Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/09/1998 B (Budget) TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 9, 1998 LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in BUDGET SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: NOT PRESENT: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the Wednesday, September 9th, 1998 budget hearing. If you'd please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For some of you, if you've not been here before, and if you wish to speak to any of the items that we're going to be talking about tonight, I would ask that out in the hallway there are forms for you to register, and if you will go sign up on those forms -- by this point, I'm sure you know why you're here and which item you wish to speak to. If you would go sign up with one of those forms and present that over here to Mr. Fernandez, and then he will call you in the order that he receives the forms. So that's just a reminder. If you have a form already filled out, why, just present it to him, that's fine. We'll give you a couple minutes here to take care of a few housekeeping chores. Okay, at this time we will start with Mr. Smykowski, if you will go through, I believe, some of the millage rates and so forth. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, good evening. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. The first order of business at the public hearing is the discussion of the attendant millage rates and increase over the rollback rates. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That is not going to be a good idea. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: We can't hear you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Is this any better? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. We have a mike problem. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're going to slide the table over. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is it on now, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: It sounds on. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This will work. We'll try again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that better now for you out there? Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: As I indicated, the first order of business is discussion of the proposed millage rates and the increase over the rollback rates. On page 2-A is a listing of the property tax rates as proposed. General fund is 3.5602, an increase of 1.6 percent over the rollback rate. Some of the principal things funded in the FY '99 budget include two additional EHS units, additional sheriffs' patrols, increased library and parks funding, and stormwater crews in accordance with the board's strategic plan. The water pollution control fund, the proposed millage rate is .0413, a decrease of four percent below the rollback rate. And that's a function of decreased reserves in the fund and additional reimbursement revenue being received. Road district one, there is no proposed millage. The board will recall, this was the district that was -- previously included the City of -- what is now the City of Marco Island boundaries. Once the City of Marco Island was excluded from this district, the decision was made to consolidate the balance of that district into fund 104. So there is no levy in 10 -- fund 102. In road district two, fund 103, the proposed millage is .1163, an increase of 18.9 percent above the rollback rate. There's $25,000 for street and drainage system improvements. And another principal expense increase is Bonita Beach landscaping, as well as a pro rata share of seven road and bridge employees that previously were devoted to service on Marco Island. Road district three, the proposed millage is .39, increase of 50 percent above the rollback rate. And there's a number of things here. Increased road resurfacing activities and land -- median landscaping on Davis Boulevard, phases one and two, as well as County Road 951. And again, a pro rata share of the seven staff members that previously provided road and bridge activities on Marco Island. Road district five, the proposed millage is .2195, a decrease of 23.3 percent. And due to available carryforward revenue, the corresponding ad valorem tax levy was offset. The unincorporated area general fund, the millage is .5887, which is actually a decrease of 13.1 percent. The principal function -- or cost increase there is additional enhanced efforts in the code enforcement area. The Golden Gate Community Center is levying a proposed millage of .2985, a decrease of seven-tenths of one percent. Principally there, an increase in carryforward revenue, as well as increase in tax -- a large increase in taxable value within the district, nine-and-a-half percent. Marco Island beautification, there is no proposed levy, as this HSTU was assumed by the City of Marco Island. Naples Park drainage, there's no levy required, so that's a decrease of 100 percent. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, the proposed levy is .1097. In fiscal year 1998 the budget was funded with available carryforward revenue and no tax levy was required; however, as that's a one-time revenue source, there is a proposed tax levy in fiscal year '99. Victoria Park drainage, the proposed millage is .1240, a decrease of 47.7 percent. And here the percentages are broad. Overall there's a decrease in the proposed tax levy of $2,000 due to available carryforward. Very small. Golden Gate Parkway, the proposed tax levy is one-half mill, 4.2 percent above the rollback rate. That's recommended by the advisory committee. They've traditionally levied the full one-half mill. Naples Production Park, proposed millage is .0372, 34.8 percent above the rollback rate. Decrease in available carryforward revenue. Requires a $1,900 increase in the tax levy. Again, the percentages are large. Overall we're talking about an additional $1,900 in ad valorem revenue. Isle of Capri Fire, the proposed millage is one mill, an increase of 36.2 percent over the rollback rate. And that was to fund 24-hour coverage to be implemented on January 1st. Ochopee Fire, the proposed levy is four mills, an increase of 58.3 percent over the rollback rate. And that's a function of the policy decision the board made during the budget workshops to decrease the general fund PILT subsidy to the Ochopee Fire Department to the extent possible. Collier County Fire, this is a change. The proposed millage is reflected as 1.7979 mills. And as the board will recall, once the City of Marco Island incorporated, Goodland -- the areas of Goodland and Horr's Island were excluded from the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Marco Island. As such, they were without fire protection. By ordinance they were rolled into the Collier County fire district, which has traditionally levied two mills. At that point in time the two mill levy generated approximately $93,000 in revenue, but we did not have a firm cost figure from the City of Marco Island for that contract for the fire protection. At this point we have a firm commitment from the City of $56,100. If we levied the full two mills, we would in essence generate $40,000 more than we needed to. So the game plan here is to reduce the millage in this current year to generate just the money that is currently needed to fund -- fund the budget as proposed, with the change noted for Goodland and Horr's Island, based on the contractual price. And staff has already begun work to establish a new MSTU, specifically for Goodland and Horr's Island for future years. That way we're -- in those areas we would only be levying the millage required to fund the contract with the City of Marco Island. So for the independent fire districts that also participate in the Collier County fire district this year, their -- the amount of their reimbursements received would not change. A year from now, we would anticipate increasing the millage back to two mills, again on the presumption that there would be a new MSTU created for Goodland, Horr's Island. Radio Road beautification, another beautification district. The advisory committee recommended the full half mill, an increase of 3.3 percent above the rollback rate. Sabal Palm Road, 4.5090. That's a decrease of 8.5 percent. Again, a wide swing, but overall, a $2,200 decrease in the proposed ad valorem levy. Lely Golf Estates beautification traditionally levies one and a half mills, pursuant to their advisory committee recommendation. An increase of 1.5 percent. Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU, the proposed millage is .1114, a decrease of 47 percent. Again, the case where there's available carryforward revenue offsetting the tax levy by $1,400. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage, there is no levy proposed in FY '99. Immokalee beautification, we levied one mill, traditionally. That's a decrease of one-tenth of one percent. Bayshore Avalon MSTU is a new levy, proposed at three mills. Parks GOB debt service, .0495 mills, a decrease of 2.9 percent. And that's a funding debt service on the bond issue which established the community parks within Collier County. The millage change is principally a function of the increase in taxable value within the boundaries of that district. Marco Island coastal beach renourishment, there is no proposed tax levy. That bond issue was paid off with proceeds of the tourist development tax, pursuant to board direction. Isle of Capri municipal rescue debt service, the proposed levy is .181, a decrease of 5.9 percent. The change in the millage is largely a decrease as a function of increased value within the district, and that's for the existing station debt within that district. Collier County lighting, the proposed levy is .1886, a decrease of 17.1 percent. That's a function of increased carryforward revenue being available, offsetting a portion of the tax levy. Naples Production Park street lighting, the proposed millage is .0060, a decrease of 3.2 percent. That's the same $1,300 that was levied in FY '98. Marco Island lighting, there is no proposed levy. Again, this is another MSTU that was assumed by the City of Marco Island upon their incorporation. Pelican Bay MSTU, 2.84 mills, a decrease of seven percent. This is approximately the same ad valorem as was levied in FY '98, but there was a large increase in property values within the Pelican Bay District. That concludes item 2-A. Moving on to 2-B, summary of changes to the tentative budget. I'll just outline them quickly. I'm on 2-B, page one. In a lot of cases, what we have done is move the pay plan adjustment, which had been budgeted in reserves. Now knowing where each of -- how much of that pay plan adjustment would be associated with each department, we've just taken the money from reserves and moved it to the appropriate departmental budgets. A slight change, we've rounded the tax levy. There were $6,600 natural resources grant that was approved by the board within the last two weeks. And that will affect the FY '99 budget. As an adjustment to the clerk, board paid expenses, as approved by the board. Final adjustment to the property appraiser payment in FY '99, required from the general fund. And you'll also recall, there was an increase in lifeguard hours approved by the board at Sugden Park. I believe that was just last week, so we've incorporated the change into next year's budget. The tax collector's budget, there is a large change, but that's simply a function of his budget being submitted August 1st, pursuant to state statute. In road and bridge, again, the pay plan just moved from reserves to the salary accounts. In the road MSTD 2, it just rounded the ad valorem tax levy $100. And community development fund, pay plan was moved from reserves to personal services. Pollution control fund, we rounded the ad valorem tax levy upward $700. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, a minor adjustment to the carryforward estimate, $1,300. Golden Gate beautification, rounded the tax levy $100. Isle of Capri Fire, the tax levy was increased to one mill to fund 24-hour coverage. Collier County Fire, again, that decrease is based on the actual cost of fire service to Horr's Island. So the millage as reflected is a change from what the board approved in July at two mills. The net change results in a millage of 1.7979 mills. The SHIP budgets, that was the pay plan adjustment, simply moving from reserves. Page two. Pursuant to the board's adopted budget policy in late August, early September, staff reevaluated the impact fee estimates based on what has actually been collected versus what had been projected when the budget was prepared back in March, those estimates are updated. In addition, there -- the magnitude of the changes is larger, simply a function of the type of which capital projects will actually be under contract by the end of the fiscal year to minimize the number of budget amendments that we do the first week in October. We simply revise our forecast to reflect projects that are simply not going to be under contract, and we in essence rebudget them in the upcoming fiscal year. I'm on page three. Again, same things for the water and sewer capital fund. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Smykowski -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- let's back up just a minute. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I understand you to say that the variation in those funds, dealing with capital projects, all we did is just basically move projects on the list from an out year to a current year? Is that what you're telling me? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, actually projects that when the budget was prepared in March and they said we think this road segment will be under contract by the end of fiscal year '98. If it has not yet been under contract, we assume it's not going to be under contract by September 30th, with only two more board meetings; therefore, we simply reduce the forecast expenditures in FY '98, which increases the COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In case you carry forward into the next year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and then you rebudget the project over again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand that. Somehow it lost me on the explanation the first time. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sorry if I was unclear. And that again is pursuant to board policy that that was a change adopted by the three-year -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought you were talking about something else, so you're fine. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Minor changes. Marco water/sewer pay plan, moving from reserves to personal services. Same thing in Goodland. Collier County lighting, we round the ad valorem levy to $100. Water and sewer capital, the principal changes were impact fee driven, and staff also reevaluated in certain cases which projects would be impact fee eligible versus not. So the funding for a project may have moved from an impact fee fund to a non-impact fee fund. Some of the water main relocations we, in reevaluating those, said that really is not growth related, so that has to be paid for with operating funds as opposed to impact fee revenues. 2-B, pages four through 41 are simply the resolutions which document all the changes that have taken place within the individual funds, as summarized. Essentially anything, any change from the tentative adopted budget, that's our starting point. If we moved $100 from reserves subsequent to that, we document same in these resolutions that I just summarized for you. We do have a wrap-up list of items on page 2-C. Item 2-C, page one. There are seven on the list, and actually there's also -- I'd like to add an eighth, a discussion of the current status of the GIS system within Collier County. But I'll start at the top of the list with item number one, the Isle of Capri 24-hour coverage. Again, one of the fire board members, when the board was adopting the proposed millages in July, had asked the board to consider increasing the millage, at which the board subsequently did from .7921 mills to one mill to give the fire board an opportunity to evaluate 24-hour coverage. Based on the way the number -- pardon? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to ask the chairman if this is going to be an appropriate time to discuss this particular item in depth. I know a lot of the people that you see out in the audience are here because of this. Do you want to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to run -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or do you want to run through this? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Should we go -- why don't we go through the list first and then we'll come back. I mean, it's not -- it's a very short list here. And then we'll go -- come back to this specific item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I also have some discussion on number five on the parks and rec. advisory board stuff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. That's fine. But let's go through the list. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Once we conclude this, we open the format -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, and then we'll go back -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and it will be time for public input. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- because at that time, it will be time for public comments or questions. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, the staff recommendation, based on evaluation of the numbers and the budget, it seemed fiscally prudent to phase that 24-hour coverage in on January 1st. Goodland/Horr's Island, I essentially covered that in my opening remarks. Again, that will be provided via contractual service with the City of Marco Island at a cost of $56,100. And based on that cost, the proposed millage and the backup reflects a change from two mills to 1.7979 mills. And I want the board to be clear that if they adopt the millages as contained in the backup, it would be at that 1.7979 mill levy, and you could not increase it back to two mills at your next hearing. Just so that is clear. The third item is a productivity committee review of the motor pool capital recovery program. That was an issue that was developed in the June -- that came out of the June budget workshops, and the follow-up recommendation was to have that reviewed by the productivity committee. A Mr. Vincent is the staff liaison to that committee that was evaluated by the committee, and the board received copies of that report. And the productivity assess -- productivity committee assessment of that issue was to maintain the current practice with no change. The forth item is the productivity committee report on the Department of Revenue, which was also a -- in essence a wrap-up item from the June budget workshops. There has been a draft report completed. The full committee is going to review that report on September 14th, the results of which would be available for your second public hearing on September 23rd. The fifth item here is -- was directed by the board, a -- the parks and rec. advisory board review of the City of Naples and Everglades City parks capital budget request. And there are three -- essentially three projects from the City of Naples and one from Everglades City. The projects are Beach Ends in the City of Naples, Naples Landing project for 60,000, City of Naples, The Edge Skate Park was 50,000. The Everglades City Skate Rink requested funding was 58,000. Through the budget process review in the workshops in June, the board had tentatively recommended $25,000 for Beach Ends, and the Naples Landing at 60,000, with no recommended funding for The Edge and Everglades City Skate Rink. With further direction and to bring those requests, since they kind of came outside the bounds of the budget process, to have those requests run through PARAB first to -- for an initial recommendation, and then be brought back to the board. The PARAB recommendation includes $25,000 for Beach Ends, a reduction in the Naples Landing, recommended funding from 60,000 to 25,000, which is a reduction of $35,000. The Edge Skate Park, the PARAB recommendation was zero funding, which was consistent with the board recommendation. The Everglades City Skate Rink was recommended for funding by PARAB at a $50,000 level. In essence, if the board were to consider adopting the PARAB budget recommendations here, the $35,000 reduction in the Naples Landing project could be applied toward the Everglades City Skate Rink, and an additional $15,000 difference would come from the parks capital budget reserves that are available. So that is something that will require a policy decision by the board. I don't know if you want to entertain that now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know what the desire of the board is. I don't know much of anything about the Everglades City Skate Rink project. It sounds to me like the bail-out of a private entrepreneur. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, for Collier County to run a skating rink, when the only one that commercially was viable in Collier County failed within the last year and a half or two, I initially would question the wisdom in throwing money at that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds questionable to me, too. I see Marla over there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, it's not that -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe Ms. Ramsey was present -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not -- it's a -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- at the PARAB discussion -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- some other things that it's used for. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- so she can give you the benefit of that meeting. MS. RAMSEY: Good evening, Marla Ramsey, director of parks and recreation. The Everglades City representation came to our PARAB in August with a list of improvements for the -- what is called a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know the building -- MS. RAMSEY: -- skate park, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's the old skating rink -- MS. RAMSEY: -- it's a community center. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- building down in Everglades City. I know the building. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. And what they were asking for is to redo the skating floor, to complete the storage area that's attached to it, put carpeting and wall up on the walls and along the floors to do some bumpers for the kids when they're skating. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Marla, who owns it? MS. RAMSEY: Who owns it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it privately owned? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. MS. RAMSEY: No, it's the city that owns that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the city. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The city owns it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. It's not a private -- MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- enterprise. MS. RAMSEY: The other two things were to improve the parking lot, which they had requested last year but was out of budget for that. And then also to renew or improve the roof of that facility. And after a long discussion on that -- and part of the discussion I think had to do with the fact that we run a camp, Collier County Parks and Recreation runs a camp in Everglades City every summer for the kids in that area, and we use that community center as that location. And I think that's part of why the recommendation of 50,000 came up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If I could just add a couple of words, only because I've been brought into the discussion regarding this particular facility. It's not only for the youngsters in Everglades City, which are probably, if you looked at numbers, relatively few. It's the outlying areas, Ochopee, and then to the north, the area up in that area, which is -- they come into Everglades City basically for, quote, entertainment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To town. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's it, they come to town. And that's the closest area where they have any kind of facilities other than driving in to the East Naples area, which is kind of a bit of a drive for them. So that's the situation. And as you well know, if you come across 41, you do have a bicycle path coming into Everglades City now, which they didn't have in the past. And the kids can ride a bike in there if they want to and get to this particular facility. But it is used -- believe it or not, they do have skating there. They use it for other recreational activities as well. Plus it's a kind of a community center affair, too. They do have a kitchen there. And other groups, Plantation Island for one, which is outside the City of Everglades, they do use that as a meeting hall and so forth. So -- and they wanted to put carpeting up, so when you come careening into the wall, you don't come head-on into wood or block or whatever the construction is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this -- is the funding that's proposed for this in the unincorporated general fund, or would it include the incorp -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's -- the parks capital 306 is funded by a transfer from the general fund, so it would be a county-wide -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, one of the things that we've done, for example, with the Immokalee pool and others, was that since there's just clearly -- I mean, what are the odds that somebody from the City of Naples is going to go out there? Immokalee pool was something we segregated, and others, I think, into the unincorporated fund, which is a little more fair than having the coast pay for it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, how would we then handle something like the improvements to The Edge? Would we say only the city has to pay for it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, because of the distance. Because of the distance -- and that should be in the fund where the city does pay. That should be included in that fund. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but they only pay a portion -- my concern about that is that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my precedence is the Immokalee pool. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, understood. But the Immokalee pool, if you look at the capital construction cost compared to $50,000, you're really -- I think you're talking apples and oranges. You know, you're talking about a hundred -- a few hundred thousand dollars into a project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point. That is a good point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I kind of look at -- when we're talking about if the common thread here is youth activities, I don't care where they're from. I don't care if they're from Immokalee, I don't care if they're from the city. On the youth advisory committee, we actually have had events in Immokalee where we've bused kids to Immokalee from the urban area, we've brought kids in from Immokalee for events. I mean, we've crossed those lines. And Everglades City has some unique things to offer. So if we're going to look at things on the youth activity side, I think we ought to look at it all in the same vein. Now, we start talking improvements to things that go beyond, you know, the kids in the community, then Commissioner Mac'Kie, with all of your electronic gadgetty down there -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I think you've got a point. My concern about the skate rink is I just don't feel like I know much of anything about it, other than what Marla's brought forward. And I guess my concern is what's the necessary time frame on this? Is it a do or die? Is it something that can be done piecemeal? In other words, is it an all or nothing commitment at this point? MS. RAMSEY: Well, one of the things that we talked about and the reason that it's not funded to its full amount was that the City of Everglades City thought that they could help with some of the construction of that, and so they were able to reduce $8,000 off of that by using volunteers to do some of the work. But things like the roof and the painting -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can't do half a roof, right? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. So, you know, when you added the bigger items up to it, it wasn't as big a savings as it probably could have been. We do use that facility, and it is not in good shape. It does leak and it definitely does need some repair. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here -- I guess here's where I'd like to go. On the general fund side, you know, we need to see our bottom line where we are. I'd like to see some of the improvements at The Edge actually -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- move forward. I'm surprised PARAB didn't recommend anything -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for that but 50,000 for a project that none of us had even -- pardon me, most of us hadn't heard of. So I guess I'd like to hold off on making those commitments until I have a better picture of the final end number, since this is general fund supported, predominantly. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Keep in mind this is your preliminary hearing. The final is the 23rd -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes, two weeks from tonight. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- two weeks. So you have the opportunity to maybe invite someone from Immokalee to come and talk to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everglades. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everglades City. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- I'm sorry, Everglades City. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And likewise, somebody from The Edge Skate Park, or whatever else. MR. FERNANDEZ: So you may -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think there's a project in here that's not worthwhile, but I need to know what our general fund, you know, situation is first. Because obviously if we've collected more than we anticipate, we'd like to give it back to the taxpayers. But, you know, if there are a couple of projects we can do in here, make a difference, great. I'd just like to put a hold on them until I know more about them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, we established, I think, that the facilities are owned by the City of Everglades, but do they also operate it, or is it a private operator? MS. RAMSEY: I don't believe I can answer that particular one. I thought that the city was operating it. I don't know of a concessionaire in there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would make a big difference in which way I would lean on funding it because -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The city does it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the city -- if the city operates it, that's one thing, but I can't see that we're going to subsidize a private operator. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And much like any other joint agreement we've had, like in the City of Naples on joint constructions, we want to make sure that county and city residents are treated equally, you know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for the duration of the project kind of thing, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, I'm Tom Olliff, the county's public services administrator. The facility in Everglades City is -- it distinguishes itself because it is, frankly, their only community center type building. And they came to us requesting funding because primarily it is the only location that we have to be able to run programs for residents throughout that area, whether they be city residents, or whether they be county residents. It is a city-owned, city-operated facility there that is in bad shape. And we run all of our after school programs or all of our summer programs out there. So that's our return that we get for our investment in that facility. Now, we'd be happy to try and provide you some pictures and things if that would help you understand what that facility is a little better. And I needed to at least explain to you a little bit about PARAB's thinking on The Edge. Because I think as a board you need to be aware of that issue that's there. You invested a large amount of money in a skate park. We hired a private concessionaire to run that, who is doing it as a business venture. And there was concern that putting money towards a -- frankly, a competing skate park draws revenue away from and business away from a very large investment that you've got. And I think they're running fairly thin there right now. And without a concessionaire to administer that, then you have to staff it yourself, and then you don't want to have to staff that skate facility. And I think the way it was originally envisioned was that the city facility was one for new learning skaters who when they got to a point that they were good enough, they would move over to what was, frankly, a much more challenging course out there. What was being proposed to be built at The Edge was, frankly, very much repetitious of what we have at East Naples, and it was the type of facilities, vert. ramps, for example, that were very, very large kinds of competitive pieces of equipment that communities twice our size usually don't have one of, and could a community of this size support two of them. So I think that was their thinking. I just wanted to at least relay that to you so that you'd have the benefit of that while you're making that decision. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I've said all along, I'm not sure about the half pipe, which I think was the major piece they were looking at, for the simple reason that you look at major metropolitan areas and they don't have a skate park, not one the quality of what we have at Sanctuary, and the reason is that you can't support that many of them. But I think The Edge has a niche, and I think we could participate in helping with that niche, you know, in a certain quality without competing with The Sanctuary. But, you know, again, those are the things that I think as we look at our next budget discussion, you know, if we can't do 50,000 and we can help them with 20,000, I think what you're going to see is the half pipe disappears and yet they do the other things and we get where we want to go. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And maybe in two weeks, if we're going to get information, we could get it about both projects. Whether it's presented by staff or by somebody from the two cities, that's not relevant to me, but I just would like to be able to get side-by-side information. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do appreciate Mr. Olliff's perspective, because he's right, any time we can get a private concessionaire to operate a project like that, we're getting the best of both worlds. When we have to take it over, the profit motivation gets lost and many times the administrative costs can just be too much to bear, so I don't think we want to harm that situation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm satisfied with the explanation on the Everglades Skate Park facility, and I don't have any objection to that. We might as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see the two side by side myself so we could decide -- plus what you said, Commissioner Hancock, about knowing what's our fiscal status before we decide how much money we have to give to parks -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- outside. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with you, Commissioner Norris, let's go ahead at this point and leave the skating -- the skate park in -- or I'm sorry, the skate rink -- Everglades City -- let's find a different name for that. Everglades City Community Center, and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Skating Palace. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's leave that in and see where we are in numbers anyway. Because I -- I don't think we're going to be able to fund The Edge fully -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or may not want to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what's that -- does that change anything on the bottom line? I mean, we were wanting to see our overall figures before we started spending more money than we have. Where are we getting that money from? MR. SMYKOWSKI: You have available reserves within the parks capital 306 that could -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what's the total amount of available reserves? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Olliff indicates 89,000. Let me just -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: $89,0007 COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But are we also indicating the commensurate cut in the Naples Landing project to $25,000? Because if not, we're talking about a $50,000 straight addition. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually, the reserves based on changes made is $226,400, based on the resolution tonight. If you took 50,000 of that, you're still at 175,000 in reserves, and you would still have the latitude to fund the other -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I'd like to do that too then. Let's do the Everglades project and then just get some more information in two weeks about whether or not we can afford to do anything on the City of Naples project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what should we do from a fairness standpoint to a vendor we have a contract with? That's a good point Mr. Olliff brought up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, what do -- what can we give to them that will help their current project and yet not be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Undercutting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in competition? Does that sound -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I want to hear in two weeks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If we can get that information back -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: So Everglades is funded, and the City of Naples will bring back additional information for the final hearing? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. That moves us to item six, the status of the $1,053,000 contract at the City of Marco Island for sheriff's road patrols. Again, as part of the budget policy, we talked about a different funding mechanism for sheriff's road patrols due to Marco Island no longer being a -- included in the unincorporated area general fund as a function of their incorporation. The budget proposal developed included a revenue source of $1,053,100 from a contract for sheriff's road patrol services with the City of Marco Island. To date, no agreement to make that payment to the county from the City of Marco Island has been reached. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a statement that they are not going to pay it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, actually. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Not to my knowledge. I don't know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait, we may be enlightened by -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- it later on. MR. FERNANDEZ: We just have -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure -- I didn't think we did, I just want to make sure we don't -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We just have no indication that they intend to make the payment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Or that they don't, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it in their budget? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They did budget the money, though; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that they have budgeted over a million dollars -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For some type of -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: For public safety. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- public safety, but what that represents is unclear. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Leave it in. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The seventh item was the City of Naples participation in the artificial reef program. Initially the budget had included $15,000 in general fund money, which the board removed during the budget workshops in June. The recommendation for follow-up at that point from the board was to evaluate the City of Naples' participation in the artificial reef program, as well as utilizing available boater improvements funds as an alternative source, rather than using general fund ad valorem dollars. Mr. Lorenz spoke with staff in the City of Naples regarding this issue, and they indicated that they felt that they were too far along in their budget process to entertain making a change at this point, but that Mr. Steiger would be working in conjunction with Mr. Lorenz to submit a proposal for this type of program in next year's budget request. From an internal staff review, we evaluated the availability of boater improvement funds, and have determined that funding would be available. So if the board were inclined to fund an artificial reef program, we could take that from boater improvement funds and not impact obviously your general fund picture. That is a policy decision the board would have to make. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I won't be here when that decision comes forward, but you may want to look at some projects or potential construction projects within the county that produce C and D material that you have to pay to haul off. If the money is there in boater improvement funds to do the artificial reef program, why pay to haul it to the dump? So I just want to ask Mr. Fernandez over the next 12 months if we have a construction project that's going to have C and D material that's suitable for an artificial reef. If boater improvement funds are there to fund it, let's look at using it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there a standard for that material that can be used? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There is. There's certain things that are excluded. Mr. Lorenz can give you the laundry list. But, you know, if you -- basically, you know, concrete and concrete pipe and those kind of things are perfect. They've even been known to stack steel girders in such a way that make fish houses. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's kind of a clean material, non-petroleum. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Bob's Engine Repair going out of business probably wouldn't be a good place to get material from. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bad idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Is the board inclined then to fund that $15,000, boater improvement fund? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: spend it on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to be clear. It's there, correct, whether -- You don't -- It's a question of what we're going to I don't think you want to make it a line item without having the material in hand or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need some advice, frankly. I mean, if there's a way -- if there's a way to get the program started with that amount of money, I'd like to see it started, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if we're going to make a budget amendment, we don't have to do that tonight, we can do it at any time, couldn't we? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. Again, you would not be affecting your millage -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't need to sit here and discuss that tonight. I mean, we've got other things to do rather than -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- talk about that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could we at least give staff direction that if we know 15,000 is going to be available in boater improvement funds, to ask Mr. Lorenz to look for a project that will allow us to build -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- an artificial reef with that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- those funds? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And matching funds in the supportive -- in county funds supporting projects help us to leverage grants in the state of -- it improves our competitiveness against other counties if we can show that there is a county match dedicated toward that source. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The last item I indicated would be added to the wrap-up list is where we stand with the county's development of a GIS system. In the June budget workshops, I have alluded to the fact that within the community development fund, which is building permit fee supported, and the utilities fund, which is primarily water and sewer user fee supported, a portion of the reserves within each of those respective funds were earmarked for the eventual development and purchase of a GIS system. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mike, would you mind just saying what that is for people who may not know what that stands for and might have a question what in the world we're talking about? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure, a geographic information system. It's a huge database of things like zoning information, water and sewer lines. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's all on the -- it's like maps come to the 20th century -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Multiple layers of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it's all on the computer. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- maps so you can -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where it has its real benefit is a lot of times one department to another, you have physical information, but you can't overlay or combine the two. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Through a GIS system, everything's entered on the same safe plane coordinate so that your water and sewer work is in the same coordinate as your planning work, and your planning work is in the same coordinate as -- so you can just overlay these things and get an immediate picture of what's out there, and it just -- it's a tremendous tool. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's a 20th century method that frankly we're almost to the 21st century. It's a shame that, you know, we don't have -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But the key is -- the key is, in my opinion, is twofold. And one is to make sure that the coordinate system you use is consistent from department to department, because this is where other counties have failed miserably in the past, and also that that coordinate system is compatible with what's being done in the rest of the state so you can submit information to the state and federal government on GIS -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So that ties in. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Those are the two main things in GIS that have cost other counties millions of dollars because they just did separate mapping systems that couldn't really be overlaid with any specificity. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see Mr. Coakley smiling in the back of the room, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, you had a question -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I just wanted -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or a statement? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- to add the fact that when I came here, this was one of the big surprises, that we didn't have a GIS system here, after experiences that I've had with it. I felt it should be a high priority in this year's budget, and that's why I wanted to make the statement at tonight's hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll also mention, Mr. Fernandez was asked to more or less cut corners in Alachua County on a GIS system by working with the University of Florida, and didn't quite get the product you wanted. And in the end they had to go back and basically rebuild their GIS and it cost them double what it would have had they done it the right way the first time. So he's got some tremendous experience in how not to do it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That's good to know. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Frankly, we're in the midst now of a consultant study toward, you know, what type of system it is we should be developing here in Collier County. That's a six-month effort. We're roughly a third of the way home there. We do have a preliminary report from the consultant, and frankly, that's the new information that we didn't have in the June workshops. And what we're asking for tonight is authorization to make a change in the budget funding from community development and utility reserves, a program manager to essentially shepherd the effort toward the development of the GIS system. Obviously, no matter if we want privatization to develop it, we're going to need someone in-house to kind of lead that effort on behalf of the county. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a full-time job? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: 'Til you have the system up and running. And really, even after you have it running, you're going to need a coordinator to maintain it. It's a constant effort. It's a dynamic process. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Will that be a position with NIT? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, so essentially we're seeking authorization from the board for $100,000. It would essentially fund that program manager position as of 10-1 this year to kind of lead us toward the development and eventual acquisition of a GIS system in Collier County. It was important to the county administrator. Again, this was an important initiative. And frankly, it needs staff resources to be devoted exclusively to this so that we don't end up with an Alachua County situation where you're spending the same dollar twice and we do it right and do it right the first time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I know it's never popular to add or expand county staff, but I just think it's worth it and it's a sense of security of not devising a system that doesn't provide the long-term needs that we have in this county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're definitely behind on this anyway, so I guess it makes sense. MR. FERNANDEZ: You need to do it right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I think we need to give it a strong vote of support to move ahead, and understanding that we have Mr. Coakley on staff and Mr. Fernandez that have had a lot of experience with something like this. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, the recommended funding source would be community development reserves, which are building permit fee funded, and utility reserves, which are user fee funded. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions from the board? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We would then incorporate that into the final budget. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the list of wrap-up items, and that would move us to the public comment and question section. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I would like -- I did receive one letter from a Mr. Ronald Joeckel who had received and spoke with me regarding his notice of proposed taxes. He was casting a vote for no tax increases and no budget changes. The budget office is typically the recipient also of the -- once the notice of proposed taxes go out in the mail in late August, we field a lot of the calls we receive -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not all of them, though, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, of those we've fielded, we've fielded 17, 14 were in regard to the Bayshore Avalon MSTU. Obviously that was a new tax this year on the bill at three mills. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That explains why your phone was busier than mine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will explain a lot of it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So that was obviously first and foremost the issue that was addressed. We had one question related to Lely beautification, Mr. Joeckel I spoke of in general regarding his tax bill, and one citizen had called regarding why the public hearing dates are in September when, you know, a lot of the population is not in town. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a perennial question. I'm sure Mr. Joeckel is going to be quite happy to know that his tax rate went down this year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe you can just find out where they are and tell them we'll bring it to them. Have one in Indiana, one in -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: I would like to introduce -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can arrange trips to all these places. Has nothing to do with the fiscal year and all those kinds of things. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the state made us do it is the answer. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, that brings us to the public comment section. Mr. Fernandez, I believe, has speaker forms. And again, you need to register to speak. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we could have people -- we'll call the first speaker and have the second one come up and take a seat in the front so we can kind of move this along. We have a timer. You'll have five minutes to make your case or make your statement, whatever, and then we'll go from there. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. First two speakers are Matt Crowder and Nancy DeVolder. Mr. Crowder? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the second speaker here? Oh. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, you knew her. I didn't know. Sorry. MR. CROWDER: Madam Chairman, members of the board, for the record, my name is Matt Crowder. I am a volunteer firefighter with the Isle of Capri Fire Department. I am president of the Isle of Capri Volunteer Firefighters' Association, and I am a member of the fire advisory board down there. Just briefly, for the sake of the record, as you know, the fire advisory board voted to approve the millage increase to the cap of one mill for the purpose of increasing our hours of coverage to 24 hours. I'd like to begin by thanking the board for its foresight in this regard. I think that personally speaking as an individual, I think the advisory board made the right decision. It was, I'll add, a unanimous vote on the part of the fire advisory board. And I will also add parenthetically that when you think about it, the ability to double our hours of coverage down in the Isle of Capri for an increase of .2 mills is a steal of a deal, one that in my personal opinion no responsible body could pass up. I believe that's the truth. I want also to say that it is never an easy decision when it comes to -- well, Commissioner Hancock, I think you put it best in your conversation in the context of the GIS. Voting to spend money is never a popular decision, and as an individual, I think it's fair to say that the fire advisory board considered this issue very carefully. There was a good bit of discourse and discussion and debate that took place over multiple advisory board meetings. This is not a decision that the fire advisory board took lightly, but I personally believe that it was indeed the right decision. You know, the fire advisory board is the body down in Isle of Capri that is appointed by Collier County to advise yourselves on issues regarding the affairs in the budget of the Isle of Capri Fire Department. And we really do feel answerable to the residents down there. We also want to be able to sleep at night. And really, that is our motivation. We are trying to make sure that we have made the best decisions and then the best thing that we can with the money that is available to us. That really is -- that really is where our motivations lie. Of course, there are a number of other people here today, as you know, from the Isles of Capri. They don't all share the same opinion on this subject, and many of them intend to speak to you this evening. But I will say this, they all have one thing in common: They all care enough about their community and enough about the process to come down there tonight and participate. And I think that I -- I commend each and every one of them for being here tonight. I also believe that if I understand the board's intentions correctly, the final chapter on the Isles of Capri Fire Department is probably not yet written. But even in that context, I think that this is an important -- an important move for the residents of the Isle of Capri, and again, I believe that in my heart of hearts, I believe that we have done the right thing. And to wrap up, I would just like to again thank the board for your decisions in this regard, and with that, I'll close, unless I can perhaps entertain any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Crowder, if you would refresh me, please. It seems to me that I recall that the board -- before you got on there, the board was constituted before they actually developed the budget, and that prior board did not recommend to go to the full one mill for operations; is that correct? MR. CROWDER: That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was only after you and a couple other new people got on the board that that was changed? MR. CROWDER: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the board prior to you being on the board is the one who actually developed the original budget; is that correct? MR. CROWDER: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just wanted to refresh myself. MR. CROWDER: No further questions? Thank you again very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Nancy DeVolder and then Darrell Beck. MS. DeVOLDER: Good evening, commissioners, Madam Chairman, my name is Nancy DeVolder and I'm the president of the Isles of Capri Civic Association. I've just arrived in town, and because of that I won't be speaking tonight, but our vice president, Dartell Beck, will address the board tonight about the tax increase. I just wanted to introduce myself. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is George Carse. MR. BECK: I promise not to use the four minutes that she didn't use. Madam Chairman and board, I need you to think about just three thoughts -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your name, please? MR. BECK: My name is Dartell Beck. I'm the vice president of the civic association with the Isle of Capri. And our board has integrity, accountability and credibility to worry with, and that's my main concern tonight. I'm asking you to deny the request for the raise and leave the millage as it is, .79 for operational and .21 for debt service. I do not intend to approach the issue because we the citizens of our community are pretty much uninformed. And we made a struggle, I think, over the last year or so to inform ourselves, and during the change of the board and difference of opinions of the board and the millage confusion, we had a difficult time convincing all of our people where we were, where we were going. And the fact remains that they were promised no action would be taken until November when they could come back and have an opportunity to see the whole problem, understand the problem and then take a position. Now, ironically, the .21 mills to service the debt will retire next year. We have a lot of homework to do, assuming this project is as important as a lot of people think it is. And I might parallel their thoughts. We have maybe a year to convince the issue and still not have a millage raise. So I encourage you not to raise it. I think the people from the Isles of Capri are concerned about their rights, concerned about their safety and are satisfied with the way it is. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is George Carse and then Jeri Crowder. MR. CARSE: Commissioner, my name is George Carse. Iwm a resident of the Isles of Capri for the past 11 years and a member of the Isles of Capri Civic Association, past member of their board, and a current member of the -- Iwve forgotten the name of it. Itws CERT, C-E-R-T, the emergency response team that you folks have endorsed through the offices of Gary Arnold. And the first team has just been concluded down at the Isles of Capri. Commissioners, I -- Iwve come here tonight because I think the issue is extremely important. The subject of the fire department has never gotten so much attention in the past 100 years as it has in the past year at the Isles of Capri. I donwt look upon it as one in which the dollars are the most significant item, because we already know that the dollars stay within the cap of one mill, which was approved by the residents of the Isles of Capri some years ago. Having said that, itws important to know wewre talking about health and wewre talking about safety. And I do know that therews no higher priority that you folks give to a subject than health and public safety. I donlt know how you make those decisions. They must be difficult. At least in this case we have a little bit of a plus in that we do have a fire advisory board that was in operation a year ago, and that board, as a matter of fact, endorsed a program that would have put just what welre proposing tonight into effect. There would have been a fire department with three full-time men covering the fire department 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The difference is it would have been through another fire district, and that didnlt work out. But that board did endorse it. And then as we just heard from our chairman, Matt Crowder, a new board is now in operation. And this is the same board that you have appointed, the board that you turn to when you need advice. Well, they have given it advisory (sic.) And what they have said is, is that the district, which begins at Fiddlerls Creek -- we tend to forget that, so you must certainly forget it -- starts in Fiddlerls Creek, which is now building, goes down through Mainsail Drive and then comes down to the Isles of Capri. That -- the time has come to, yes, go to 24 hours, man that firehouse seven days a week so that the health and the safety of the residents in the fire district are protected. Now, aside from that you might turn to your staff. And again, the whole thing becomes unanimous. The staff has recommended that we do the same thing, that we go the route of manning the firehouse 24 hours a day. And this becomes, I would think, very compelling. I hope it is to you, because we think itls the thing to do at this time. The nice part is that if another idea is proposed and adopted a year from now, or whenever, this won't interfere with it. This can still be a viable way to go and we can still go with another fire district or with an independent place. This won't interfere at all. But we will have coverage for the people who depend upon us. I can assure you, in my years down there, the people are very proud of the fire department at the Isles of Capri, and they're proud of their chief and, more importantly, they rely on the chief and they rely upon the fire advisory board to protect them, because they really don't know. They don't know what they need. They believe -- they depend upon the chief and the fire advisory board and eventually yourselves to give them what they need. I hope you'll follow what your advisors have advised you to do and I urge you to do so. Thanks much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Carse? MR. CARSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You mentioned in your remarks that it was very important to stay at one mill. You understand that this proposal before us today is to break that long-standing commitment to the citizens and go over the one mill cap? MR. CARSE: I don't believe it's going over the one mill cap. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're mistaken. It is. And that's the proposal. MR. CARSE: Well, I don't believe it is. I think you're wrong, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you saying that it's one mill operational and .21 still goes to debt service? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the actual millage is 1.217 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. But we have always, even throughout the life of the debt service of this building, we have kept the commitment of the county to the citizens of the Isle of Capri Fire District by reducing from one mill the debt service -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- out of the one mill cap. Even though a separate ordinance was enacted to allow us to go over that, we have always kept the commitment to the citizens to stay at one mill total with operations and capital. MR. CARSE: That's a very good point, Commissioner. I think that -- just for the benefit of everyone, it should be understood that the -- operationally the cost will stay under one mill. And when this was voted upon, that's what was being spoken of was operation of the fire department. The capital improvement is one that was a separate and distinct issue that came up later on. Now, more importantly, a year ago, a year ago when -- and I guess we could say, Commissioner, that you endorsed the proposal to go with the other fire district. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. But Mr. Carson (sic.), I'll remind you that that was -- that proposal was to stay within the one mill cap. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the debt service -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This proposal is not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is an important point for me, because when the fire station was built down there, and the debt service was applied, it was done in a form, as I understand it, that gave the residents the confidence that they would not pay over 1.0 mill cumulative -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in building that station. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was that capital -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and operating together? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I had forgotten this. We discussed this in the last year as this came up when we were talking about the East Naples proposal. And that's where I got a little history on Isle of Capri. But when they were building that station, the question of how big, how much and whatnot and what capital to purchase was all a part of that decision to keep it under 1.0 mill. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Including the debt service? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think there really is some confusion, because I know that I've had some conversations, and a lot of the people are saying the very same thing that Mr. Carse is saying, and I don't believe you and I have spoken -- MR. CARSE: No, we haven't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that they understood that the operating Was -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I heard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to stay under the one mill. And they realized the debt service was kind of another form over here, is it .23? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: .21. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: .21. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: .217 COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this year it's down a little bit. It CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- will be less than that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was about .21 last year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But that was -- and I was new at -- I'm new, obviously, the newest member of the board at this point. And so what we had talked about, and I had also checked with and gotten other information, that that's -- that was kind of the understanding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was the point I got. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think there's a distinction here between the legal cap and the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The commitment. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and the commitment that the board may have made. The cap -- normally when we refer to a cap, we talk about the limits, the legal limit of a taxing capacity. That's what the cap stands for. And in this case, there's a cap of one mill for operating purposes -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and .3 mills -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- for capital purposes. Two separate caps. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MR. FERNANDEZ: And this budget proposal takes the entire operating millage capacity of one mill. MR. CARSE: That's right. MR. FERNANDEZ: So it stays within the legal cap. Mr. Norris' point is that there is a commitment that was made prior to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately the majority of my communication has been that we would never pay more than one mill in Isles of Capri is what people are telling me, so I've heard the opposite of what you've heard, Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I've heard what Commissioner Berry's heard, so isn't that odd? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So are certain groups only contacting certain people up here? MR. CARSE: If I might, I said in the beginning that the -- if we put this down to the dollars, you and we and all of our friends are going to stay in a lot of confusion. But if we bring it back to health and safety, I can't find anyone who disagrees with this issue, and it was one that was endorsed -- it was endorsed by everyone, including our commissioner last year -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now Mr. Carson (sic) -- MR. CARSE: -- when -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Carson, now -- MR. CARSE: Excuse me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- don't misrepresent my position. That is not what I endorsed last year. MR. CARSE: All right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I endorsed -- I endorsed -- MR. CARSE: Let me finish. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm not going to let you finish if you're going to not represent what I said in a truthful manner. I'm going to interrupt you and correct you if you're going to try to do that, because that is not what I endorsed. What I endorsed was for the Isle of Capri Fire District to examine looking at the proposal by the East Naples Fire Department to give full professional fire service to the Isle of Capri Fire District and stay within the one mill cap, including debt service. That's what I agreed to do, not this proposal. MR. CARSE: Okay, then, I misunderstood the Commissioner at the meeting I attended. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Carse? MR. CARSE: At any rate -- at any rate, in the Isles of Capri, we were only a small percentage of the county. So we've outlived our time here, and I do urge you to approve what's been recommended. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so I understand -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jeri Crowder, and then Alfred Luckerbauer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: go to 1.21 mills -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the decision tonight is to whether to Actually, 1.18. 1.18 -- Yeah. -- cumulative -- Yeah. -- or stay at .79 and retire the debt service in a year. Okay. MS. CROWDER: Madam Chairman and the rest of the board, for the record, my name is Jeri Crowder, an Isles of Capri annual resident, property owner and taxpayer. You've all received phone calls from me in the last two weeks, so -- I have tried to contact all of you. I'm here today to ask that the Board of Collier County Commissioners approve the proposed Isle of Capri Fire District millage increase to its one mill cap, as established by the ordinance 78-49 in 1978. As I understood it and from what I saw on the video, the Board of Commissioners on July 28th unanimously approved inclusion of this increase in our budget pending subsequent approval by the Isles of Capri fire advisory board and decided they would red flag it for discussion at the budget hearings. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's right now. MR. CROWDER: Thank you. It was agreed that it would be prudent to raise the millage now because it was not -- because if it was not done now, it would have to wait until the next budget year, and that a budget amendment might be avoided. This millage increase was unanimously approved by the fire advisory board at its August meeting. I would like you to note that although the previous fire board did in fact during their budget meetings not do this, every one of those are still fire advisory board members except for one, who participated in creating the budget. My husband's the only new one on there. The other three created the budget and they subsequently decided to approve this unanimously. The decision was made at a publicly noticed, advertised meeting after much discussion. It was not a decision made lightly, nor easily. The fire advisory board had been presented with additional information clarifying our millage structure. There had been a great deal of confusion, and they were -- they sought and got clarification. Although they would have liked additional time to consider it and asked for additional time in the fire advisory board meeting, unfortunately they were faced with a deadline in which they had to act. Since that meeting, a concern has been expressed by some that this increase was done behind the backs of the seasonal residents, and the decisions concerning this increase should be postponed until those residents return. It's been said that this increase is contrary to what was promised to the residents, specifically an opportunity to attend public meetings this coming season, meetings at which information would be presented regarding our options with regard to the Isles of Capri Fire District. To those people I would say you're turning two separate issues into one. Issue number one, what to do with our fire department. In the coming season, as was decided by this board, and was discussed publicly in March, there will be a series of public meetings where the residents of the fire district will be presented with information and options and where they'll have an opportunity to share the information and options they themselves have acquired. Those meetings, along with some sort of vote or ballot, at our expense, we understand that, will ultimately help you, the board, determine the fate of our fire department. Nothing's changed. The meetings are going to be held. We know that that's going to happen. We -- we know they're going to honor that commitment. Everyone's going to have an opportunity to share their information and see the information presented by the county. Issue number two, what does the fire department do in the meantime? Until a decision is made regarding the fate of our fire department, we still have a fire department that needs to be run. The fire department and the members of the fire advisory board, since November and since all the ruckus, listened to those people who voiced concerns about adequate coverage, and now they can address those concerns if this increase is approved. Asking for a delay in this increase until the seasonal residents return is unreasonable. The budget process takes place in the summer. It takes place every summer year after year. If each budget then has to be approved by the seasonal residents when they return, you will always be running one year behind. It's just not practical. I remind you, this decision is not like the decision made by the previous fire advisory board last year, a decision which would have given away our fire department based on a proposal that contains serious flaws in format, staffing and funding; a proposal provided by a vendor for which no proper request for proposal had been prepared. This is not a decision regarding the fate of our department, this is simply a decision that affects the operation of this department for the coming budget year. We currently pay .79 mill for operations, we currently pay .21 mill for debt service on the station. We currently pay 1. mill total. .21 mill for debt service is paid off in 1999. If we increase to our one mill operational cap, yes, we will be paying 1.21 mill, 1.18 according to the new figures, for one year. The fire station is paid off next year. Then we'll be right back to paying our 1. mill total. Although a truly -- not a truly representative sampling was done at an opening meeting in March at which 35 residents or so attended, an informal straw vote was taken. The question was, would you be willing to pay more for better service? With the exception of about five votes, the answer was yes. Keep in mind, as Commissioner Hancock clarified in the July meeting -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. MS. CROWDER: -- in a year where property owners will see an increase in road and bridge, school taxes, remember that the homesteaders are going to see a three percent decrease. In summary, this is two issues, not one. The decision to increase the millage to the cap in no way affects the ability of the residents to participate in determining the fate of their fire department. It is an increase of .21 mill for one year. Unlike proposals from other fire departments, it's guaranteed. We cannot exceed the one mill cap without a formal vote or referendum. There can be no surprises after just one year. It's a decision that has to be made now. It can't wait until next year. This is one taxpayer who will happily be paying her taxes on time this year. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I need to correct you on one thing there. It does not require a vote or referendum to increase the one mill cap. That's been established by ordinance, and this board can do it unilaterally. MS. CROWDER: Okay. So there could be a surprise from you all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't be the first time. MS. CROWDER: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, while the next speaker is coming up, if everybody here that's -- resides within the Isle of Capri fire district but lives outside of the Isle of Capri proper, would you please raise your hand? One, two -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My God, who's watching your houses? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's one of the problems that we always have in discussing this district is we never hear from anybody but the people that are right on the Isle of Capri. And -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: people who -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: don't live -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what's the percentage, John, of Outside. -- live in Isle of Capri versus those who It's a substantial number. I'm not sure what the exact percent is, but it is substantial. I think more are on the Isle of Capri than are off. But still, you have Marco Shores and a small portion of Fiddler's Creek -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You got potential -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- within this district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you got some potential Fiddler's Creek residents, but not so much current. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know the actually numbers there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, John, we have these meetings at night for a reason, so that more people can attend. And if they aren't concerned enough to be here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, I -- I understand your point, but I'm just saying that for a day meeting that's very, very valid. But for an evening meeting where most people can attend -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, my point is that the local information network on the Isle of Capri never gets over to the Marco Shores area, so those people don't know that there's something going on over there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to -- because I'm getting confused with all the discussion. What we're talking about here is whether or not we're going to approve the recommendation, the unanimous recommendation, of the advisory board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The unanimous recommendation of the advisory board is 1.18 total combined millage? MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The current millage reflects 1.18, as well. Because had you not increased -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- it to 1 mill in July, you would not be having this discussion tonight. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't understand -- I mean, of course it's a public forum and of course everybody gets their chance to talk as many times as we have public meetings, but when we have already had 9,000 meetings on this, and when the advisory board has already made their unanimous recommendation, I hope that everybody who is here tonight was also there to let their advisory board know what they wanted done. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm beginning to wonder if there wasn't confusion between the two issues about the November meetings -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that we had spoken about that would be informational meetings to the residents to determine their future, as compared to this millage for this 24-hour coverage. And I'm thinking, by listening to people, it sounds like they're getting all interwoven together here and there's some confusion. Perhaps. Maybe not. Maybe everybody's very clear about what they're listening to tonight. But we distinctly have two separate issues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're still going to have your November meetings, or whenever that comes up, to determine your future. This happens to be for this year -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- starting in October, what's going to happen until next October. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can't do nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And there's been a desire -- because I believe people came in front of us and desired this because of the road -- isn't there -- the construction supposed to start on 9517 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, next month. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And they were concerned about having coverage, 24-hour coverage down there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we had -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Am I dreaming this or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, this -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- did we not have that discussion? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was wondering if there was some other -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think one of the things that initiated this is until we heard about, we found out EMS was posting a person down there on the hours there was no coverage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the fact that that wasn't being done for other communities wasn't fair for Isle of Capri. So I think that's what stimulated the discussion on the advisory board of look, if that person's not going to be here, do we need somebody here. And to put it in perspective, we spent more time on the Isle of Capri Fire in the last 12 months than we did this budget. And we're really talking about $1,800 versus $1,000 valuation here tonight for one year. So not to say that that's not worth talking about, but as we listen to everyone, that's what it's come down to me, is we're talking tonight about $18 for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the next 12 months. But the bigger question that you brought up, Mr. Norris, is the total millage that someone on Isle of Capri could pay under current ordinance actually is 1.3. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your maximum debt service and your maximum on operational. And that's the part of the confusion I -- because people who talked to me said we were capped at one mill and I was operating on that. That was incorrect, apparently. But some people are operating under that still because of the history. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Alfred Luckerbauer and Pete Kocik. MR. LUCKERBAUER: Alfred Luckerbauer, resident of Isle of Capri, taxpayer. And Madam Chairman and commissioners, I would like to spend the next five minutes to clear up all these questions. Because I think some of the confusion is created by Mr. Norris. Mr. Norris, you make statements that are absolutely not true. you know this? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: to -- MR. LUCKERBAUER: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: MR. LUCKERBAUER: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: MR. LUCKERBAUER: Do Mr. Luckerbauer, we're really -- I don't want I like -- -- get into -- -- I like to -- -- this discussion. -- bring it, and it can be verified any time. Number one, we have one operational millage, and the second one was to building the firehouse, because we had no impact fees. And that was my understanding is why we had this extra ordinance for -- which is .8 to build a firehouse, which is only for one more year, and then it's gone. If -- from the old proposal going with this other district I found on Friday through the budget office, a millage of 1.5. This was like the old proposal from last year where all this confusion started. Going on the information -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What are you talking about? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't under -- MR. LUCKERBAUER: East Naples. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you're not in East Naples Fire District. MR. LUCKERBAUER: I know, but this was the proposal what you more or less -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: East Naples has been at one and a half for many years. MR. LUCKERBAUER: Is 1.5. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I know that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'm not -- I don't think we need to sit here and listen to the East Naples proposal issue. That's not before us -- MR. LUCKERBAUER: It's on the confus -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I don't want to confuse this issue and confuse people here that this is under consideration tonight, because this is not what this is about. Mr. Luckerbauer, the whole thing is about whether we go ahead and do this 24-hour coverage. That's it, pure and simple. MR. LUCKERBAUER: That's fine. And that's why I also like -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I don't want anybody watching on television that thinks that they're going to pick up on part of this conversation and think that tonight we're considering, you know, joining forces with another fire department. That isn't the case. MR. LUCKERBAUER: No, you're absolutely right. I just want to clarify -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. LUCKERBAUER: -- from a resident and full-time resident how this confusion gets started on an ongoing basing (sic.) by having conversation between Mr. Norris and the civic association, which are not based on facts. Because it's always rumors and some numbers pulled out from a hat which are not the facts. When I got my proposed tax bill, I was very happy to see the taxes are going down in the county, and then I didn't know whether fire was included, so I went to the budget office and got the numbers. The major increase is the road, the district three road, which is like a 50 percent increase. On the other hand, electricity, lights go down. So as a final note, I'm not payin9 more. And I'm very, very happy. And I know there are many people on the island. And also last year, the civic association did not take the effort to inform the people -- on not one single meeting was the Isle of Capri fire issue addressed. I wanted to address it once, I was asked (sic.) no. It was on a separate agenda. It was crossed out. So I think, Mr. Norris, you're not getting your information correct if you try to get it from the Isle of Capri Civic Association, because all that they represent is four or five people. And they claim to have a high membership, but I went out door to door collecting 300 signatures last winter. And I'm willing to do it again to get it to the truth, and I'm believing in a good democratic process, which should be based on facts. And I would like to ask you, please hold up what the staff recommendation is. The millage was one, and probably everybody will be happy on the island. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mr. Pete Kocik, and then Kiv Kiviranna. MR. KOCIK: Good afternoon, commissioners, Pete Kocik for the record. And I'll try and keep this under five. Today is an important opportunity to literally double our fire protection for a fraction of our millage cap. It is my belief that every community wishes to have optimum fire protection available to them. There are some speakers here representing some of the civic association board, requesting to postpone this opportunity for another year because they feel that the community has not been properly informed. I attended a civic association board meeting last night, and it was obvious that there are board members who are not well informed, that do not have many of the facts regarding this opportunity. The majority of the board members have chosen not to attend fire advisory board meetings on a regular basis, and other pro -- other than the proponents of this proposal. As far back as November, I attempted to bring hard verifiable information from the county to the attention of the civic association and their residents. I was prevented from doing so by Ms. DeVolder and the civic association board, as they stated the board was taking a neutral stand, and that all fire issues should be addressed at the fire advisory board meetings. Now at the llth hour, they're asking to delay for a full year a decision which would result in 24-hour coverage for the residents of our district. Clearly, they are no longer neutral. In the past, the previous fire advisory board has been faulted for not advertising the meetings, thus not giving the residents the opportunity to be a part of all major decisions. Since December, all fire advisory board meetings have been regularly noticed at the fire station. The true extent of our millage structure became apparent as far back as February, when Chief Flagg presented it to then board chairman Ed Huegel, Phil Popovici and other board members. This discovery was made as a result of inquiries into East Naples' contract proposal to the Isles of Capri, perhaps one of the good things that came out of the proposal. Since then it has been brought before the County Commissioners in March by Chief Flagg at a regular meeting in June. Then fire advisory board chairman Phil Popovici was notified in writing of the additional millage opportunity. In June at a budget workshop I presented to Collier County Commissioners documentation that the fire advisory board recommended 24-hour coverage. At that time, Mr. Smykowski stated, quote, we could actually place the money into personnel services out of reserves. There are more than adequate reserves in the funds. They need only $7,000 as five percent of what's currently budgeted. Mr. Smykowski went on to say, quote, so there would be more than adequate reserves remaining. To delay this for another season when monies are available at present would be a disservice to the district. To say the fire advisory board should not make a valid informed decision, while northern residents are not on the island, is comparable to asking you not to make decisions while county residents are up north. And I ask you to pass this budget. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Kiv Kiviranna, and then William Crean. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many do we have, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have I think about eight more. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eight more. MR. KIVIRANNA: Madam Chairwoman, commissioners, my name is Kiv Kiviranna, I'm a permanent resident at Port of the Islands. I've been there about six months. My first meeting, probably not my last. I don't want to talk about the Isle of Capri Fire Department. I'd like to talk about the Ochopee Fire Department. The single question I really have, I'm just looking for some enlightenment from the board or whatever, is when I received my notice of proposed taxes, there was about a 50 percent increase for the MST unit for down there, and I couldn't find any justification of it. The phone calls I made really didn't give me any information I sought. When Mr. Smykowski talked earlier, he said that the board had made a previous decision about withdrawing some funds from that particular fire district or whatever, so since this is the single largest increase on the proposed budget from a percentage in dollars standpoint, I was just looking for what am I, you know, getting -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to know what the funds were? Okay. MR. KIVIRANNA: Yeah, what the funds are for and why the large increase and -- you know, so I can tell my neighbors, some of who I've talked to out there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. Who wants to explain about the PILT funds and what that means? PILT is -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- payment in lieu of taxes on land. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll be glad to take a stab at it. It really came from a discussion the board had talking about the fire districts and how the fire districts should not be subsidized by other county funds. You gave the staff policy direction to ensure that that was the case. Really, the focus at that time was the Isle of Capri budget and the reference earlier to the EMS subsidy or the EMS support of that fund. The payment in lieu of taxes is something we discovered in our analysis of the budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is PILT, P-I-L -- MR. FERNANDEZ: P-I-L-T is payment in lieu of taxes. That is revenue received from the federal government because of the fact that the federal government owns property and, therefore, because of their ownership, we do not receive any tax revenue from that federally owned property. Therefore, they pay us a payment in lieu of, in place of, the taxes that we would otherwise be receiving. That's a county-wide revenue. And historically that revenue has been going entirely to the Ochopee Fire District. In keeping with the board's policy of not subsidizing the fire district, it was my decision to withdraw the support from the payment in lieu of taxes to that fund. We found that we couldn't entirely withdraw it all, because it would have sent the millage beyond the millage cap. So at the time we proposed the budget to you, we limited it to the millage cap with the subsidy still being -- making up the difference between the funding that was provided through the millage and the necessary fundings to support the entire budget. So as we stand now, the millage was increased in order to make up for the payment in lieu of taxes that was withheld from the district and sent to the county's general fund, where it should be. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And there was some -- some of those funds, though, we left -- how much was it? Was it 70,0007 MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it's much more than that. We left more than half of it still -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We left more -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- in -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- this district. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We left more than half of the PILT funds. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, wasn't it true that some of that property in question actually lies within the Ochopee district, though, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think all of it does. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All of it does. MR. FERNANDEZ: But it's also -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But otherwise it's a general fund revenue. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- a county-wide revenue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a general fund revenue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We left $285,500. A year ago, the Ochopee Fire District, through the PILT payment, it was $357,800, so a difference of 72,000 -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's where the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- 300 dollars. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- seven came in. There was a difference. In other words -- okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: So there -- 70 is the amount -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I stand corrected on that. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- of the reduction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And there's over $250,000 that is put in there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a subsidy. MR. FERNANDEZ: As a subsidy. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As a subsidy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From the general fund. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my question is, is there going to be a way -- you know, is there a plan to phase that out? Because we can't keep doing that. I mean, that's -- that's your challenge for the future. I don't know what -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The choices are to change the limit -- the millage cap and go higher with the millage, or to cut that budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we took an important first step in at least recognizing that we cannot take a general county-wide fund and apply it solely to one community. That's simply not fair to the other 200,000 people in the county. But I think we do have to have, you know, some recognition that Ochopee has some very unique requirements in the brush fire area -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the type of equipment and whatnot. And as we saw in the fires over the last 12 to 18 months, that can have a very real effect on the rest of the community. So I think a near balance is about as good as we're going to get in that arena, and we're probably fairly close to it now. So I don't think we're ever going to get dollar for dollar, because you'd have to say what's the pro rata share of each tax dollar, were ad valorem taxes paid on these properties that go to Ochopee Fire? You know, I don't think we're ever going to get there. But I think the recognition that as that area does grow, that the levied taxes, property taxes in that area, should assume as much of that as possible and reduce the PILT funds going there is probably the best balance we're going to find. MR. KIVIRANNA: I appreciate the information. It's just there was such a significant increase. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. MR. KIVIRANNA: You know, I talked to my neighbors and I wanted to get some information on it. Just out of curiosity, how close does the East Naples Fire Department district lie to the Port of the Islands area, as far as -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does anybody know? They abut -- don't the districts abut? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there's a common boundary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. The districts, the edges. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're adjacent. MR. KIVIRANNA: Because that's something you -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is it out around the Miller Boulevard area? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't study my district boundary lines before I came -- MR. KIVIRANNA: No, it's not important. It's something for us to look at as residents out there in the future -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it has to -- MR. KIVIRANNA: -- to take a look at it, because it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. MR. KIVIRANNA: -- appears from your comments here at least that, you know, we may expect to see further increases as we start to take on more of a burden as that area grows out there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's part of November's -- that's what -- try to keep it separate. That's part of the November workshops that will be held out there. Because you are at that point of having to make decisions about where to go. MR. KIVIRANNA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. I appreciate your coming in and getting answers. MR. FERNANDEZ: William Crean, I believe, and Janice Williams is next. MR. CREAN: Well, looks like we'll have to -- my name is William Crean. I'm a voter and a taxpayer, and I live in Port of the Islands, so I'll have to burden you with a little bit more on the same topic. One note I'd like to make is I think my taxes as a result of the Ochopee shift of cost has gone up more than all the speakers from Isle of Capri. It went up 300 bucks, which I thought was pretty substantial. And I guess what I'd like to understand -- it doesn't sound like I can do anything about it -- the cost of my fire protection has gone up $300 per year then? Is that what that means? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The subsidy -- MR. CREAN: So it's about $25 a month more for fire protection than what I was paying before? No? Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I don't think so. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, wait -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It could be. It depends on -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if you want to phrase it that way, yes. But there's another way to phrase it, which is said -- MR. CREAN: It's called positioning, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. The rest of the county's tax subsidization of your fire protection has been reduced. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're still subsidizing by $250,000 your fire protection. MR. CREAN: It sounds like Mr. Fernandez can help me with this, just so I can get this within some kind of context. If my fire protection, from my point of view and perspective, went up $300 more than it was before, and it's a 50 percent increase, that means that my fire protection cost is now $900? From six to nine, with the $300 increase? Is that right? I'm paying $900 a year for fire protection? MR. FERNANDEZ: I can't see that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many millions of dollars is your house worth? MR. CREAN: It was only -- it was appraised at 250 with a $25,000 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Homestead? MR. CREAN: -- homestead. So two and a quarter. You know, average house. $900 for fire protection. Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski is saying that your figures are approximately correct. MR. CREAN: All right. That's all. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's -- we're not even going to make you pay back all those prior years of subsidization with the PILT funds. MR. CREAN: I was too smart before to move there. I didn't move there 'til December. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Janice Williams and then Elvest Lee Palmet. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's smart. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you all need a big 'ol cookout in Isle of Capri so you can kind of, you know, put some of this behind you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. WILLIAMS: Good evening -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hog roast. MS. WILLIAMS: -- Madam Chairman, commissioners. My name is Janice Williams. I live over in Marco Shores, not on the Isle of Capri. I live on Mainsail Drive, and as you're aware, that goes from 951 to the Marco Island Airport. I've been out there since 1993, approximately, and the issue that we have out there is the lack of street lighting. We have 14 street lights which have been out -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, we're not talking about that tonight. And besides -- MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, all right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the answer to that is that's privately owned. MS. WILLIAMS: All of that area? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's not an HSTU there, is it, John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I -- MS. WILLIAMS: HSTU -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- researched this issue before. MS. WILLIAMS: HSTU does not cover? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In any case, this is not a subject for this meeting tonight. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where I think -- MS. WILLIAMS: Where can I go to get some information, please? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. You can contact Mr. Fernandez's office tomorrow morning. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I also point out, the man in the brown jacket in the back of the room. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Ed Ilschner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Talk to him first, because he's the more direct line -- MS. WILLIAMS: Right, because I made numbers of phone calls and they just keep -- I would like some information -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but this is not an open public meeting. We've got to -- MS. WILLIAMS: No, no, that's all right. As long as you gave the direction to go in. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we'll have Commissioner Mac'Kie's eyes tested for color blindness. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Not brown. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that Mr. Ilschner's jacket is more burgundy. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry, Ed. MR. FERNANDEZ: Elvest Lee Palmet, and then Christian Hogelvang. MR. PALHER: Ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good evening. MR. PALHER: Lee Palmet, and the name bears a little ridicule at times from people that know me. I gather from what I've heard so far that this is, as you were saying a moment ago, not an open meeting. But I live out in the Orangetree area. Not in Orangetree, but in the Orangetree area, on 33rd. And there seems to be quite a discrepancy in taxes of some of the houses that are relatively of the same size, property relatively of the same size, and it piques my curiosity and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: little bit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: the evening. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, maybe I can help you with that a This is John Norris, our answer man for Yes. What we do here at this board is we set the tax rate for everybody. Now, the value of your house has to be multiplied against that tax rate. We don't set the value of your house. That's done by the property appraiser. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's Mr. Skinner. MR. PALHER: That would be to take up with him? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Skinner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you don't think that your house is properly evaluated, then you can go talk down -- MR. PALHER: What about the designation of the monies once accumulated? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, that's us. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's us. MR. PALHER: That's us? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's us. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're in the right -- if you want to talk about that, you're in the right place. MR. PALHER: Well, I am -- I know the economy is doing great, and that's why it now takes man and wife both to make a living -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's called greed. MR. PALHER: -- and such. And because of all the amenities out there, I can't understand why our tax rates are so high. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our tax rates are the lowest in the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no county in the state that has lower tax rates. MR. PALHER: That doesn't help my pocketbook any. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, thank you for saying that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wish I had your problem, Mr. Palmet, I wish I did. My house has not appreciated in value significantly in the 20 years that I've owned it. I wish I had your problem where my taxes were going up every year, because that means the value of my house would be going up every year, and it's not doing it. MR. PALHER: Well, it isn't the value of the house that puts groceries in my pocket, it's the money in my pocket that puts groceries -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand, but this board has lowered your tax rate seven -- six of the -- six or seven of the last eight years, the rate. MR. PALHER: Well, I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. PALHER: Had I the means, I would mount a campaign to do away with all tax but sales tax. It's the only equitable tax. If you earn a dollar, you should be the one to decide -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As you mentioned, this is not an open meeting, and the flat tax discussion -- MR. PALHER: I understand. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is probably not good. I do want to mention to you, though, sir, Ms. Filson just reminded me, if you do have an issue with valuation of your home, the deadline to file something on that is September llth. So you only have two days to contact Mr. Skinner if you have a question on the valuation of your home. The other part where you feel like taxes are just simply too high, that is us, and we made them lower this year than last year, and I'm not sure what else we can do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Palmet, you need to contact Mr. Skinner's office, and there is a form that you need to fill out, and you can then come before the value adjustment board, which is composed of some of the county commissioners and some of the school board people, and you can plead your case. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Skinner will help walk you through -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And he'll take you through the process, if that's what you want to do. MR. PALMER: Well, I'd have to satisfy my -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. MR. PALMER: -- my needs. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you need -- but the first step you need to do is contact Mr. Skinner. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And you only have two days to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, you've got just a couple days. MR. PALMER: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Christian Mogelvang. I think he may have left. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He may have left. I saw him earlier. MR. FERNANDEZ: Then Eleanor Mooney and George Kruggel. Those are our last two. MS. MOONEY: Madam Chairman and board members, my name is Eleanor Mooney. And you said the taxes are lower, but my taxes are a lot higher this year because of the Avalon beautification Bayshore District. And actually, it's five times -- the MST is five times more than it was last year. And I want to know how long is this going to be going on? How many years do we have to pay? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about the Bayshore -- MS. MOONEY: Yeah, how many more years do I have to pay $1,000 more on my house? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That one didn't even exist until this year. That -- that -- this is the first year for that tax. MS. MOONEY: Well, I had an MST unit on my proposed property tax form and then it shows last year and this year, and it's five times more. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you help us with that, Mike? Because I don't understand. MS. MOONEY: At five times more than -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought she just said $1,000 more. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. So Mike's going to explain it, I guess, because I don't understand that at all. MS. MOONEY: So I know this is a new thing, but what I want to know is how long will it be going on? How long do I have to pay that much more in taxes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First, Can you explain the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I think the principal difference in her notice of proposed taxes is due to the Bayshore Avalon MSTU at three mills. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. And -- oh, okay, so I thought there was some other '- MS. HOONEY: No, I said I realize that's what it is. I just want to know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How long. MS. HOONEY: -- how long -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It will go on as long as the -- there is an advisory committee appointed by taxpayers within the district who make recommendations to this board about what -- how much they want to tax and for what purpose. MS. HOONEY: So perhaps the three dollars could be lowered? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not this year. MS. HOONEY: The three mills could be lowered? I mean the three mills. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It could be lowered in future years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. It's like '- MS. HOONEY: But not this year? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it could. I mean, we could lower it to '- MS. HOONEY: It says proposed budget. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. It could be lowered this year -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure it could. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- yes is the answer to this question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it could. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would be a complicated process for it to be lowered this year because of the recommendations from the committee about how they want to spend the money this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And those committees have public meetings, and those meetings are noticed in the newspaper and are publicly advertised. So they're things that are designed for the community to participate in those meetings so that you have a voice in what is or isn't done in that HSTU. That's the idea. And what I'd encourage is maybe just finding out when that meeting's schedule is and maybe attending those meetings and having a voice there, because I'm sure you could make a difference. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There may even be a vacancy on the board, as far -- if you're interested in applying for a seat on that advisory board, I think there's a vacancy. Am I right about that, Sue? MS. HOONEY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The ordinance within that district authorizes up to three mills annual levy, so that's subject to the annual budget process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would never go higher than that and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could never be more. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in all likelihood, we'll see reductions in future years, one would hope. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker, Madam Chairman, is George Kruggel. MR. KRUGGEL: Madam Chairman, commissioners, again, I am addressing the Avalon Bayshore beautification thing, And some of the questions have been answered just now. But there is a couple of things that do bother me. At our earlier meetings we discussed that we'd go up to as high as three mills, and it all depended on what -- how the money's going to be spent and where it was going to be spent. And at this point I have not heard one thing as to where the money is going -- where it's going to be spent. Has a consultant been hired or anything like that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Cautero here? MR. KRUGGEL: I don't think you can sock a person the full amount if you don't know where you're going. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Cautero's here, and I don't know if he's more up to date than I am about this, because then we're going to be getting the -- a report from staff in the next couple of weeks about the hiring of the consultant, the drafting of the plan. I don't think a great deal of that money will be spent this year. I think it's to be spent in future years, depending on how the -- how the -- what the visioning process develops for the area. But I'm still waiting for the report from the staff. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. It's on Tuesday's agenda. The request is for approximately $100,000 coming from various sources, probably spent over one fiscal year, maybe two. MR. KRUGGEL: Has the committee made a report to you people of how they'd like to spend this money? MR. CAUTERO: Well, the report that we're sending to the board is in the form of a -- what we call executive summary, and we're recommending that the board authorize staff to negotiate with the consultant that was recommended by the selection committee. And we're recommending to the board that three funding sources be used to pay the consultant fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The good news there is we're not -- the staff is recommending that you not pay the whole bill for the consultants, the way it sounds like. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, well -- MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I think the answer to the gentleman's question is simply that this is in the formative stage right now, and we don't have a solid answer to give you tonight on exactly what's going be done. And I think that was your question, was it not? MR. KRUGGEL: Yeah. So, you're -- what you're saying is that by the time the next meeting comes around, what is it, 23rd of September, something like that, that you might say okay, we might only go one and a half mills or two mills or something like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I have to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think that's what we're discussing. I think the proposal has been a recommendation from the MSTU board that we go ahead and start funding the project, but we're not at the point of doing anything at the same time except formulating the plans as we go along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's an expensive proposition -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that requires starting a savings account, frankly, is what was happening this year is we're starting the savings account so that we can have money in the bank to spend as the committee decides to spend it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you've got to get somebody in here to help you guide this process and formulate plans, and that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they're -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- they're just in the very beginning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Very simply, if you don't -- MR. KRUGGEL: I just have a feeling that we're going to get socked three mills for maybe 10 years -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I don't -- MR. KRUGGEL: -- at this rate. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't -- MR. KRUGGEL: I mean, someone's going -- you can't start out with the full amount, that's what I'm trying to say. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'll be here, you know, and so will many others, if we do three mills for 10 years, but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I think, see, the point is, if we don't get some money into the account, we can't do anything. We have to -- MR. KRUGGEL: Right, I understand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- go ahead and levy some money so we can go ahead and hire people to get started and -- MR. KRUGGEL: But this is the gentleman -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- get the process going. MR. KRUGGEL: -- say he got 120 or $150,000, okay, we come up with that money. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This gentleman's question I think is a terribly valid one. Why are we starting off at the maximum if we're really not sure what needs to be spent the first year? (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To give -- I understand the savings account analogy, but people don't like their tax dollars being used in a savings account. They want them to go to something that's being done in the area. And I'm a little -- and I'm not being critical, but I think he's got a very valid point, is if we standing here today don't know how much it's going to cost, then why would it be terribly difficult once we know that, to look at it and say instead of three mills we can do it with 2.1 mills -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: do. Hostly -- -- or 2.5 or 1.5 or -- Go ahead, Hike, and then I'll -- -- I guess I have the same question you HR. KRUGGEL: That's the way I sort of see it also. I mean, if the -- if the -- a community wants to build a high school, they don't go out and say okay, we're going to sock you 10 mills. And then you go out and hire an architect and a consultant and everything and come up with the plans and come up with the cost and say this is what it's going to cost, this s what we need. You don't go and charge the people ahead of time and put that money in the bank. I mean, I don't mind paying some of those -- if you want to charge me this at this point, good, that's all right, I'll do it, I can pay it. But I don't want to see this -- I just think I -- it's the whole principle of the thing that nothing's been started or set, so how can you charge us the full amount? That's the only thing I have to say. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're in essence building funds for future capital improvements. And it was the recommendation of the advisory committee to proceed at the three mills to accelerate that, the improvements, as quickly as possible. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the point is, although there's not a definite plan, there is some general idea of the nature of the improvements that are hoped for for that area, and they are substantial, they are expensive. And if we don't begin now to collect the money -- this is exactly what this group wanted to do. The grassroots people who started this group wanted to have quick action. They wanted -- they wanted as much as they could as quickly as they could so that they could have an immediate impact and not the usual slow government way of going about it. They -- this was a very intentional, well-thought-out decision on this advisory board's part to collect the maximum and to begin the accumulation, so -- because there's no question that the improvement plans are going to require this much money and more, even though they're not in Magic Marker yet on a piece of paper. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that we flag this for the next hearing, and the reason is that that's the opposite policy we as a board have adopted on assessing the ad valorem tax rate in every other facet of what we do. Maybe there is three mills' worth of expenses that are necessary this next year, but if we know it's going to cost us -- and the school's a good example. If we know it's going to cost us 10 million for the jail, do we assess 10 mills the first year, or do we do two mills over a period of time, or -- I guess this guy's asking a question -- this gentleman's asking a question I think a lot of people are going to have, and I'm not comfortable saying well, we need to start with something. I just -- you know, Pam, I just want -- I know you've been spearheading this, you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just -- I think it's a valid question, and I'm not sure that we should assess the maximum the first year unless we really know what the intent of those dollars are going to be in that fiscal year. And I'm not there. MR. KRUGGEL: I could see where you could spend $100,000 for consultants and maybe getting the process going, but then the next year -- I didn't get that at the last meeting I was at, that we were going to go three mills right at the start. That was not -- there was a lot of people that fought against the three mills. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's have a staff presentation on this at the next meeting -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- so it puts us up to speed on it. MR. KRUGGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. And we -- this is on our agenda for the next meeting, Mr. Fernandez? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Tuesday meeting. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's on for Tuesday's. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remain committed that this is a project that needs to be done. I think everybody down there does. But I just -- I do want to be cautious that we don't start off there, because then the desire to back off of it may not exist. If we start at two mills and find out that's not sufficient, that's one thing. But when people start seeing things happening down there, it's going to be contagious. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, when you -- when you -- see, I guess I just need to relax and trust that when you see the staff presentation, when you hear again from the committee -- because we have already gotten this presentation from the advisory committee, and they've told us why they want to do this, and we bought it. So if we need to hear it again to be reminded of why we decided this one is different, then we'll hear it again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it sounds to me like one of the biggest problems here perhaps is communication with the people in the area that may -- once they see it, it may be justified and they may have a little more comfort with it. Right now, other than Ms. Mac'Kie, none of us really know that much about what's going to be presented. But we will know on Tuesday. So I would certainly ask you to share with your friends, and anyone that you have spoken to that has a concern, to tell them to come to the meeting on Tuesday. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: All I'm asking, Pam, is we flag it just 'til I know more. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: None of us know about the plans. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Yeah, I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, there aren't plans yet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we need to know -- we need to know what the thought process is with this. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the board wishes to have the presentation at Tuesday's meeting then, rather than at the public hearing -- at the next public hearing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought we just heard that we would have -- we have an agenda item on Tuesday about this matter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's about hiring the consultant. MR. CAUTERO: The consultant study. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would be a good time to go ahead and -- MR. FERNANDEZ: So we expand that to present -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- get a little more in depth -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- the entire -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. I think that would be -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, we'll do it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the opportunity. And then certainly the people in the neighboring area down there would -- that would give them an opportunity to come and hear. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you want to speak -- I hate to say this, but if you want to speak, you need to come up here and ask a question, because we've got to have you on the record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, we're going to have the -- on Tuesday we're going to see more of what we're talking about here and give us an idea -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of how the money's going to be spent over the first year. So it starts 9:00 a.m. this coming Tuesday -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's at a regular commission board meeting -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we can all learn together, and then -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in this room. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then that will give us more information to go into the next budget hearing with. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no other registered speakers -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No further speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Smykowski I think, has some words of wisdom for us. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That moves us to resolution to adopt the attendant millage rates, which is 2-E. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on just a moment, Mr. Smykowski. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute, hold on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We've got to take just about a five-minute little -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Break for the court reporter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- break here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. At this point in time, commissioners, we've heard all of the items and we've heard the concerns and questions raised by members of the public in regard to the -- apparently the one that had the most questions and concerns was the Isle of Capri Fire District and direction that we might want to give for the final budget on September 23rd. Commissioner Mac'Kie first, and then Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- the direction I want to give is to support the unanimous recommendation from the advisory board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me talk a little bit about what this was established for in the first place. This was established as a purely volunteer fire service a number of years ago. It wasn't until three years ago, four years ago, that we started paying some people; is that right? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah, within -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three or four -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- whatever it is. Since that time, it's incrementally gone up, more paid people, more paid people, more paid people, and this is just another increment up in increasing the paid people. But this was to be a volunteer fire service. We've gotten away from that. The other thing that we need to keep in mind is this proposal was only for nine months. In order to keep the board's commitment that we've always had to these citizens to keep their millage at one mill, we could delay the implementation of all these paid people until the next budget year, and that would really only be nine months' different than what we're talking about here. Because they're not going to implement this until January the 1st, at the earliest. So, you know, we've talked about a number of the other reasons as well, but I think it's important that we keep our original commitment to the Isle of Capri, keep it at one mill total, and next year we've got a different situation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, the -- okay, let's do one of two. Someone got a quarter? The bottom line on this, to me, is that the debt service is retired in one year, and that does give you flexibility a year from now that you don't really have now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to be honest, I mean, people have spoken on both sides of this issue. You know, four people tonight said raise it to one mill, and one person said don't, and I heard somebody say they represent three or four people when they have 400 members. And I was half kidding, but I was serious, you folks need to get together. You've got a great community in Isle of Capri, and I've watched this one fire issue run a line right down through your community. And it's over $18. I mean, you guys are fighting with each other over 18 bucks. Have a fundraiser, for God's sake. I mean, you know, it's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A bake sale. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not worth dividing a community over. And I wish everybody here who lives in Isle of Capri would understand that. We have this going on county-wide, and it's sickening. And you guys have something to protect down there, and you've got a neat little community, and I want to give you the opportunity to do it. And I guess if the difference here is, you know, nine months of implementation, then I'd rather not see this decision divide that community over nine months. And I know that's going to make some people unhappy and others happy, and that's the life of politics and I won't have to worry about it in a couple of months. But I have to agree, Commissioner Norris, at least for one year, until we can kind of go through the entire cycle of, you know, people understanding that it's a total of 1.3 mills, not one mill, and that it's one mill operational and .3 capital, you know, I have to agree, let's keep it at the one mill total, let the debt service retire, then you can go to the full-time coverage next year. And I guess just whenever there's a question about which way to go, I'm going to pick the lower tax route myself. And so that's where I'm going to fall on this one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, no matter what I say, we're going to end up with a problem here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't have to decide tonight, obviously. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, we don't, but the concern is that we're sitting out here, too, at this point in time, with an advisory committee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I realize advisory committees are merely that, they come to the board and offer what they deem appropriate or what they think is appropriate, you know, for their particular issue, whatever that is. I have to agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, I don't know, why don't you all get together? I mean, somebody's sitting out here saying well, that's not the issue. Well, doggone it, tell me what the issue is. Tell me what the issue is. If this is just a superficial little something that we're doing out here and we're using the fire thing as the thing to manipulate this, I'm not interested. I mean -- and Mr. Carse, I have to give you credit, you brought it down to the health and safety issue, and this was what I understood that this whole thing was about. I thought that's what you all wanted. And I also thought that we separated this out and said okay, you know, in November -- because we talked about it with the Ochopee group, too, we're going to talk about what your options are going to be for the coming year. What direction do you all want to go? You're going to have to make a decision. You can cut your -- each other's throats then if you want to, but in the meantime I'm still charged with the health and safety of your particular area. And for 18 bucks, doggone it, I would -- I think I'd guarantee that I had the kind of service that I wanted. If this isn't the issue, what the heck's the issue? Don't sit there and shake your heads no, no, no. What's the issue? Tell us. Don't stand there and make me guess, because I'm not good at mind reading. I'm pretty darn good, but I can't read your minds -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I say something -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and it's frustrating. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- about coverage? Let me point out something about the coverage. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's just -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got two paid firefighters right now, and you get 12 hours coverage for that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- seven days a week. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The proposal is to add one more and get 24. The numbers don't add up. I mean, this is not going to do what they claim it's going to do, what they're trying to accomplish. You can't have three -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are they going to do three eight-hour shifts? That's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 24 hours. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- they're going to do 24 and 48; 24 on and 48. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that still adds up. I mean, the math works. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I was told by our staff, Leo Ochs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, there may be a more -- as I'm sitting here thinking about this, if -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ochs, do you want to clarify that? We have Mr. Carse back there saying that that's not correct, it's not 24, 48. MR. CARSE: That's true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 24, 48? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. So everybody's agreeing that's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that any different than what the other fire services do throughout the county? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What happens if somebody goes on vacation? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or sick. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or sick, or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or quits. MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. That is correct, the staffing that is intended and proposed is one firefighter will work a 24-hour shift and be off 48 hours and then come back and work another 24-hour shift. Very -- almost identical, if you will, to the other fire services. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: The point here is really this, is that this is not going to accomplish what these proponents are trying to do and that is to have a full-time professional fire service. It ain't gonna to do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How will it not provide 24-hour coverage? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't say 24-hour coverage. If you'll let me talk and just listen to what I say, maybe you'll understand it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Full-time professional -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not going to have a full-time professional fire service with one person on duty 24 hours a day. That is not a full-time professional fire service. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of one. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These same people that were up here last year complaining about -- or opposing a move to go to a full-time professional fire service are the same ones now that are incrementally trying to get it this way. They're playing both sides of this issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know -- you know, I don't know these folks -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on the civic association. I don't know the folks in the back of the room -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the personalities don't matter to me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But let me ask this: This -- by going to one mill, we're going to be taxing that .1 mill for -- that one mill for the entire fiscal year -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is that correct? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're phasing in the service until January. So it's not enough money to provide 12 months -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly right. You're exactly -- of 24-hour coverage. Plus, you're cannibalizing reserves to get Okay, maybe -- so I guess I'm sitting here asking myself that the numbers alone to me say if by charging one mill we can't provide 24-hour coverage for 12 months, what happens at the beginning of next year? Unless we've had a little bit of a growth in Isle of Capri where we have an increase in the tax base -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the answer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the answer is that we're anticipating an increase in tax base to the Fiddler's Creek and whatnot that will increase -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- revenue to the department -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Plus, the debt service will be retired. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the debt service retires. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the problem's solved. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it should solve the problem at that point. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could clarify. I elected to recommend the phasing in of this because of concerns about what kind of reserve it would leave us with if we attempted to start October 1st, and whether we would have sufficient funding in the following year. I didn't want to come back to the board and say well, we thought we could do it within the millage cap, go to 24-hour service, and we found that we really couldn't. By phasing it in, it allowed us to maintain the necessary reserves that we felt we needed, because it is a new service. Costs are sometimes uncertain when you expand service like that. And we -- it gives us the opportunity to anticipate the increase in the tax base the following fiscal year. So we felt this was a more conservative approach than trying to take the risk going with a 12-month recommendation this year, only to find that the budget would be short for the following year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I have to ask a question. Is it possible that you're proposing a budget that won't do what it says, what you're telling us it's going to do? I don't understand that issue at all. MR. FERNANDEZ: In terms of the level of service? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd like the -- I'd like Mr. Page to speak to that, if he could. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I need -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Or Leo, do you think you could -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- was overtime factored in, was sick time factored in? I mean, somebody takes a two-week vacation or whatever the vacation is, who fills their slot. Is that overtime? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, don't be telling us that this is a budget that will work if it won't. MR. PAGE: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Jeff Page. I'm acting chief of operations for EMS. Staff felt that this budget would work from October. Budget wanted to make sure that they felt that there was some leeway in there where they had a comfort zone. MR. FERNANDEZ: The question is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're saying you have a more -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- about staffing and whether we're going to give the level of service that this is -- is it a 24-hour service? MR. PAGE: Yeah, it's 24 hours on, 48 hours off. Firefighters can work 159 hours without going into overtime in a 21-day cycle. So really, all the overtime was factored in there. You're talking about three hours every week for each of the firefighters. MR. FERNANDEZ: What would be the level of service actually provided? MR. PAGE: The level of service? There would be one firefighter on each day 24 hours. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the answer to the question is the budget will do what you've told us it will do -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and that is provide a paid professional firefighter 24 hours a day, seven days a week. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. MR. PAGE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, that's real important that we don't get that question out -- you know, that there be no question about whether or not -- I think it will do what they said it'd do, John. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, what we're trying to accomplish is a professional fire service, and we're not going to get that out of this deal. We have -- you can't say one firefighter -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- one firefighter -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is a professional fire service. That doesn't make a professional fire service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think it gives -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have that in Naples? Do you have one guy on duty? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it gives them more -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know how you -- where you're coming out with the idea that what they want is whatever your definition of a professional fire service is. What they want is 24-hour coverage, and that's what this budget will give them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What happens when someone goes on vacation or is sick or has -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What they just told me. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Volunteers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What they just told me is that it will work. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So we have volunteers, so we have a -- we're back to a volunteer fire department. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What he said is -- what the chief said is that there is overtime factored in and that it will work. If you're telling me that that's -- you want to change your mind, or will it work including vacation schedules? MR. OCHS: Again, Leo Ochs for the record. It will work, Commissioner. And we do, as Commissioner Norris points out, and have since 1995, I believe, had a combination of paid and volunteer service at the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue District, and we will continue to have -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course. MR. OCHS: -- that same type of service. There's probably 15 shifts out of the full year where accrued vacation could be used by those three paid staff, and we have spoken with the advisory board. They're comfortable with the fact that we have adequate trained certified volunteers to help us fill those vacancies when we have our paid people off on a leave of absence. And that's the basis of the recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would the volunteers come in and serve then at the firehouse? MR. OCHS: Yes. In fact, Chief Rodriguez is here this evening. He has a volunteer program that's very well developed, and in fact requires, as part of the volunteers' continuing training, that they serve at least one shift every month down on the Isle of Capri Fire Department. So we have a -- an established practice of having volunteers working every month there at the station. And we'd use those people, as we have in the past, to augment the paid staff. And in some cases where we have unexpected leave, as a sick leave, as Commissioner Hancock had pointed out, they would be able to be called in to help augment the service. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we may like this budget or not like this budget. And the point that I hear that you're making that has the most validity for me is if this board has previously made a commitment that a mill cap is a mill cap, total, everything. I've heard from the community that that's not what they understood. But -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I think it's very -- well, from the people I've heard from, that's what I've been told is that they understood there were two separate taxes here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're very close to the margins on this budget. And I don't think -- even if you support it, I think you have to agree that we're awful close to the margins. There's going to be heavy reliance, if we go to this, on volunteer efforts. And, I mean, I was a reservist in the Coast Guard and I know what it's like to train as a reservist and come in and pull duty and that kind of stuff and to be called in to do that. I guess my concern is that there's obviously, again, a division in the community. I don't know what the numbers are on either side, and that's not as important to me as even the information that people are calling me with. You know, I'm hearing very different information. And I guess we're being asked to make a decision, you know, in a couple of weeks on a final budget as to which of those two parties has the correct information or is right or has the best interest of the community at heart, and that's just a -- it's a little hard to do, to be honest with you. When I look 12 months out and I see the opportunity to have not just those three paid positions, but maybe to go even to the next level, if that's your desire, you know, I see so much more flexibility 12 months from now than I do today. And even though I understand what you're saying, Mr. Page, I think you'd have to agree, we're very close in the margins here of saying we do have a trained professional firefighter on 24 hours a day. It's not entirely there. So there's no clear-cut decision here for me. And absent that, I'm -- you know, at this point I'm still going to fall back to the previous commitment, which apparently we've never been above 1.0 mills. And that's not just a, you know, a novelty. I mean, there's a reason for that, and I think there's an expectation for that. And over the next 12 months you can change that expectation as a community as a whole. But right now I just -- I think looking at everything, that's where I'm most comfortable. And -- but next year I think is a different ball game. I think you will have a full-time 24-hour person or more 12 months or now. I just don't think now is the time to go to it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the difference for me is -- I agree with everything you said. It's a very close, close call and it's not possible to know -- you know, test the wind and see exactly what does the community want. But when we do have an advisory board that makes a unanimous recommendation, and I am unsure, then I'm going with the advisory board's unanimous recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the advisory board previous -- the advisory board that developed the budget did not say to increase the millage, and although the unanimous board -- the board that came in later unanimously said so, they were absent the number of the members that were on the original board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The beauty of this job is no matter what decision you make you're going to tick somebody off. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fifty percent of the time you are making somebody unhappy. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I just feel I would feel more comfortable 12 months from now making this decision of going to 1.18 feeling that the community had a chance for everyone to see the same set of information. Because obviously, from the phone calls and letters I've had, people are looking at different sets of information, and that's a problem for me. You know, now I understand it more, everyone on this board understands it more, and I think the information coming from and through county government is going to be consistent from this point forward. I'm not sure that has always been the case. John, I'm not talking specific about you, but I'm just saying, as I get phone calls, I've been dealing with a different set of information. So, you know, we've probably talked this thing to death, but that's where I feel most comfortable is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do I dare to ask a subject about a different topic? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In a minute you can, yeah. Do we have any minutes or anything that you would be aware of where we have made a strong commitment to the Isle of Capri residents about keeping this millage at one mill, the total millage? Is there any information that you can find where that has happened? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm not aware of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, whoever thinks it is, make your case. You know -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- present it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the commitment is certainly implicit in the fact that we've never gone over the mill. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Particularly -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- John, I would tend to agree with you, but I think what we're proposing here is a little bit different kind of service, perhaps, than what's been offered in the past. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. And the whole thing that -- this district was formulated to be a volunteer fire district. We've gotten completely away from that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's outgrown that, John -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- principle. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's outgrown that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Isle of Capri hasn't gotten any bigger. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as you said -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we're not talking about Isle -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Fiddler's Creek's coming in, there's Marco Shores. There's a lot more -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And they can't handle -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This department is going to grow and it is going to grow in the area of paid firefighters, it is going to grow in the type of service that's provided. I'm just looking at a difference between now and 12 months from now, and I'm just saying now, with the information I have, I'm not comfortable saying yes; but I think 12 months from now, that would be a different story. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So everybody lobby Constantine between now and the next couple of weeks, and there we go. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's move on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We can go off to another topic. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's that -- is there any additional step we could do or that we could even conceive of to communicate with the city council of the City of Marco about the Sheriff's budget? My question is, are we -- if we have the same deafening silence two weeks from now that we have right now, will we assume that it is necessary, therefore, to cut the Sheriff's budget by a million dollars? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the position that the board has taken since your February budget policy statement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we write to them and ask them what -- you know, ask them the question directly? Does -- because I've been waiting for them to adopt their budget. Now they've adopted it, it's got a million dollars in there for law enforcement. Could we ask them the question directly, "Do you intend to pay that to the Sheriff for county service, or have you some other plans for that money?" COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure that that's really any of our business at this point in time. We've made it clear that this board is not going to fund that, and it's up to the Sheriff and Marco Island to hash it out from here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if they -- if they continue to do what they have done up until now, we've only got two weeks. We're down to two weeks. And my question is, do I vote next week to cut a million dollars? I don't know the answer to that question, because I don't know what Marco is going to do with the million dollars they do have in their budget. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not going to cut a million dollars next week. It's not in the budget now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's not. MR. FERNANDEZ: The expenditure is in the budget, but it's based on a revenue -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The revenue's not -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- anticipated from Marco. If the revenue doesn't come from Marco, then we'd have to make the expenditure adjustment on the expenditure side. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's the question for two weeks from now, what will be the method by which we are positive we have received communication from Marco about they are or they aren't going to supply that revenue? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we do need to say by date "X", time "Y", we need an answer on that, because -- Sheriff, if I could ask you, how many -- I'm sorry, I don't remember, but how many new positions will the Sheriff's Office be adding this coming year, based on the current budget? SHERIFF HUNTER: For the record, Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County. The request is for 17 new positions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the total cost of those 17 positions? I'm sorry, I don't remember this. I should. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I hope we're not supposed to remember. SHERIFF HUNTER: Should be -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I just -- we had several discussions about it, and I should have those numbers in my head, and I just don't. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Total expanded in the Sheriff's budget is $953,400. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And only a portion of that is -- a large portion of it is personnel. Some of that is not personnel. There is Some '- SHERIFF HUNTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- general fund capital projects and whatnot. I guess my concern is that, let's say Marco Island said, you know, we're not giving you a million dollars and you have to provide the same level of protection to us that was always provided. What we're physically looking at is potentially a reduction in manpower in the sheriff's office. And I don't want to have to get to the llth hour and make that kind of a decision, because the expansion in new positions would not offset the reduction in personnel needed to serve Marco. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aren't they two days ahead of us on their budget process? Won't they make their final budget -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They did adopt their budget last night -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They did it last night. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and there is a million dollars in there, but -- on first reading. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, so they're one day ahead of us. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right, they're one day ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One day ahead of us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But still, the line item, as I understand it, on their budget, doesn't tell me how they intend to -- to whom they intend to pay that money for the law enforcement services they've budgeted. And that's -- that's my question. Are they sending that money to you or are they going to spend it on something else? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let me -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Enlighten us. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- summarize what I know, or what I suspect, or what I speculate about. First of all, it should be noted that I have no authentic statutory or constitutional relationship to the Marco Island City Council. There's no requirement for them to fund me, unlike the Board of County Commissioners. I have a relationship with the Board of County Commissioners that is constitutional and statutory and I may -- or we may go to the governor as an arbiter to work out any differences of opinion pertaining to what it costs to fund law enforcement, corrections and bailiff services for the county. I don't have that with the city council in Marco. We are relying upon the city council in Marco, as a group now, the Sheriff's Office and the board, to make a decision to fund law enforcement services. They have indicated twice to me in conversation that they don't intend to fund law enforcement services. They expect the Sheriff to perform his constitutional duties on Marco __ COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For free. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- and provide services with whatever funding is currently provided. That was a couple of discussions. Another discussion with a different member of the board, who appears to be in the minority, suggested perhaps they would fund law enforcement services on Marco. The bottom line, however, is that there's no authority in the office of Sheriff for me to require them to do anything. There is, as Commissioner Hancock indicates, a funding issue right now of about $1,053,100, that if it isn't in the agency budget, that will represent about 13 and a half positions, law enforcement positions, which would mean of those 17 new positions we've requested, we might be adding maybe four, perhaps. That's with the phase-in that we agreed to during the workshop discussions. You could look at it that way, or you could say, as the board seems to be saying, that just take those 13 positions off Marco and then whatever else is remaining on Marco, use that as your presence on Marco. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'm saying. SHERIFF HUNTER: I think we're at around 24 positions or so, so that would leave us around 11 positions. That's about roughly two members per shift for patrol services. And if you'll recall, Marco -- we call it the Marco substation, but of course it serves a greater area than just Marco. It serves Isles of Capri, Goodland, Port Au Prince, and actually extends up to the U.S. 41/951 intersection, goes out to about Royal Palm Hammock. So there's a fairly large area to cover with two people per shift. Two people per shift is a minimum number of people when we have to depend upon one another for backup on a law enforcement call. So I would probably be forced to begin withdrawing other members of the agency from patrol in the North Naples, East Naples, Golden Gate and Immokalee areas in order to supplement Marco for purposes of responding to calls. That's the situation as I understand it at the moment. If we don't receive the funding, we are talking about reduced ability to respond to calls or service, reduced ability in this growth period that we still remain in, to provide patrol services, pro-active patrol services. And the bottom line is, I don't have authority, nor a method, to tell Marco that you must fund this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you could tell us -- and let me understand your -- you're saying that if you got down to just two per shift in the Marco substation, you would have to have -- when you said you'd have to be pulling from other, you mean for backup? SHERIFF HUNTER: Backup. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'd have to be pulling from other areas for backup, but the regular patrol at that station would be staffed with two per shift at that substation? SHERIFF HUNTER: That would represent two per shift, roughly. It's about 5.4 people to provide one 24-hour seven-day-a-week shift. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's what I think the Marco City Council needs to know is -- SHERIFF HUNTER: They've been told numerous times. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if they don't fund the budget revenue line item in Collier County's budget that would go for your budget, what they're going to get is full-time coverage with approximately two full-time patrol. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, they're smarter than that. If you conceive of it in a little bit different way, they understand that the sheriff, just like all constitutional officers, yourselves included, have certain responsibilities that they must provide county-wide. Marco knows that it can't be treated any differently than any other substation that is currently operated by the sheriff's office. They know that they have public record capability to get inside and look at the current shift factors, our levels of service, that are provided to all substations. I think, to make -- without going through this whole analogy, I think the bottom line would be that the sheriff's office would be either guilty of or not guilty of disparate treatment, and I would prefer to land on the not guilty of disparate treatment side, meaning all areas of the county will receive a different or new level of service, and that will be the result of an adjustment made for Marco, meaning all areas will suffer some reduction in patrol availability, pro-active patrol availability, as a result of Marco not paying $1,053,100 in -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask about that? SHERIFF HUNTER: -- in dollars. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just add one more question on that point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it is, which substation serves the City of Naples? SHERIFF HUNTER: It would be District 3, East Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so what -- what level of service did the City of East Naples get, and why can't that be identical to what the City of Marco gets? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, we've never had to define that level of service for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you may -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- have to now. I mean -- SHERIFF HUNTER: We haven't logged the number of hours that are provided in patrol services. What the City of Naples enjoys from the Sheriff's Office is -- could be characterized more in the sense of special operations services: K-9, SWAT, aviation, marine patrol and some patrol -- surface patrol with regular patrol elements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus ready support. SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, you know, officers nearby respond when -- you know, at any request within the city. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right, traffic related services -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not complaining about the -- SHERIFF HUNTER: And we're not logging -- we're not logging that, really, on any forms to demonstrate what we provided to the city -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what I'm obviously suggesting to you is that you could use that analogy as -- instead of a county-wide level of service, there's an incorporated level of service and an unincorporated level of service. And once you are incorporated, you get level of service B. And that's what the City of Naples gets. Despite the fact that they pay a significant amount of money in taxes in this county, that's what they get. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that was the whole point of setting up the unincorporated area general fund back in those days anyway was primarily the Sheriff's budget, outside of the City of Naples. So, I mean -- and that's what we're talking about and that's where this money in question comes from, is unincorporated area general fund. So really, I -- I'm -- I kind of lean the way Commissioner Mac'Kie is going here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whoa, stop the presses. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, oh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Stop the presses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: than the City of Naples? Write it down. Write it down. Gina, where's the photographer? I'm leaning away from the story. Where's the camera. I don't want -- But why would Marco Island be any different I don't understand it. SHERIFF HUNTER: Easily. I believe an easy answer to be it's clear that the City of Marco Island does not have either the capability of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- providing law enforcement this year, nor do they actually have law enforcement; therefore, they are depending upon the Sheriff of the county to perform his constitutional duties to perform those services. But they're denying the need to fund them with the $1,053,100. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, let me -- SHERIFF HUNTER: But the difference is, Naples, the City of Naples, has more than adequate patrol services. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me characterize that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the City of Marco has budgeted the money, I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, you know, if they budgeted it and they were going to spend it, we would know by now. But in essence -- but in essence what is happening here -- and I can be a little less tactful about it, Sheriff, because you've been very diplomatic in your statements this evening. But the truth is, the citizens of Marco Island drew a line around themselves, and they said we may choose to be responsible for certain things and we will be responsible for others. And one of the things they may choose is law enforcement. And what they're in essence doing is telling the rest of the people in Collier County we don't care if your level of service suffers because we choose not to fund the Sheriff's Office above a minimum level of response. When I hear that the patrol in North Naples is going to have to get reduced for backup and coverage to Marco Island when the folks in Marco Island are paying less in county taxes than the folks in North Naples, I've got a severe problem with it. And the problem that they know is that this man has a constitutional responsibility to respond to calls in the City of Marco and cannot ignore that. The City of Naples did the responsible thing and had their own police department so that they could do law enforcement the way they wanted to do it, and didn't thrust it back on the Sheriff's shoulders. That's not what's happening here. And instead of having a commitment from the city that says we will take responsibility for law enforcement or we will take responsibility for funding it, we have the big goose egg. We've got nothing. And so we're left to question how we're going to adversely impact the rest of Collier County so that Marco has minimum coverage. And I resent that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I resent it. I resent it terribly and resent -- it's unthinkable to me the -- how irresponsible that is of the City Council of Marco not to expect to pay for law enforcement. That's irresponsible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But this is the gentleman that's caught in the middle -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because he has a responsibility he cannot shirk. We have a responsibility to the rest of the county we can't shirk, either. And I'm -- you know, if it's -- if you -- term it what you will, I'm calling the bluff, because I am not going to sacrifice the level of service we have funded for the rest of the county because Marco Island will not step up and assume the responsibility that they have. So either they need to make that decision and make it known to us, or if we need to, if we need to go to court over it, whatever we need to do -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: rest of Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's go. -- because it simply isn't fair to the Uh-huh. You're not suggesting that we try at this COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: millage, anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: to. late stage of the game to add a million dollars to our budget? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I'm not. Okay. No, nobody's suggesting that. Well, where would you get it? Yeah. I mean, we've already set our tentative Set the millage. We'll get it through the courts if we have HS. BILES: Can I speak for Harco Island? Would you object? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's the chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Marco, we'll let you speak. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The mayor of Marco. MS. BILES: Faye Biles. I'm president of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association. Don and Crystal were at our budget meeting last night. And in my introductory remarks, I asked them -- they have now bragged that they have reduced the bureaucracy of 80 people to 59 people, because we fuss so, that they were adding 80 people in the first year. So they said we're now down to 59 people. So in my remarks I said, "Where are the law enforcement people?" COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. BILES: They have nobody in there for law enforcement. They had the fire -- all the firemen, but that was it. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What did they spend the million dollars on? MS. BILES: I said where are the law -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Faye, what is the million dollars going to go for, to the best of your knowledge? MS. BILES: Well, they've taken a million out of their -- they're going to the public safety concept, and so they're taking a million out of that and so forth, but -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But where are they going to spend it? MS. BILES: -- they don't want to put the money in for law enforcement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then they don't get it. MS. BILES: And they even said reduce it from 80 to 59 employees, and I said where are the law enforcement? We had what, 24 deputies, right? And that's out of their budget. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess -- MS. BILES: So October 1st we're asking what's going to happen. And Don's right, I mean, they just don't want to cooperate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, I guess my question's going to be, is it time for the county to be in another lawsuit with another incorporated city? You know, we've been down this road, City of Naples and Collier County had to beat out their differences in court. Is that how we're going to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it ended up being mediated, did it not? Wasn't it a mediation? MR. WEIGEL: Well, ultimately there was a settlement that was reached -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. WEIGEL: -- between the parties. There was not an adjudication -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. WEIGEL: -- by the court. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is a shame now, because had there been, we'd have something to go on. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we still have the settlement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We still have the settlement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A settlement doesn't have the binding legal status that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but the judge -- doesn't -- didn't the judge adopt the settlement agreement as an order? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay. All right. MR. WEIGEL: But the judge himself did not come to the conclusion to the consternation of any one of the parties -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's not case, but it is -- MR. WEIGEL: -- as far as that goes. But it's a valuable tool in history, quite frankly, and it was -- obviously, it was based on studies done both by the city and by the county which were adopted; particularly the county study was adopted, but both were referenced and given reasons why they were being implemented in part or full. The question is, is it time for us to be involved in another lawsuit? Well, the answer is I would hope that it's not. There -- as Sheriff Hunter has indicated, there are some vagaries that exist because he does have constitutional and statutory duties. The Marco charter itself is vague in the sense that it has omissions -- either putposed omissions or by neglect, I do not know -- in regard to such things as police or sheriff law enforcement of one kind or another in the city, law enforcement in the city. At the same time, looking at Chapter 30, the statutes particularly addressing the sheriff. These are state statutes, so they're general in nature. I will not attempt to opine specifically in regard to the duties of the Sheriff, but I think he's been very accurate in what he's discussed with you this evening. But I will say that there's a statutory provision that talks about a police chief and -- of cities. It doesn't say if you have a police force you must have a police chief. It talks about the police chief shall, and then it has three iterations of things that can occur. It's difficult to state exactly what the legislature meant in regard to whether that is a mandate that in fact there shall be a police chief upon the incorporation of a city. The incorporation of Marco occurred by law upon its successful referendum vote just over a year ago. But of course, the facts are that there is no police chief of the city. That is an element of law that's, as far as I know, untested, although I haven't attempted to research that in any detail at this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that might be the nature of our litigation against the City of Marco is to force them to comply with what would be our interpretation of the law, that there -- they are required to have a police chief. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here comes the expert. MR. WEIGEL: -- I'm not saying that that is the interpretation or the absolute interpretation, but I'm saying that it appears an anomaly there; that under the statute, as you read that statute, without looking to case law or any other opinion, it talks in terms of the police chief of the municipality shall, and then the question to be answered either by research or by judicial testing is does that mean that in fact all cities shall have a police chief, meaning a type of force, by virtue of merely being incorporated? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the City of Fort Myers Beach, or does Lee County have an unincorporated general fund? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't know about the fund question, but the initial question you started to ask, I think, was how do they provide for the service. In my communications some time ago with the County Attorney Office, Lee County, was that nearly all, including those services, were done by interlocal agreement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So most cities that incorporate are willing to contract with the Sheriff to pay for the services they expect to continue to provide -- to receive if they don't do their own MR. WEIGEL: Well, there's a little history. Incorporation actually isn't that common in recent times, but finding the few examples we can, it's typically been done by an agreement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds to me like we -- in coming back to Commissioner Hac'Kie, what we started this discussion with was shouldn't we ask the City of Marco Island by a certain date and time to give us an answer, and I have to agree with you and say yes. For us just to say we've put it in our budget, now what do you want to do with it, I think is a little open-ended at this point. I think we do need to pick a date and time and say by this date, please respond to us with whether or not you will or will not make the payment of $1,053,000 to Collier County so that we can take appropriate action. And that action would be to effect the Sheriff's budget and our budget overall in such a way, and to begin quantifying the reductions and service to the rest of the county and determine whether or not that is sufficient to file suit against Marco Island. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they have to say two weeks from last night. That will be their final budget hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But what I'm saying is they don't '- MS. BILES: 21st. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- have -- they can just -- they can approve their budget with a million dollars for whatever they want to call it, but that doesn't give us an answer to the question, are you going to write the check to Collier County and when can we expect it. And that's really what I'm looking for is that solid statement of yes, we're going to sign the check on a certain date, or we're not. Because without that, how do we work out a direction with the sheriff's office on our final budget if we don't know what the coverage level of Marco Island is or isn't going to be? And so I think we have to know that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have to know it. And frankly, it ought to come from our attorney to their attorney, I think, and should state, you know, that absence of a response by whatever, you know, two weeks from tonight we'll assume is a negative answer and proceed accordingly to, you know, enforce whatever legal rights we may have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that appropriate from the County Attorney's Office, or should it be the signature of the chairman of this board? Because I believe that's a policy directive. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't care. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think David should draft it, you know, because I think it will be part of a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you're right. -- legal right that we're -- Much better. -- going to have to make. I -- So the chairman's signature? Chairman to chairman. Yes, chairman to chairman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Is that okay? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would suggest in the text of that letter that it's made perfectly clear that pursuant to this board's policy, which dates back to February of this year, the funding for the coverage, the Sheriff's Department's coverage of Marco Island will not be in the budget unless the revenue is supplied from Marco Island. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's exactly what I'd like to say. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it needs to be very clear in that letter. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may want to be specific in that wording that we don't put something on paper that is factually incorrect about the Sheriff's minimum constitutional duties. Because no matter what, the Sheriff's office is going to have to provide the minimum constitutional requirement to Marco Island. And I think we -- if that's the proper wording, Don, I think we need to reference that, because let's -- let's talk about the difference. That's what that million dollars is, it's a difference between the minimum constitutional requirement -- you know what. SHERIFF HUNTER: I know what you mean. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because right now, right now, I mean, we could -- the Sheriff's office could do less in Collier County than it does now -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And meet the constitutional -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm sure our crime rate would suffer, and I'm sure a lot of the community would suffer, but the minimum requirement of the Sheriff's Office would be met. So I'm just saying there's -- I don't know what that wording is, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I just caused a furrowed brow, so -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, there were about four conversations going on '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think, too -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- I'm trying to keep up, but I'm old now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I want to make it clear that this is not a battle between the Board of County Commissioners and the Sheriff. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're on the same side. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're not -- we are not battling over this issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The way I look at it, we're trying to help CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're trying to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- them provide adequate coverage -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- work to try to find some way to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to Marco Island. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to bring about so you can continue to do what you're charged to do, but do it -- we have got to be responsible then for the rest of Collier County. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I think that's a very important point, and probably the best way to iljustrate that is the way we approached this subject initially. Because we put the funding in the budget -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and we anticipated the revenue. The alternative would have been to cut the Sheriff's budget at the very beginning of this process and tell the Sheriff, the only way you're going to get to cover Marco is if you get it from Marco. And that would have forced the issue that way. We felt that wasn't the way to approach this issue, because it wasn't between the Board of County Commissioners and the Sheriff, and I think that's a real significant point. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. But I think the message was exactly the same, even though we arranged the budget a little different. SHERIFF HUNTER: The only -- may I? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I just had a comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. SHERIFF HUNTER: The only other matter that I believe the board would want to be reminded of is that in the preliminary discussions with the City of Marco Island, the city wanted to know what level of service are we currently getting, and how would we derive a budget number to attach to that level of service? And if you'll recall, that the 72 percent, there's been this proportion of service being talked about; 72 percent of the calls for service occurring in the Marco Island substation can be attributed back to Marco Island. And you'll recall that that's how we derived the $1,053,100 figure. 72 percent of calls for service is very significant, because that's actually the number of calls that can be attributed to Marco Island proper now. In other words, 72 percent of the work that occurs at Marco substation is attributed to Marco Island -- the City of Marco Island. Let's see, number of different ways of saying that. So therefore, of the 24 people assigned there, most of them are actually actively going to calls for service. They're not patrolling, they're going to calls for service on Marco. They're also patrolling, but of all the calls for service coming into that Marco Island substation, 72 percent are for Marco, the City of Marco. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sheriff, let me ask you a question, and it just occurred to me: If you said or we said that okay, you've got to reduce it to, say, two people per shift down there, is Marco by any chance looking for the same arrangement that Pelican Bay has, whereby if they want to continue that 72 percent -- you know, that level that when you -- which you have attributed to 72 percent of the calls, do they want to then merely finance from what, say, two per shift would be, or the total of seven people or whatever it is up to the current standard? Are they looking for that, by any chance? Have they indicated that? SHERIFF HUNTER: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or they just flat out don't want to pay anything. SHERIFF HUNTER: They won't -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing. SHERIFF HUNTER: They appear reluctant to pay anything. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They want free law enforcement. SHERIFF HUNTER: They're not going the opposite way at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They want free law enforcement, as shocking as that is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think that's referred to as -- they've kind of cherry-picked some of the things that they wanted and things that weren't too expensive, they would take on, and then -- you know, this is a big ticket item. There's no question about it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I looked at that, and if they tried to come up to the existing level of service -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- under Pelican Bay's contract, it would probably cost more than a million dollars we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that right? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because Pelican Bay had -- I mean, everything is thrown in there, tires, uniforms. I mean, everything was thrown in there to err on the side -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So this is a generous -- this $1,053,100 was a generous -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has the economy of scale built into it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, but we could have been much more greedy about what -- if we wanted to be sure they paid for every bit of rubber on every tire for every thing, instead of that, we used this number 72 percent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The service calls, right. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: But Pelican Bay pays the HSTU. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. Oh, I know. MR. FERNANDEZ: And on top of that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On top of that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- they want another level of service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- that's one of the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's a big difference. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, they pay the unincorporated general fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, they do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which now Marco is not paying the unincorporated fund. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, you were getting to a point -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, Don. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sheriff? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to add another conversation with the four that are going on. You were getting to a point, I think, with your 72 percent on Marco Island, and I'm not sure we quite got there. Are you saying that -- let me rephrase that. 72 percent of the calls may be on Marco Island, but not all of them are what we would call critical, or whatever the term is for immediate response. Things such as vandalism that we now -- your office tries to respond to as quickly as possible. Instead of taking 15 minutes to get an officer, it may take six hours. Things that are not again critical, life-threatening, property threatening. Those things in a reduced situation would go to a very much back burner. And does that still meet -- as long as you respond to the call, does it still meet your constitutional requirement for service to the folks on Marco Island by responding when it's -- when you have personnel available? Is there a time limit on the non-critical calls that you have to meet as a law enforcement officer? SHERIFF HUNTER: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So -- SHERIFF HUNTER: But we would get into that disparate treatment issue pertaining to how other districts are handled. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And my response to that is the disparate financial issue that my folks in North Naples are paying full taxes and sending their people to Marco Island for. That's why we have a court system. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And also, the response is the level of service that's provided in the City of Naples -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in the -- within the same county by the same sheriff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So based on all of that, we end up in court if Marco doesn't pay a reasonable -- I mean, that's -- my vote will be that we end up in court if Marco doesn't pay for their services. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make no mistake, I'm joining you with You're a lawyer, though. Oh, well, yeah. I'm not, and I don't play one on TV, but I agree with you. I don't think there's any other option here. And I don't think we can be weak about this, because then we have to go back to our constituents and say I'm sorry you lost patrol time in your district because we couldn't strike a deal with Marco Island because Marco Island wouldn't pay for the law enforcement services that they want. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For free. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm not willing to say that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm afraid that enough people hear about this out in the county, that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I expect they will. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- they may be -- they may be doing some things down there at the bridge to separate Marco Island from the island. SHERIFF HUNTER: It's making it more difficult for me to respond. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're back to the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll make it very hard for you to respond out there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So okay, I'll -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, at this point -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, thanks for waiting all night. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I appreciate your being here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think at this point in time, number one, we're going to draft a letter, which Mr. Weigel and Mr. Fernandez will probably work on with maybe getting some input from the Sheriff and Mr. Schreiber on that. At that point, we'll go forward from that and -- with a date certain that they have to reply. And if the response is not as we hope it will be, then there will have to be other action that's going to have to follow, and we'll have to do that. Is that -- have I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- stated this whole thing correctly? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nicely presented. RESOLUTION 98-378 ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this point in time, resolution, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. We would actually need two motions to adopt the millages, a strict reading of the statute. The pollution control fund is a dependent special district and it should be adopted separately and after the principal taxing authorities. So if you would, we would need a motion to adopt the tentative millage rates, as defined on item 2(e), page two, excluding the pollution control. And then we would need a separate motion for the COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved on the first item. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait, we didn't cut everything out of District 3 yet. He's not here. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, Sheriