.31 percent over the rollback rate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. That -- That's the end of it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Item #3H ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PUBLIC HEARING - TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Item H then. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. The final public hearing for members of the public will be held two weeks from tonight at 5:05 p.m. Wednesday, September 18. At that point a final decision will be made regarding the millage and the budget for FY '97. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's two weeks from today right here in this room at 5:05. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that concludes our business? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Then no further business. We will be adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:27 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS 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: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR