BCC Minutes 09/17/1997 B (Budget) BUDGET MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 17, 1997
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 5:15 p.m. in FINAL BUDGET SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
CHAIRMAN:
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3A
DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE HILLAGE RATES FUND THE 1998 BUDGET
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good evening. I'm going to call to order this
evening's final September 17th budget hearing for the fiscal year
1997/1998.
I'm pleased this evening to have Reverend James Kuse of the East
Naples United Methodist Church here to offer an invocation, and after
Reverend Kuse's invocation, we'll follow that with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
REVEREND KUSE: Let us pray. Oh God of us all, grant us just a
few moments to empty the clutter from our minds and thank you for
allowing us to live in this beautiful area of the world and bring to
our minds your agenda, and not just our agendas, that will make
Collier County a better county to live in.
We do thank you for your presence in our lives. Be with us this
night. Amen.
(Thereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Kuse, thank you for taking the time
to be with us this evening. We certainly appreciate it. We're to the
advertised public hearing for this evening the fiscal year 1997/1998
tentative budget. First item under 3(A), before I get there, Mr.
Fernandez, are there any changes to this agenda presented to us this
evening?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume the board has no changes to it
either.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 3(A), discussion of millage rates funding
the 1998 budget and I assume this is where we go to our budget guru,
Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. For the record, Michael Smykowski,
Budget Director. On page 3(A) -- item -- Agenda Item 3(A), page one,
is a list of the proposed tax rates.
According to the state statute, the first substantive issue to be
discussed at a budget hearing is the increase over the rollback rates
funding the budget as proposed and the reasons for the increase in
that -- in the budget and the increase in the tax rates. I'd like to
walk through as quickly as possible the items before us.
The general fund, the proposed millage rate is 3.6864, which is a
2.2 percent increase over the rollback rate and that's due to a number
of factors including the -- this year's -- FY '98 will be the final
transition of gas taxes from road maintenance to road construction
resulting in an increased subsidy operating transfer to the road and
bridge fund. They're increased capital projects funded with general
fund dollars. Increased funding of the sheriff's office. Nine
additional positions within the county administrator's agency.
Enhanced economic development effort and the beginnings of exotic
species removal from county -- from county properties.
The next item is the water pollution control fund. The proposed
millage is .0452, a decrease of 4.6 percent and that's attributable to
increase in available carryforward revenue and a transfer of an
employee to the community development fund, which is supported by
building permit revenue as opposed to ad valorem taxes which funds the
pollution control department.
Road District Number 1, the proposed millage is .1950. The
percentage increase is 49.4 percent and that's to fund Bayshore Drive
median landscaping, lighting on US 41 and the beginnings of the Marco
Island Master Plan.
Road District 2, the proposed millage is .1028. A 45.2 increase
over the rollback rate and that's due to increased landscaping costs,
decreased -- decreased carryforward revenue and funding of Vanderbilt
Drive medians.
Road District 3, the proposed millage is .3658. A 13.5 percent
decrease under the rollback rate and that's for Golden Gate Estates
road paving of lime rock roads. Davis -- Davis Boulevard and Golden
Gate Parkway medians and the U.S. -- share of the US 41 lighting
project.
Road District 5 is .3016. An increase of 35.9 percent over the
rollback rate for contracted vegetation control within the district,
as well as the paving of the Collier and Hendry line road.
The unincorporated area general fund is point .5721 mills. A 4.4
percent increase. That's due to a number of factors; decreased
carryforward, additional funding of -- and staffing within the codes
and parks departments and funding of the Lely -- a pro rata share of
the Lely Stormwater Capital Project.
The Golden Gate Community Center HSTD is .3189 mills. An
increase of 3.7 percent. That's due to decrease in carryforward,
funding of computers, and increase in the capital reserve within that
district.
Marco Island Beautification, 0.1670 mills. A decrease of 4/10ths
of 1 percent. That's due to an increased carryforward and a --
essentially, a self imposed taxing limit set by the Citizens Advisory
Committee, which provides advisory recommendations on the budget.
Naples Park drainage, the proposed millage is .1551 and that's
primarily to install inlets on culvert crossings on -- under
Vanderbilt Drive.
Pine Ridge Industrial Park, there is no proposed levy. That's a
decrease of a hundred percent due to available carryforward revenue.
Victoria Park drainage, decrease in operating expenses resulting
in a decrease in the tax levy of $700. The proposed millage is .2421.
A decrease of 33.5 percent.
Golden Gate Parkway Beautification, on an annual basis we levy a
half a mill within that district. That's an increase of 1.6 percent.
Naples Production Park is a decreased carryforward revenue
resulting in a $4,900 tax levy proposed. The millage is .0290.
Island of Capri Fire, increased operating cost for vehicles and
increased overtime. The proposed millage is .7921. An increase of 1
percent.
Ochopee Fire has decreased capital expenditures and decrease in
reserves. The proposed millage, 2.6053. That's a decrease of
eight-tenths of a percent.
Collier County Fire has a 2 mill levy, and due to decreased
taxable value, that's a decrease of 2.1 percent below the rollback
rate.
Radio Road Beautification, there's a new levy proposed for
medians along Radio Road. There's a half a mill tax levy.
Sabal Palm Road HSTU, within this fund efforts are going to focus
on continuing to secure permits for the eventual construction of a
road and the proposed millage is 5.4544. An increase of 1.8 percent
over the rollback rate.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification, the levy's 1.5 mills on an
annual basis. That's a 2.8 percent increase over the rollback rate.
Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU, they're increasing reserves
for an eventual pump replacement. The proposed millage, .2236.
Thirty-six point eight percent over the rollback rate.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU, there's an increase in
reserves for future improvements. The proposed millage is .2457.
Immokalee Beautification MSTU, we levied approximately 1 mill on
an annual basis, in this case .9998. An increase of 7/10ths of a
percent due to increased property value.
Excuse me, parks GOB debt service is an increase in interest
revenue budgeted and a decrease in actual cost to the tax collector
and property appraiser. The proposed millage is .0535. A decrease of
5.6 percent below the rollback rate.
Marco Island Coastal Beach Renourishment, there is no tax levy
proposed in FY '98. The final residual debt service in that fund is
going to be paid through TDC revenues.
Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue debt service due to decreased
carryforward, the proposed millage is .2074. An increase of 2.5
percent. That's on the existing station debt.
Collier County Lighting District, .2353 mills. A decrease of 5.3
percent.
Naples Production Park street lighting, decrease carryforward is
.0065 mills.
Marco Island lighting .0564 mills. A decrease of 16.1 percent
due to available carryforward revenue, and within the Pelican Bay
MSTUBU, increase carryforward revenue results in a millage of .2768.
Five point five percent below the rollback rate.
The aggregate millage rate is 4.4908 mills. Three point two
percent above the rollback rate.
That concludes item 3(A).
Item #3B
DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET
Item 3(B), page one, discussion of further amendments to the
tentative budget. What we've done here is in bold listed items that
have changed from the first public hearing and I'm just going to walk
through the changes that have occurred since the first public hearing.
Again, just the items in bold. The other items were discussed
previously at the other public -- first public hearing on September
3rd.
The general fund change is a result of revenue adjustments for
the Marco Island incorporation, the decrease in sales tax and revenue
sharing. In addition, funding of the city council election through
the city -- from the Marco Island -- excuse me, reimbursements from
the Marco Island City fund the city council election in the supervisor
of elections budget. That changed that budget $30,000.
The property appraiser, budget revisions were made by the state
Department of revenue, decreasing his total budget request by $2,000.
Next item is the supervisor of elections' budget. Again, that
was funded -- funding for the city council election and that is again
funded by reimbursement revenue from the City of Marco Island.
On 3(B), page two, public guardianship fund, that program and
fund will now be administered by the 20th Judicial Circuit as opposed
to being carried on the county's books.
The Naples Park assessment bond fund 226, that is the final debt
service budgets on the assessment bond, which was recently approved.
The special obligation revenue bond fund 290 is essentially a new
fund. That is the debt service on the budget issue that converted a
portion of the commercial paper debt from a variable rate to a fixed
rate and we had to make adjustments for -- and establish a new fund
for that.
The commercial paper debt reduction fund 299 reflects the debt
service that was previously budgeted as commercial paper and now will
be paid to the special obligation revenue bond 290, which is the fixed
rate issue.
Fund 301 has changed based on policy decisions that the board
made at the first hearing and that includes funding for the space
plan, replenishment of reserves for emergency items that have been
approved in the last few months and funding of the computers for the
state attorney and public defender.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can't the space plan -- just so people think
that we're not getting into NASA's end of things.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Page three, road impact fee funds, we
revised project and impact fee forecasts and have budgeted additional
revenue from the City of Naples.
The regional park impact fee fund changed minimally due to the
conversion of the commercial paper debt from variable rate to fixed
rate. There was just a slight adjustment to the debt service budget.
Same thing for the library impact fee fund for the outstanding --
the debt service on the Marco Island Library expansion. That was just
a fine tuning of that number.
Within the county water sewer district operating and capital
fund, the nature of the changes there are revised user fee estimates,
as well as revised impact fee forecasts as discussed and presented to
the board during the third quarter revenue report. In addition, we've
had some changes due to approval of the water sewer district financial
plan, which the board approved this past month and authorized changes
to be made to the budget as a result of that, which include things
like funding of the back flow of cross connection project and we've
also just revised the budget based on what actual projects are
actually going to be under contract by the end of this fiscal year.
The final change was in the Goodland Water District and that was
due to carryforward decrease due to increased debt service payments
being forecast due to prepaid assessments being received, so we're
essentially just paying down on some outstanding principal received as
a result of prepaid assessments. That concludes the discussion of
further amendments to the tentative budget.
Item #3C
WRAP-UP ITEMS
Next item is 3(C), the wrap-up list and the itemized list
actually just shows the personal services request from the public
defender of $4,800 as requested by Commissioner Constantine, I
believe, at the first meeting. There was -- they were asked to put
that request into writing. That's on Item 3(C), page two, there's a
request for $4,800. Mr. Harold Williams is here from the Office of
the Public Defender, if there are any questions in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we want to hear from Mr. Williams on the
$4,800 increase? Because I believe the concern was relating to pay
increases in addition to what we were giving our own county staff and
there was a response that positions were changing with higher
classifications in addition to that. Do we have any questions that we
want to direct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Essentially, we would fund that from the $4,800
contingency reduction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And they have I think done a good job of
elaborating why items have changed and there is a brief letter in the
package on 3(C), page two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All in agreement on that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There are a couple of other items on the Marco
Island -- the Marco Island scenario. The county administrator in
response to the board direction has prepared a package outlining
service impacts of county services provided to Marco Island. At this
point in time, though, the numbers are very preliminary, but we did
our best in the short time to put together as comprehensive a package
as possible.
The staff recommendation is not to make any budgetary changes in
terms of budgeting revenue -- reimbursement revenue from the City of
Marco Island at this point based on the preliminary nature of this
information. Of the magnitude, though, of the dollars we're
discussing, in the general fund there is 1.244 million in potentially
avoided cost or secured revenue that might be reimbursable through an
interlocal agreement, but that obviously is subject to much
negotiation and what kind of stance the board will take, what kind of
stance the newly elected city council will take and at this point, we
don't even know obviously who those people will be for a another month
and a half. So we think it's premature at this point but the
magnitude of the change, again, is almost a million and a quarter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if I understand you correctly, when you
took a look at it, you believe there is the opportunity to recoup 1.24
million of the amount that is being withheld from us in state taxes or
revenue sharing, that the maximum ability is about 1.24 million, but
we all understand that that is a phantom number until -- until
agreements are signed, until duties are accepted by one and relieved
by the other. So, in essence, using any of those dollars for anything
else would be akin to double-dipping at this time. We'd be hedging on
that 1.25 million dollars. Am I understanding you correctly, Mr.
Smykowski?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, what we had asked for was
hopefully to come back and you would say, well, you know, 1.2 is
ballpark and we can hope for that. I think we can count on an amount
of X. Were you just simply unable to really arrive at a number you
felt firm and confident in that could be in fact a budget number.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The only number that we can count on is the
number -- the estimate that we have given you on the amount of
revenues that would be lost through state revenue sharing and sales
tax and that number is about 1.25 million dollars. This -- this is
the expenditure estimate based upon assumptions and the matrixes
attached that we asked each department to go through and ask
themselves what services are currently being provided to Marco Island,
which fund are they being provided through, can adjustments in this
expenditure be made, if all other things were equal.
In some cases, the answer to that question was no. In some cases
it was yes, and if the answer was yes, what was the approximate amount
of avoided cost, if those services were discontinued in some way, and
in some cases the amount that we are paying for the service currently
doesn't match the amount of cost that we would avoid if we withdrew
the service because it's not a one for one connection between the two.
For example, there may be a portion of a salary involved and that sort
of thing.
So it's a number that as Mr. Smykowski indicated is very
preliminary. At this time, it's based upon many, many assumptions of
our having complete latitude to withdraw those services and being able
to eliminate them from our budget. So it's our advice at this time
that the board not use this information to make budget decisions at
this time because of the preliminary nature of the figures. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the question was, is there a number
that in your professional opinion it would be reasonable to -- to
assume? In other words, I understand you're telling me -- I'm
telling you that I expect you to find a million two in expenses to cut
to match the million two in revenues that are going to be cut. You're
telling me it looks pretty good, but can you give me some reasonable
amount of assurance that 600,000 or half a million or there must be
some number that you're reasonably confident we should be able to
count on? Are there -- I mean, are there statutorily mandated
services that we have to provide to Marco Island, the City of Marco,
whether we get paid for them or not?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are some in that category, but these -- the
1.244 are not those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are the ones that we do have discretion
over.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So why -- why isn't it reasonable to take
a number like 900,000 or -- and, again, I'm not suggesting these are
hard, but we're willing to estimate the revenue reduction, but we're
not willing to give any number to estimate on the expense reduction?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, the reason we're willing to estimate on the
revenue reduction, because that's reality. We've been informed by the
state of Department of Revenue that with this coming budget year, the
year starting October 1st, we will not have those revenues. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is not an estimate.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, it's an estimate of how much that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Revenues are estimates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like DOR, but we're not making up that number,
the DOR is.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right, that is reality that will happen. Nothing
on this list of 1.244 of expenditures is definite. Nothing is in that
same category of definite is what I'm trying to say.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Have I -- do I have a copy of that and I
just don't know it already, of the list you're talking about with the
matrix? I'd like to know -- it would help me to have some idea of
just how loose it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think probably the thing that we have to
keep in mind is that there is no city council to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- make interlocal agreements with at this
point in time and even after there is, we don't know how many
interlocal agreements we're going to enter into or be requested to
enter into. So I think what the staff is trying to get across to us
here is that anything we do is purely speculative at this point and if
we try to use some of this money as hard budget numbers, what we're
really doing is saying, well, here's our Visa card and we'll try it,
but it may not work and we may have to dig somewhere else and pay it
back out of some other fund at some point in time because you just
can't count on it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, and I respect that. I appreciate it.
I guess -- I guess if I were in your shoes, I would be willing to say,
for example, if we don't get our million two from Marco Island, we're
not gonna pick up their stray dogs. You know, so, I'm willing to say
for sure, you can save 50 grand on domestic animal services. You
know, there must be some number.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me --
MR. FERNANDEZ: It would be purely arbitrary.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I can add some --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, I'll take no for an answer, but I
just really wanted to push it to see if I could get as much of an
answer as I could get.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you didn't like the first one?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, no, but I'm determined to get -- I
would like to know for sure that Mr. Fernandez is giving us as much
information as he possibly can, and so I needed to ask those questions
to feel comfortable with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, are you withholding
anything from us?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, if the court reporter would like to swear
me in, I'd be glad to -- this is the best information we could compile
in the time frame that we have. As I said, I asked each department
head to fill out the matrix to identify the services that they
provide, the nature of the funding of those services and any
adjustments that were possible to be made. That possibility involves
a decision of the board to withdraw that service and then I think we
have to first discuss the implications of withdrawing the service,
pulling it back.
That's the straightest answer I can give.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it's akin to, you know,
someone counting on a bonus at the end of the year, unless you're a
hundred percent sure, you probably shouldn't go hog-wild spending
money at Christmas because you can find yourself in trouble. You may
be 95 percent sure that you're gonna have some sort of bonus at the
end of the year, but if that five percent happens, you're in huge
trouble, so I just wouldn't spend it in advance, and I understand your
frustration, but I guess if the question boils down to Mr. Fernandez,
can we count on anything, I hear you saying, we can't count on it
absolute. You think that we will probably get some of this, but there
is nothing in there that is absolutely for sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I hear that --
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's true. There's nothing in here that's
absolutely for sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm gonna stop on that, but I want to
be sure that we're all five focused on the fact that, yes, there are
some things that we will continue to do for Marco Island whether or
not, you know, their city council may not want to enter into some
local agreements with us, therefore, you know, they will have that
discretion. However, we could also choose not to pick up stray dogs
on Marco Island. Okay. So there are some things --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm smiling, envisioning perfect
harmony between the city council there and the county commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm smiling, envisioning perfect
harmony between the two governments.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's going to be perfect just like with
our other municipalities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest a scenario --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could be even perfecter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Perfecter?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfecter?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest a scenario that causes me
really to lean hard on what Mr. Fernandez is saying. Fort Myers
Beach, their charter was not too different than the Marco Island
Charter. Many of the tenets of the charter are the same. Fort Myers
Beach has taken over almost no municipal services. They've hired a
handful of employees. I'm not saying Marco Island will or won't do it
that way, but had Lee County taken this approach to Fort Myers Beach
and made an assumption of a million or a million and a half, they
would have been the majority of that in the hole at the end of that
first year.
Now, you don't hear about, you know, acrimony between Fort Myers
Beach and Lee County and there may be year end payments that I am not
aware of or haven't occurred yet, but I did take a look at their
charter and how they've done things and it actually gave me more
concern for what we were asking from Mr. Fernandez, 'cause I like you
thought he would come back and say, well, we think it could be 1.2,
but we're really sure it's gonna be at least $400,000, but after I
looked at Fort Myers Beach, I understood why he's not willing to give
that bottom end and I think it's a wise move, because I think Lee
County would have been burnt pretty bad on Fort Myers Beach had they
taken that step and counted on that in their fiscal budget. So I just
wanted to draw that as an example on the other end.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the good news out of all of this
is that if everything works out perfectly, next year we have a larger
carryover and the taxpayer benefits in the next tax year from it and
it's just -- hopefully, it's the scenario that plays out, but I'm
afraid we have to be pretty conservative in the meantime.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's absolutely correct. We would either
receive unrealized -- unrec -- unbudgeted revenue or, conversely, if
services were reduced as a result of their being unwilling to have us
provide those any longer, there might be corresponding expenditure
reductions within the general fund, they're carrying over to the
benefit of the taxpayer in the subsequent year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The thing we need to be careful of is if there
are savings in that process, that they don't get reallocated
internally and spent. In other words, we don't expand existing
services to the balance of the county and end up with a net zip. Now,
that's a whole other discussion. Doesn't really necessarily belong
here, but I think it's a valid concern. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: There's one other element of this and I think it
might be important to help you understand the position that I've taken
on this, and that is I understood the board's direction on this was to
not unilaterally make decisions about discontinuing services. I
understood the board wanted to keep services as much status quo as
possible until we had some decisions coming from the City of Marco
Island. So based upon that assumption, I didn't feel comfortable
coming in tonight and saying we could cut service X, Y or Z. I just
didn't think that was --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. I think we understand both ends
of that realm and we'll have to make decisions within that this
evening. Mr. Smykowski, I understand that we do have some other
budgetary good news, potentially. Could you -- would you be so kind
as to share that with us?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. I've been working with the
constitutional officers regarding their turn-backs and as it gets
closer to the end of the year, the turn-back numbers get a little
tighter.
The clerk of courts has indicated that his turn-back budgeted or
forecast in FY '97 could increase by $400,000, and Mr. Carlton, his FY
'98 turn-back could increase the amount going to the general fund by
$250,000. That is $650,000 in total that is new revenue previously
unanticipated and currently unallocated in the budget process and they
have both indicated that those are numbers that they can live with and
that to the best of their ability, will actually occur and is in fact
real revenue that we can count on, as opposed to the Marco Island
situation, that I think helps --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason that --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- define the distinction between the two. This
is money that in fact the constitutional officers have told us you can
bank on this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason that's important, I think we needed
to kind of set a station on it, the reason this discussion we're
having about Marco Island is important is that I think we expect the
majority of any comments this evening to be centered around the
sheriff's budget. We know we are about $835,000 apart where he wants
-- he feels he needs to be and where this board has set the pole.
Just as we did not have the ability to make any moves at our last
hearing, based on the Marco Island information, I think it's important
to know for any decision this evening what room there may be within
our existing budget for either reallocation or reduction of millage to
entertain discussion tonight.
So based on what Mr. Fernandez has said and we have before us,
unless we're willing to roll the dice on the Marco Island costs, the
only thing we can count on tonight is $650,000 in revenue that was not
anticipated or budgeted at our last workshop.
So, I think it would be probably well deserving if we at least,
before going to public speakers, have a little discussion about where
we want to go at this point and try to at least set a stage for a --
for the majority discussion this evening on the sheriff's budget.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll start, just to tell you because --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why did I figure that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause it's just -- I can do mine real
fast and it will be short because you already know where I stand. I
would have supported a 7.8 increase in the sheriff's budget, so I
would have liked to have found the 835. I would support the
additional 650 going to the sheriff's budget.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've held fairly firm as we've gone through
this out of concern and I think I spent a couple of hours with Sheriff
Hunter and with Crystal and with Jean trying to be -- to be very
honest with you, trying to understand what the hell we're looking at.
We get numbers on one side. Get numbers on the other side. They
never seem to match. This is the second year running for me that I
could not reconcile the budget numbers we get. Why that happens is
another issue. I'm not pointing any fingers, but it's frustrating.
One thing I came across that I was, I guess, aware of but didn't
put together, is that the capital dollars for the sheriff's budget,
actually show up in two places. They show up in our CIP element of
our budget, which is -- we call it fund 301 CIP. It's ad valorem
funded, but as you remember, point, what, three five mills a year goes
to capital projects. We make decisions in that fund. So in there we
have about 1.5 million dollars, excluding the Immokalee jail work and
the Naples jail work. So we have 1.5 million there.
The balance of capital the sheriff felt was important, did not
receive in 301 CIP goes into his budget. That amount is 1.4 million.
We're looking at almost 2.9 million dollars in capital projects within
the sheriff's office and I think this is where there was a lot of --
for me anyway, there was some confusion, because I kept looking at,
saying if we funded it at 51 million last year and we're funding at
this amount and I sub out the capital projects in 301, you got three
and a half million more to do in the personnel services than they had
last year. That's not entirely true. Out of that three and a half,
you have to take out the 1.4 in capital projects that is in the
budget.
So I understood a little bit better from that where the $835,000
spread was. Now, that's not to say that everything in the budget I'm
tickled with or that I don't think there are problems. There are.
The problem is that I have a tough time finding a way of attacking
most of them. Most of them are explainable, with the one exception of
overtime.
Overtime to me is the killer. This year overtime will exceed two
million dollars on a plus or minus 40 million dollar personnel
services. That's five percent. Five percent overtime.
Now, the explanations that I got are valid explanations, but that
doesn't mean that we should continue on that path or that we should
continue funding overtime in a manner that promotes an increase or a
level of five percent of personnel services.
We have to work together to find a way to reduce that and just if
you're wondering, two million dollars equates to equipment and
salaries for about 15 deputies. So, when you -- and actually --
actually it's 30, if you're basing it on 75,000. If you go to three
million -- okay, no, I was right. It's actually 20 deputies, I'm
sorry. I had my numbers backwards, but it's about 20 deputies for
equipment and personnel.
So, you know, I'm sitting here wondering, the people want more
officers on the street. The reason that overtime is high, some of it
is detective, which you can't plug people into that, but a lot of it
has to do with jail and bailiff and duties that are post positions
that have to be filled. That was explained to all of us, but I'm
thinking if you had a roving patrol of 20 deputies out there or a
roving patrol of 10 with the purpose of filling in, we could cut
overtime and have more deputies on the street.
I'm not saying that I'm ready to make that change tonight, but I
think it tells us that the biggest area of personnel services we need
to focus on and ask for the sheriff's help in is in reducing that
overtime because we did the pay plan increase last year. We did
additional positions last year. Did all of these things and the idea
was to reduce overtime. It's not happening. The overtime is
continuing to creep in in a manner consistent with the rest of the
budget. So, you know, that's my big concern.
The only other place we can cut money is from the capital budget.
I couldn't find it in personnel services. I have an itemized list of
all the personnel services Mr. Smykowski put together for me and with
a couple of exceptions of there being a peak here or a valley there,
they're fairly consistent in increase. So I couldn't find on the
personnel side. The only thing left is capital.
So I'm going to support a reallocation of most or all of that
$650,000 to the sheriff's budget with the caveat -- with two caveats.
The first caveat is that any shortfall in the funding come out of
the capital side, period. No positions to be eliminated. None of
this stuff about being people taken off the road to fill jail spots
and all that kind of business. The allocations of those dollars go to
the personnel services side, first and foremost, and if any reductions
in the budget need to be made, they must be made in the capital side,
not in the personnel side.
The second caveat is, and I've discussed this briefly with the
Sheriff and this is not a fully formed idea, but it's about halfway
there. We were the lucky recipients of a fantastic report on Tuesday
from our productivity committee.
They went into our county department and just did what tens of
thousands of dollars in consulting money would have cost us to get it.
I spoke to the Sheriff briefly about asking the productivity
committee to go in and attack this overtime issue. To go in and help,
with all the administrative background of that committee, there has to
be a best management practice out there. Knowing post positions, we
have a general from the air force, I think there's a guy who
understands post positions.
There's a way to go in and find out how -- and I've come up with
the idea of rovers. You can hire deputies as rovers. Their job is
first and foremost to fill slots, to avoid overtime pay. Remember, on
overtime you're paid time and a half not only on salary but on
benefits also. So it gets very expensive.
The Sheriff had already, you know, floated the idea to me of
creating a list of overtime people that you start at the lower ranks.
The road patrol deputies, who, one, need the money and, two, receive
less in the way of wages and salary to help bring that down.
There are best management practices that could bring that down.
I think that kind of effort could make up for the difference between
600 or 650 and $835,000.
I can't tell you I'm happy about this. I would rather see the
650 go to a tax reduction, but the other side of this is, you guys
have gotten phone calls and I have too. I have more phone calls this
year supporting the sheriff's budget and last year I had more phone
calls saying, God, please pull the reins in. So I have to respond to,
to what I believe are constituent requests in that arena and this is
the way I feel is best to do it. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure we got the same phone
calls. I'm comfortable --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Obviously not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm comfortable we set an appropriate
amount for the sheriff's budget in June and just because there are
suddenly more tax dollars available, they're still taxpayer moneys and
until we allocate them, they're taxpayer moneys and just because there
are more now suddenly available doesn't mean we have to spend it, and
in my opinion, anyway, nothing substantive has changed in the
explanation from the sheriff's department since June or since our
hearing two weeks ago and I prefer to keep that amount the same.
The total budget from last year, plus an additional three million
dollars, is a ton of money, and we can look at these individual
things, and, again, that's up to the Sheriff to prioritize, but it's
just an awful lot of money and I think we honed in on and spent months
on the right figure and I hate to change that now just because
suddenly there's some extra dollars available, and I really haven't
seen a big change, so we just disagree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, we do, and I guess one of the reasons I
keep coming back to this is I was the only one on the board that
didn't vote for the airport dollars because there were some things in
the sheriff's budget I wanted to make sure happened and one of them is
the mobile digital computers that go in the cars.
When I found out we didn't have those in the sheriff's office, it
drove me crazy, because my brother had them in Hillsborough County
when he started in 1987 and when he'd go on a domestic, he would get
the entire report on that residence on that screen, so he knew what he
was walking into. That's an officer safety issue and so I knew there
were some big nuts out there on the capital side that we really
couldn't put off anymore and so my balance was thrown off a little bit
on the airport side. I've asked that we look at that and I'm in the
minority. I accept that. That's done. That money's there and it'll
go to good use.
So I guess that's kind of my trade-off -- is I was looking to do
a little more than we did initially. Now that the money is -- does
come available without increasing the millage rate above what we've
projected, which, again, is a reduction in millage. I believe it's
lower now than it was three years ago or whatnot. You know, I'm
comfortable with the reallocation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In support of Commissioner Constantine's
comment of just a few minutes ago, I was driving in my car here, just
a couple hours ago, and heard a lady on the talk radio substituting
for Rich Keen. He was having a little throat problem, it appears, and
she, I believe, is connected with the Health Department up in Lee
County. I believe that was who it was, a Dr. Betty she was calling
herself. I guess sort of like Dr. Laura, but in any case, she started
making the comment that we had -- as the State of Florida recently
received a 750 million dollar check from the tobacco settlement, and
she said, my gosh, this 750 million dollars has gone into our coffers,
now we've got to find some way to spend it, and, you know, that
mentality is just absurd. We've got to find some way to spend it.
We've got 750 new million dollars that we didn't have before. Let's
spend it.
Well, no, I don't think that's what this board is about. I don't
think that's our attitude and so, in support of Commissioner
Constantine's comments, I just offer that out as maybe a more graphic
explanation of where we stand, and I can also tell you that I haven't
had the same type of calls and letters this year that I did last year.
Last year I had tons of calls in support of the sheriff's budget
and a lesser amount saying, pull in the reins. This year it's been
spotty and pretty mixed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess that's why we're elected by district.
The two of -- you know, again, I don't disagree with what you're
saying, but I think the difference is we set our numbers a couple
months ago based on what projections we're dealing with and we will
tighten down in areas based on those projections, I'm not gonna say
more or less because of them, but it certainly forces us to look at
the big picture and had the picture been different, would the sheriff
be at six percent or six and a half? I really don't know. I think we
made the best decision then and I'm just trying to make what I feel is
the best decision now and I'm certainly not going to argue with either
one of you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may have just approached it
different because I, when we set those numbers in June, set those
according to what I thought were appropriate expenditures regardless
of what our tax rate ended up being.
The goal wasn't simply have a tax cut, regardless of what it does
to safety, you know, and I don't think that was your approach either.
I just, as we went through, we took a look and saw what I thought was
an appropriate amount for law enforcement and then we plugged that
into the big picture and, fortunately, when all was said and done, we
came up with a tax cut again, but, yeah, I don't want anybody to think
we're just suddenly saying, well, that was according to what amount we
had available then.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And your comments, I think, earlier when
you were going through some of the items that you had looked at in the
sheriff's budget, really iljustrate a point that I've made in every
single budget year, is that it's not up to us to sit here and
micro-manage or even mega-manage, macro-manage the sheriff's budget,
but you offered some very salient suggestions that appear to have
merit and that could save expenditures within his own budget and
that's what I've been saying all along.
You know, find out what you can do within your budget to save
money. That's what we've done as a board for years. We have a pretty
efficient organization now thanks to some of our citizens' groups like
Ms. Vasey and some other people that have helped our productivity
committee and that sort of thing. Why can't that same principle be
applied here in the sheriff's budget, which is as big as ours or
bigger?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further comment?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: My only comment is, I obviously supported
the 7.8 percent originally when we were talking about the sheriff's
budget. The 650,000, I can probably go along with it. I tend to
agree, though, just because you have money doesn't mean that you need
to spend the money.
On the other hand, looking at the other explanation that we
received or that certainly that I received and I think most of you did
this past week, and in further discussion with the sheriff's office, I
think they clarified some points and some questions, certainly that I
had, but I think you did make an excellent suggestion in regard to the
use of the productivity committee to work with the sheriff's
department and see if we can't come up with some -- something better
next year.
So based on the fact that if we go ahead and allocate this
additional 650,000, with the idea that they will use the productivity
committee and work with them and see what they can do to help cut some
of these expenses.
One other question I did have and I should have asked at the time
and maybe can ask now, are there -- are there operating expenses in
here for the jail as well? I mean, that is included in here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know that there are and we don't have the
ability to affect jail operation the way in which we do capital law
enforcement because this state -- it's kind of like when you're on a
school board. The state mandates for jail operation are pretty, you
know, solid.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that's -- I was hoping that maybe in the
future that if we looked at, you know, facilities and those kinds of
things and something that become from the operating side much more
efficient that down the road there's going to be something that's
going to be more efficient in that area that will help this particular
budget.
So that's something -- right now, I look at this as we're kind of
caught and I'm hoping that as we move forward, that if we can get some
of this other expertise and do something in terms of the jail, those
facilities, that perhaps we can become more efficient.
I think right now, I'll take the risk of saying, I think the
entire setup in the jail and the sheriff's department, not taking
people-wise, I'm talking facilities, I think it's extremely
inefficient.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just don't think that it's the best thing
that we can do government-wise in this particular area, and I think
there needs to be a lot of study done in this area to come up with
something that we can do a better job, but I think we're spending
inordinate amount of dollars there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're talking about -- I'm sorry, just
for clarification, you're talking about that the jail facility itself
requires --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: For supervision and operation of it, Pam --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- that's my concern, that I think we're --
we're out of bounds -- or not because of what they're doing, it's
because of what they have with what they have -- the facilities they
have to work with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. I agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not mocking how they're doing. My
concern is because of the facility, they have to do certain things and
it's costing more than it normally could. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess in a nutshell, as we go to public
speakers, you know, I'm sitting in a position that I was -- that was a
majority decision on this board that the previous amount that the
sheriff's budgets was at and that's why I haven't disagreed with
anything Commissioner Norris or Constantine has said and I can even
understand your frustration. You know, it appears here as if I'm
waffling on a previous decision and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pass the syrup.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pass the syrup.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, I understand your frustration.
I don't like that when someone changes mid-stream on me either, but
I've been asked by a good number of my constituents, since that
decision, to do my best to find a middle ground, and that's what I'm
trying to do. So I, you know, I don't make any apologies for it, but
I do understand your frustration and if I don't get a Christmas card
from you, I won't hold you --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you get one last year?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. So that's what I'm thinking there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There was postage due.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we go to the public speakers, it
looks like, obviously, you've got two votes on the ends here, the
extremes, the extreme ends of the board here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That makes me the ultra right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, it's from the audience perspective,
Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I don't know.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it appears that you've made -- you three
have made it clear what you want to do, but let me suggest that you
mentioned splitting. Perhaps that's maybe what we should do is take
the excess that we expect, split it. Give half of it to the sheriff,
give half of it back to the taxpayers. Let's think about that while
we have public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I was actually -- and that's why I
said, somewhere up to 600 or 650, because I had not firmly decided
where I wanted to go, but -- Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to hear from the sheriff if
he is willing to make that commitment, since we can't control where he
spends the money once we give it to him. I like that idea about that
if he gets the extra 650 it goes towards --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, if I may and if it's the
board's pleasure, but I would like to hear from the public comment
first and then ask the sheriff to address us at the end of that. I
just -- I prefer that priority the same way I look at public speaking
when we have staff in the audience. They're paid to be there. The
public is there on their own time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But there is that important question of
whether or not he agrees to that limitation on capital that you've
asked him to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He'll answer that for you. I'm sure he'll
answer that for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it's the board's pleasure, I'd like to hear
from the sheriff at the conclusion --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just nod, Don, tell me if you agree or
not. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to hear from the sheriff at the
conclusion of public speaking.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. He bats wrap-up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got enough information.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He always wants to speak last, anyway, so --
Okay. Mr. Fernandez, assuming there are no further questions --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just for administrative purposes, we do require
that if you care to speak on any item you need to sign in for the
record, please. There are sign-up sheets in the hallway, or I have
some available. If you turn them in to Mr. Fernandez, he will call
the speakers, please. Thank you.
Item #3D
PUBLIC COHMENTS AND QUESTIONS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And he will be calling -- the first speaker
will come to the podium. The second name he gives, please, if you
would, go ahead and come to the forward part of the room, so that as
one speaker finishes up, we can just keep a continuous, albeit narrow,
stream. Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker is Sheriff Don Hunter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's been pushed to the end of the line.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Second speaker is Karen Acquard and then Janet
Vasey.
MS. ACQUARD: Commissioners, for the record, I'm Karen Acquard.
I didn't intend to say anything until that last comment.
Commissioners, please don't save me any money because you have
been talking about your budget. To help make a difference with the
amount of time it takes a sheriff's deputy. Let me tell you about my
budget. Thirty-two hundred dollars for an alarm system. Four hundred
and fifty dollars a year for monitoring and maintenance.
Now, it's still gonna take -- even though that gives me a set of
ears, listening to every word that's said in my house and a voice
asking me if I want help, I still am gonna have to wait for the
sheriff's deputy, so I need a backup. My backup weighs about 98.2
pounds and the vet and food bills run around $600 a year.
Now if you get past that one, you've got the ever present
handguns. Please don't save me any money. I would much rather see
the money put into the sheriff's budget, than to be putting it into
handguns, ammunition, time on a shooting range and the extra money
that I have to put out every year on a monitoring system.
Yes, I yearn for a simpler time when I didn't have to have alarms
going off and buttons on every window and door that I can push, so
that I have somebody listening to what's being said to know if I'm
being robbed, being beaten or what, but that is the way it is today
and I don't like it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying then that if we grant this
-- all of this money to the sheriff's budget, that you'll eliminate
your alarm system to get your --
MS. ACQUARD: I am saying I would like to see a number of
deputies and substations in this county that would make it possible to
eliminate an alarm system.
Sure, the dog's a part of my family and I'm not going to get rid
of her, but we wouldn't have to replace her when she got too old to do
the job.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At what fiscal allocation of the
sheriff's department would you remove the alarm system from your
house?
MS. ACQUARD: When I could get a deputy in the same amount of
time it took me in Naples Park.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is what? I mean '-
MS. ACQUARD: It used to take between five and ten minutes. Now
it takes me about -- between 20 and 30 minutes to get a deputy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think my question is, really, I
mean, if we can't do that for 55 million, can we do it for 60 million?
Can we do it for a hundred million? You know, what's the price tag to
have a sheriff at two minutes to every -- a deputy --
MS. ACQUARD: Commissioner, I honestly don't know. You have two
agencies in this county, county agencies that in my opinion are
grossly under budgeted, even with their requests, and there are the
two agencies that the citizens of this county and the visitors here
depend on for our life and well-being, and that's EHS and the
sheriff's department.
Waiting 15 minutes or longer for an ambulance is unacceptable, as
far as I'm concerned, and waiting 20 or 30 minutes for a deputy is
unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say grossly under funded,
then you must have some amount in mind.
MS. ACQUARD: No, I haven't actually researched it. I happen to
feel that the people who run the department should have an idea of
what it would actually take to have -- give us appropriate coverage.
They had on Dateline the other night, they commented that the 911
system in the United States usually would get you either the sheriff's
department or emergency medical in five minutes, and I just sat there
with my mouth hanging open thinking, when, where. Not here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Karen, I have to ask you, you moved from
Naples Park to the Corkscrew area, right?
MS. ACQUARD: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You went from the urban area to the rural
area.
MS. ACQUARD: That's right, and I expected to have some changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. You knew where the nearest substation
was when you moved out there and it wasn't nearly as close as it was
in Naples Park.
MS. ACQUARD: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. I just -- I think we need -- that
is an element of reasonability in response time in the rural
districts.
MS. ACQUARD: Oh, yes, that's the reason why the alarm system
went in and then we got the dog and so on, but I expected within the
last eight years to see an increase in the size of deputies as the
area increased.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean weighing more each or --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got some pretty big guys.
MS. ACQUARD: I'm saying I put out over a thousand dollars -- my
husband and I spend over a thousand dollars a year in supplemental
protection. I'd rather see it go into a tax base that can be used to
augment these agencies so that we can go back to having -- the way it
used to be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your point, but I mean if
-- there are certain choices we make in life and my in-laws live on a
1,500 acre farm and by living in the midst of 1,500 acres, they have a
slower response time, just because there's no emergency station
located on their farm, and if you choose to live in the Corkscrew
area, there has to be -- I mean, there is a conscious decision there
that I am not in the middle of the urban area. I'm not gonna get the
same immediate service. I understand your concerns and they're
legitimate, but you've got to understand '-
MS. ACQUARD: But I'm under two miles from an urban area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is better than six, but not as good as
zero, so '-
MS. ACQUARD: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Karen.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Janet Vasey, and then Sheriff Hunter.
MS. VASEY: Hi, Janet Vasey, for the record. I have three points
I'd like to bring up regarding the amount of money that I think you
have available to make a decision on this evening.
The budget was imbalanced apparently during the tentative budget
that you had -- that you locked in on earlier. There are three main
things that have happened since then.
One is the issue with Marco of a million two. The second one is
the additional $650,000 and the third one is an increase of $690,000
in carryforward from the first tentative budget.
So, stepping back, I would say that there's a total of two and a
half million dollars here that needs to be looked at.
The million two, I really don't believe it's realistic to say
that there would be nothing from that. Yes, you can't count on it.
You have no absolute guarantee, but budgeting is not a guaranteed kind
of thing.
You make a budget that's based on some kind of a best -- best
estimate that you can do at a point in time, and to assume that you
would get no money from Marco Island would be to say that you believe
Marco Island will accept a lot of services and try not to pay you a
dollar, and I don't believe that's reasonable. I'm sure that they'll
be some money coming in and I think somehow we need to arrive at what
a reasonable estimate of that would be.
Now we know for sure we have the 650. The carryforward has
increased $690,000. I don't know why we couldn't be looking at that
as an option also for either appropriate expenditure or hopefully a
tax reduction.
So I would like you to kind of look at that aspect of it too, if
you would. That's all I've got.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Smykowski, $690,000 in
carryforward? Help me with that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's already been addressed as part of the
pluses and minuses of the revenue loss to Marco Island. That was
helping cushion the impact. That has already been taken into account
and was also a part of the means by which you were able to fund the
campus space plan and the computers and the 301 reserve that at your
last hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The state attorney's office, okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: So that component has already been -- that would
be counting it twice, if you wanted to spend that again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That makes it different from the 650 we heard
about tonight?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct, the 650 is available.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sheriff Hunter.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good evening. Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier
County, Florida. And let me start out by clarifying a couple of
things. First, I'd like to thank the commissioners for taking the
extra time that you had devoted to going back through the budget with
Commissioner Hancock had originally said he had a basket full of
questions, it was more like a small car, but he did go through in a
very detailed way and I would like to compliment him at your level of
understanding of the operation, and especially in your discussion of
the overtime and how that works. It's clear that you understood very
clearly what -- what I was trying to convey.
I would like to add a couple of things. First of all, I am
willing to work with the productivity group, any productivity group.
In fact, we encourage people to come to the agency or permit us to
come to speak to their group relative to any budget issue or response
times, operations of the agency. So we'd be very interested in
working with that group. We already have a very strong relationship
with at least three members of that group and would be very interested
in discussing the overtime issue with them.
I would like to add and perhaps expand upon one point you made,
Commissioner Hancock, relative to the utility group. Perhaps we can
have a floating utility group that we can plug in from time to time if
we were seeing some need. That could be employed as opposed to paying
some overtime. I can't take credit for it, but my predecessor Sheriff
Aubrey Rogers did, in fact, place a utility group within the agency.
Unfortunately, the grand jury caused it to become the SWAT team as
well, but we still employ this utility group. It was ten members in
1981 and remains ten members.
We can't, as you know, fill positions quick enough in road patrol
and corrections, but for people that are viewing the meeting tonight,
I'd like to reiterate the fact that we do have some problems.
Timing problems, predominantly, is the reason we pay some
overtime, as you addressed. A lot of it has to do with the fact that
we do recruit into the jail and into the drill academy and then permit
those members after a period of months to move into other areas of the
agency, as they so choose.
Unfortunately, many of them choose to go to road patrol, which is
an additional certification they must acquire, which means they have
to go an academy and during the periods that they are in that academy
and we are trying to make a replacement available for them, we usually
-- we usually wind up paying overtime because while we're trying to
place their replacement, if you have member A going into road patrol
and they're attending an academy, you have another member that's been
hired to plug into member A's position, but they have to go into an
academy, so while they're not available for that position, I have to
pay overtime to an already certified member to provide that function,
and we'll explain this to the productivity group, and as you did, I'm
sure they'll be quite familiar with it.
We are trying to roster people at the lower levels of pay in the
agency and compel them to provide overtime work or service to cover
some of our deficit area, such as in our communication center, and
that works fairly well when they're available.
The number 650,000 been mentioned. Certainly, that's in large
part or a large part of what we believe we need, 835,000 to perform
the services next year and, again, in the detailed manner in which we
went through the budget with you, especially Commissioner Hancock,
detailing the capital expenses, and some of the things we're already
obligated to, such as the $300,000 for mobile digital terminals.
We've already made an investment last year through grant awards for
the Gateway System that will also service the emergency medical
services for mobile digital terminals.
This would be our first step into mobile digital. We have not
yet taken that step, but we also hope that we can hold onto that grant
award. They're very difficult to come by and certainly they defray
the cost of a system that the county has already obligated to. So I'd
hate to give that money up, but there's some other areas as we
discussed. The telephone system, change out expansion, so that you
have enough devices hanging on that -- on that system, so that you can
employ telephones as part of your law enforcement effort is pretty
important, but perhaps we can defer it to later in the year when we
know more about Marco.
I suppose what I would say is the 650 would be welcome. What I
-- the only caveat I would add is that we would ask that the board
recognize a remainder, whatever that is, 185, I guess, $185,000 that
we may have to come back, as part of a reserve effort. We may be
addressing that issue later in the year, but we will take a look at
capital again and try to find ways of deferring or postponing, and as
I said before, some of these projects that we put in the CIP program
have been on the books for as much as ten years and we had been
deferring for a number -- for those ten years for those projects and
it's not uncommon for the sheriff's office to defer capital programs,
which I believe you would -- if you ask your budget staff, they could
-- could verify.
I appreciate the work that the board's done and I stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may need to respond to this, but it's a
question for Commissioner Mac'Kie. Commissioner Norris said something
that is compelling for me to try and achieve, which is to try and
derive not just dollars for sheriff's office that are apparently
needed, but also to even try to make a step toward the taxpayer, more
so than we have already done.
What I see is a separation and the sheriff mentioned 185,000. My
first thought was, well, I'm sure somewhere during the year on the
Marco issue, a 185,000 is going to break free for allocation, and then
I thought, well, maybe some more would be break free and what I am --
I don't want to budget any of those dollars, but I'm trying to find a
way to come on this side of 500,000. Five hundred thousand or more
being allocated towards the sheriff's office and bring the tax rate
down just a hair of at least that $150,000 or more and hedge some of
these capital projects on -- in other words, pull capital projects,
but hedge them on some of the Marco Island situation.
I'm looking for a hybrid there that doesn't require us to say we
have to get these dollars in revenue from Marco, but should it happen,
these projects can then come back on line. That way we're benefiting
the taxpayer and trying to accomplish what the sheriff is looking for.
I'm trying to find a way for everybody to win in that scenario and the
way that the majority of this board or maybe even all five can support
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's where I would think there is a
place that all five of us could get comfortable, because in my
judgment, and I appreciate Ms. Vasey saying it too, because we all
have so much respect for her acumen in this area, is that we are --
we're being unrealistic to put zero in the Marco Island category.
I agree that we don't need to put a million two and we don't need
to put a million, but I think it's unrealistic to put zero there and
perhaps that's where both sides can get happy -- both sides -- all of
us can get happy by reducing this tax rate from what we send out in
the trim notices and still funding the sheriff's budget, if we will be
realistic about our expectation of Marco Island's reduction and
expenses. Some number has to be there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, going back to my earlier
example. I mean, there may be some number, but the possibility
exists, however remote, that it could be zero. I mean, none of those
-- it's a possibility. It's a remote one, but it's a possibility, and
as long as it is a possibility, no matter how small, I'm not
comfortable spending the money or committing the money and I'm a
little uncomfortable saying, well, if the money becomes available, we
can spend it.
I think ultimately if we just deal with money we really have
right now, and we know we have, the taxpayer is still gonna win
because if we do get all or part of that, it goes into next year's
carryover, which is ultimately the general fund. It's money the
taxpayer is going to save, and so while I'm sure that I'll prefer to
save it in Fall of '97, they'll still have the opportunity to save it
in Fall of '98.
I'm just very, very uncomfortable with committing anything -- I
understand we'll end up with something, but there is a tiny
possibility you're gonna end up with zero.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can anyone say interim government services
fee?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, but keep in mind, and again, as
Ms. Vasey mentioned to us, a lot of the revenue numbers that we are
counting on are estimates. You know, we estimate what we're gonna get
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Estimates with a 20 year history, though.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, I think there is a volatility
difference in something that has been patterned and can be projected
like our state revenue sharing. I mean, it's something that has a
history to it. No one's disagreeing -- no one's disagreeing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Marco Island is not the first city to
incorporate in the State of Florida and I just -- that's why I'm
disappointed that we can't come up with a number, based on somebody --
you know, based on history of what it's reasonable to expect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I think I understand what Commissioner
Mac'Kie is trying to do, but I would have to agree that I'm not really
comfortable budgeting money -- I know it's just an estimate and I
appreciate that, but as a public official, I can do that in my own
household and I'm dealing with my money, but I'm playing with yours
and if something doesn't work out then I'm the one that's held
responsible. You walk away, but I'm the one -- five of us up here are
the ones that are held responsible if things don't work out.
I think, though, I'm comfortable with the 650,000 to do whatever
we need to do with the sheriff in that regard and knowing full well
that, yes, there probably will be something that comes back from
Marco. We don't know what and there is that chance there will be
nothing, but I would much rather when we have that money come back,
sit up here at that point in time and say, hey, we got the dollars,
taxpayers, this is where you're going to benefit from it and if we
feel so benevolent at that point in time that we can give some out to
some other -- one of our agencies, then that's the time to do it, but
I think right now, I would take -- I would rather take the
conservative approach of sticking with the 650 and when the money
comes -- when the final decision is made by the council, the new
council down on Marco Island. They decide what they want and what
they don't want to deal with, we're gonna better know where our
dollars are. I just don't like budgeting or even estimating something
that we have no history --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I hear four people
saying the same thing on this particular discussion. I would just
hope that we can move on to some new discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, is the consensus that the $650,000,
a majority of the board is comfortable in adding that to the previous
sheriff's budget discussion, and I guess we could do one of a couple
things. We could identify some capital projects that would be funded
as Marco Island money, if and when Marco Island money comes in, or we
can do that during the year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm gonna go either or. If we do the $650,000
back -- you know, into the sheriff's budget that's not currently
allocated, any dollars we recoup as revenue from Marco, I want them
pigeonholed for next year to reduce our overall -- you know, to
increase our revenues for next year, so that we can collect less in
taxes from folks next year.
It's a difference of $185,000 and I'm convinced, you know, that
somewhere through some efficiencies, through something, it can be
found and let the sheriff do that, but, you know, understanding, I
mean, if everything hits the wall, you'll come back.
We had that same issue last year. You said, "I may be back." It
turns out you didn't have to come back and ask for reserves. If you
didn't have to for that, I'm convinced 185,000, you know, barring any,
you know, catastrophic incidents, we're probably not gonna be talking
about that throughout the year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My approach is -- to budgeting is,
let's find out what we need to have and allocate money for it, and I'm
really uncomfortable saying, but if more money appears, we'll have
other things we need to spend it on.
I just -- I'm not comfortable doing that. Obviously, if there is
something that, an emergency during the year that we need to allocate
it for, we'll find a way to do that, either through reserves or
otherwise, but it seems to me -- and last year we had a budget
increase and the reason was the only way we could fund all our needs
was to increase the millage rates and so it doesn't always work that
we can lower it and we try to make a list of what do we have to have,
and I think that's what the sheriff's tried to do, what does he have
to have.
So I'm very uncomfortable saying, but we'd like to have the extra
and if extra money comes back we're going to spend it on that. I
thing that needs to be judged if and when it comes back.
The one discussion I would like to have is before we went to
public speakers, Commissioner Norris made a suggestion, you had said
you wanted to try to find a middle ground and Commissioner Norris made
the suggestion what if we have a middle ground of giving half of
what's found to the sheriff and half of what's found back to the
taxpayer, and I don't know that we ever finished that discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For me, I don't think $325,000 gets me close
enough to where I'm comfortable that the sheriff does have what he
needs based on the information I have and my gut feeling and what I've
looked at. I think it is much closer to $600,000. than 325,000 and I
think when we start looking at 50,000, 100,000, 150,000, yes, it's
valuable, but on the -- you know, I can see it now, you know,
negligible --I mean, you almost get -- it's amazing, you almost get
criticized for a negligible decrease. It's amazing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty thousand can feed a consultants
family of four for six months.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the number I came in with tonight was 550
to 600,000 because as I looked at the capital projects that I felt
that, you know, efficiencies in other areas, hopefully, would put in,
there's 600,000 total going to the year 2000 software. There is
$180,000 for relocation of bureaus. There's 266,000 for a personal
computer acquisition. Between all of that, I felt comfortable that
there was 250 to $300,000 of finds in there that if they had to wait a
year, we could live with that. So I was really at, 550 to $600,000
was the range I was looking at, not really 650.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, as you continue your deliberations
this evening, a $100,000 tax reduction in the general fund would
result in a $.51 tax decrease per $100,000 of taxable value to someone
out in the fields.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a hundred -- I'm -- what?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you reduce the ad valorem 100,000 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A hundred thousand --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- a person in a home with a taxable value of a
hundred thousand dollars would save $.51 from the trim notice.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other way to look at that is we're
spending a hundred thousand less tax dollars.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. Both very valid. Both important
to say. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We need to arrive at an amount then.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any additional speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None registered at this time.
Sheriff, is there anything else you'd like to add? Obviously, we
know where your desires are in funding. They lie at $835,000. We're
looking at somewhat less than that, at either 650 or less. I think I
understand your needs enough to say that 650 is your recommendation to
this board of what's available.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Three quick points?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And that does summarize my position pretty well.
I'd like to recognize Commissioner Constantine's points. I agree with
him in a sense that I'm not standing before you to try to find tax
dollars to spend. What we have tried to do this year as always, and
this is something that Aubrey Rogers lived by and I live by it as
well. That we don't provide you a budget hoping that we can hang on
to a few dollars below some exaggerated estimate of what our proposal
should be.
We don't come in with a budget of 55 million dollars hoping to
get 53. We say 55. It is through a process. We've already
eliminated the positions that we believe we can eliminate, and 78
percent -- 80 percent of our budget each year is position. We try to
estimate as best we can what our operating cost will be based on trend
information and, of course, that's subject to change as we go through
the year. I'm sure Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Smykowski can verify that.
So we've given you a budget that we think is reasonable, a
reasonable proposal and a look into the future based on what happened
to us for the last five years or so, and I would like to leave that in
the viewer's mind, that I haven't come with an exaggerated proposal.
It's what we really believe we need in order to do things next year,
as we should do, in order to meet the threat.
The other thing, just for reiteration, that the 650 brings us
much closer. One hundred eighty-five thousand dollars is what
separates us, and as I said, as I agreed with you, there's a capital
program in there that we've done the best we can to estimate what the
cost would be for those pieces of equipment that we believe we need in
order to go forward with the obligations already before us and,
finally, one final point of reiteration, and that is, we will work
with the Board of County Commissioners and any group that they
designate and any group that should come before us to keep our numbers
low.
We've already been reviewed by Ed Morton. Our budget's been
reviewed by Ed Morton, the Greater Naples Civic Association. We've
had a number of presentations. Jim Rideoutte has worked with us as
well. I know you know him. I know that you know that he's a numbers
person coming from the IRS.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That doesn't really add credibility there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- destroy Jim's reputation.
SHERIFF HUNTER: But, no, we feel we have a number that is a good
number for next year and we will work with the board to keep it as low
as possible in the ensuing year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think to wrap this thing up --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we each take a piece of paper and
write down --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And everyone put your name on it, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody put Tim's name on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know where we sit on this. I'm just gonna
make a suggestion based on the capital expenses and what I believe are
costs that are estimates that could be massaged. I'm coming up to a
number at 550,000 of the 650 available, to allocate that to the
sheriff's office budget. To use the balance of the 100,000 to reduce
the tax rate further, and I'll put that in the form of a motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you give some idea of what capital
projects and things that you're seeing could be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to continue to take the policy to
allow that to be the sheriff's decision. In my -- in what I'm looking
at, there are a total of $600,000 allocated in the year 2000 software.
I think there's some areas in the agency more critical than others
that software should be applied to or could be applied to first.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What that's number? Six hundred?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Six hundred thousand total from our fund 301
CIP and within the sheriff's budget and that's an estimate based on
what's going on out there. That can easily come in less than that.
It could come in more, but I'm hedging on less, as more and more
companies latch on to this.
Another area that I think could be reduced is the data and
telephone system upgrades. Some of those are immediate. Not all of
them. The total in that, we're looking at $245,000 within the
sheriff's budget, and in the capital, there's another couple two
hundred and forty thousand dollars, so a total of four hundred eighty.
Between those two alone, I would say those two are probably the
lesser critical in the CIP budget and that's the reason why I'm
comfortable going below the 650. Plus our productivity committee and
other assistance we can provide in attention to the reduction of
overtime dollars. You combine all that and I think we can get through
with $550,000 or close enough to not jeopardize any of the things that
I reviewed and deemed important.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski, what does that bring us to
for a total sheriff's budget, and I'll risk the wrath of my
compatriots by asking how does that differ from his initial request?
You see, I didn't call it a reduction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how does that differ from last
year's budget too, as long as we're doing numbers?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. All three good numbers.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It would be -- the tentative budget was
54,402,500, inclusive of the board paid items, that would increase to
54,952,500.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And his requested amount was?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Bear with me a moment, 54,402,500 plus --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's got a computer and he's using that
little hand-held calculator.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Fifty-six million six hundred fifty thousand
seven hundred.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At least he's not pulling out an abacus.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fifty-six, six seventy --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Six fifty, seven hundred was the original
request.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The original was fifty-six, seven?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Inclusive of the board paid, which is over a
million -- one million three, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we'd be at about 55, with Commissioner
Hanoook's --.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And those numbers do not include the fund 301
CIP numbers?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is also correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is another million.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This is just the sheriff's operational fund.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not that I'm trying to single the sheriff out.
There are other areas that get CIP funds, but I think it's important
to note that the taxpayers through ad valorem taxes have another
million and a half in that fund for capital improvement projects.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another -- a reduction would be the wrong
word, but the difference from the requested amount to the appropriated
amount of about a million seven less than requested?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. The previous direction was two,
two forty-eight, two hundred. We're adding back 550. You're just shy
of 1.7 million dollars from the sheriff's original request to where we
would end up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is how much higher than last
year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Three million, six forty-six, nine hundred.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One thing I've learned in my three years
on the board is when you can count to three, and it's as close as
you're getting to where you want to go, then, you know, I can't think
of any persuasive arguments to try to bring Commissioner Hancock
closer to the 7.8 percent. So I will second your motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Is there discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I can count to three.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all you're getting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
A 3-2 vote. Now, who would have thought of that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Never would of.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's at this point Mr. Smykowski's got some
tabulating and reading to do. Before getting to that, I think it's
very easy in this process to overlook the work that our office of
management and budget puts in, headed up by Mr. Smykowski. To
overlook the role of county administrator in really negotiating that
course, and Mr. Fernandez came on later in this budget cycle than I
think he would have liked, was schooled very, very quickly, picked up
on a lot of things and has been a tremendous asset, far more than I
expected in this process --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- due to the short time frame you've been on
the job, so congratulations and thank you for that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To Mr. Smykowski and everyone in the office of
management and budget, you guys are our saviors. You know, we come in
here, we throw questions at you that there's no way you reasonably
should be expected to answer and you do it. We greatly appreciate it.
All the time. All the effort. I know some of it's comp. time, but,
you know, they'll be some vacations coming up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take a cruise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We greatly appreciate it and I think this
community owes you a debt of gratitude for the professionalism
exhibited in this budget document each and every year.
congratulations again and thank you for all of your --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. I appreciate the comments, and also I
tend to be the one at the microphone at these items, but I'd like to
recognize the staff that is behind the scenes of the office and
management and budget. Phil Tindall, the senior budget analyst.
Sheila Leith, budget analyst two. Jean Gansel, Tom Kukulski, Gary
Vincent, and last but not least, Robin Bialkoski, who's not here,
who's the senior secretary who keeps us all organized and makes sure
all the page numbers work out right in that 500 page document we go
through every June and we have her to thank for a lot of improvements
to the process as well this year. So I'd like to thank them and
appreciate your comments.
In addition, I think we've made some inroads. I think we've made
a concerted effort to do our best to work with the constitutional
officers to work through budget issues as they come up and work with
the tax collector, with the clerk of courts to, you know, refine
numbers, and sometimes I -- and I have to apologize, sometimes it
seems like we always pull a rabbit out of our hat at the end, but we
always do our best to bring you the most current up-to-date
information so that you can make the best financial decisions
possible, and I think, again, we've made some inroads and that we are
all Collier County Government and need to work together.
I think the sheriff, I think to his credit and to Mr. Fernandez'
as well, we've sat down and had a number of meetings that I think will
help build our relationship in the future as well, and hopefully we'll
make things go even smoother in the future, and so we appreciate their
efforts and their willingness to sit down with us and work through
items that hopefully make this process a little better for all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And before going to the sheriff for the last
time, Mr. Smykowski mentioned to me before the meeting about how, you
know, the rabbit out of the hat always seems to be -- you know, the
paper loves that one. You know, surprise, surprise, there's more
money than there was. Six hundred fifty thousand out of 400 million?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not bad.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, that's incredible to dream that close.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, it's kind of a good surprise
to have money left over.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, it is. So we appreciate it and we
encourage you to continue on that course. Before getting to the
reading of the resolution, Mr. Hunter -- Sheriff Hunter, I assume you
had something, and then Mr. Fernandez.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I did -- I was a little bit remiss
when I began speaking. I would like to recommend that you commend
your county administrator or manager. What's your title?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Administrator.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Administrator.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would like to say that we have worked very
well with him. I found him to be very amenable to talking and to
assisting and to pointing out areas that might be of some concern to
you, that helped us focus our presentation a bit and I think in the
end was very valuable to the people of Collier County, and I commend
you for that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good job, and Mr. Smykowski, as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Sheriff. Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that I'd like
to express my thanks to Mr. Smykowski and his staff because they're
the ones that made me --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's just a lovefest.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, they're the ones that made me appear to be
as knowledgeable as I've been able to be in a very short time. I
really owe that to them and their ability to keep me briefed and keep
me informed, so my thanks to them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Noted and acknowledged.
Mr. Smykowski, let's proceed with the agenda and wrap this thing
up.
Item #3E
RESOLUTION 97-364 TO AMEND THE TENTATIVE BUDGETS
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Item 3(E), resolution to amend the
tentative budget, we need a motion on that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve that resolution.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Five-zero, carries.
Mr. Smykowski.
Item #3F
PUBLIC READING OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY LEVING HILLAGE, THE NAME OF THE
TAXING AUTHORITY, THE ROLLED-BACK RATE, THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE, AND
THE HILLAGE RATE TO BE LEVIED
HR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Item 3(F) is a public resolution -- public
reading of the taxing authority levying millage, the name of the
taxing authority, the rolled-back rate, percentage increase and the
millage rate to be levied, and here goes nothing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it goes like this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's amazing at this point we start losing
people, Hike, I don't know how that happens.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The state's done us a favor by at least not
making us read the resolution aloud anymore. That was the concession
they've made in the past.
Start off with the general fund. The proposed millage with the
$100,000 reduction is now 3.6813 mills. A two percent increase over
the rollback rate.
The pollution control fund, the rollback rate was 3.6074 in the
general fund. The pollution control fund, the rollback rate is .0474
mills. The proposed millage is .0452 mills. A decrease of 4.6
percent.
The countywide millage rate rollback is 3.6548. The proposed
millage rate is 3.7265. A two percent increase over the rollback
rate.
Road District One, fund 102, the rollback rate is .1305. The
proposed millage rate is .1950, 49.4 percent increase.
Road District Two, fund 103, rollback rate, .0708 mills.
Proposed millage rate, .1028. A percent increase, 45.2.
Road District Three, fund 104, the rollback millage rate, .3224.
The proposed millage rate is .3658, and the percent change is 13.5.
Road District Five, fund 106, rollback rate, .2219. Proposed
millage rate, .3016, 35.9 percent increase.
Unincorporated area, general fund 111, rollback rate .5480. The
proposed, millage .5721, 4.4 percent increase.
Golden Gate Community Center, fund 130, rollback millage rate,
.3074. The proposed millage, .3189. Percent increase, 3.7.
Marco Island beautification, fund 131, rollback rate, .1676. The
proposed millage, .1670. A decrease of four-tenths of one percent.
Naples Park drainage, fund 139, rollback rate is zero. The
proposed millage rate, .1551. That's a new levy.
Pine Ridge Industrial Park, fund 140, .1004 is the rollback rate.
No proposed levy. A decrease of 100 percent.
Victoria Park drainage, fund 134, rollback rate, .3640.
Proposed, .2421. A decrease of 33.5 percent.
Golden Gate Parkway beautification, fund 136, rollback rate,
.492. Proposed, .5. Increase, 1.6 percent.
Naples Production Park, fund 141, the rollback rate is zero. The
proposed millage rate, .0290 and that's N/A. That's a new levy.
Isle of Capri Fire, 144, rollback rate, .7841 mills. Proposed
millage rate, .7921. One percent increase over the rollback rate.
Ochopee Fire Control, fund 146, 2.6268 mills. Proposed, 2.6053.
Eight-tenths of one percent decrease.
Collier County Fire, fund 148, 2.0427 is the rollback millage
rate. Proposed millage rate is two. A decrease of 2.1 percent.
Radio Road beautification, fund 150, rollback rate is zero.
Proposed millage is a half a mill and thatws N/A as a new levy.
Sabal Palm Road MSTU, fund 151, 5.3594 mills is the rollback
rate, 5.4544 is the proposed rate. An increase of 1.8 percent.
Lely Golf Estates beautification, fund 152, rollback rate is
1.4597. Proposed millage rate is 1.5. An increase of 2.8 percent.
Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU, fund 154, rollback millage
rate is .1634. Proposed millage rate, .2236. A 36.8 percent
increase.
Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU, fund 155, rollback rate
is zero. Proposed millage rate, .2457, N/A.
Immokalee Beautification MSTU, fund 156, rollback rate, .9929.
Proposed millage rate, .9998. Percent increase, .7.
Parks GOB Debt Service, fund 206, the rollback rate is .0567.
Proposed millage is .0535. A decrease of 5.6 percent.
Marco Island Coastal Beach Renourishment, fund 207, rollback
rate, .6807. No proposed levy. A decrease of 100 percent.
Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue, fund 244, rollback rate is .2023
mills. Proposed millage is .2074. An increase of 2.5 percent.
Collier County lighting, fund 760, rollback rate, .2486.
Proposed millage rate, .2353. A decrease of 5.3 percent.
Naples Production Park street lighting, fund 770, rollback rate
is zero. Proposed millage is .0065, N/A.
Marco Island lighting, fund 775, is .0672, rollback rate,
proposed, .0564. A decrease of 16.1 percent.
Pelican Bay MSTUBU, fund 778, rollback millage rate, .2929 mills.
Proposed, .2768, a decrease of 5.5 percent.
That results in an aggregate millage rate rolled-back, 4.3496.
Proposed, 4.4857. An increase of 3.1 percent.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry, I was distracted. Could you
repeat that for me?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Every year somebody has to do that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, every year.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank God for the eliminating and consolidation
of the lighting districts. You used to have about fifty more to read.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That gets us through --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We need a motion '-
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the public reading.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- to approve the. Oh --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
Item #3G
RESOLUTION 97-365 SETTING MILLAGE RATES
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- I'm sorry. That gets us through Item 3(F).
Three (G) is adoption of a resolution.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we adopt a resolution setting the millage rates.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Oh, yeah, any discussion?
Item #3H
RESOLUTION 97-366 TO ADOPT THE FINAL BUDGET BY FUND
Next item is resolution to adopt the final budget by fund so that
for the next six months we don't have to hear about this again.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
adopt the resolution to adopt the final budget by fund.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is your motion inclusive of his
reason?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries five, zero.
Kids, we'll see you in about six or seven months from now to do
it all over again.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you very much.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:55 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S)
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIMOTHY HANCOCK,
CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
By: Sherrie B. Radin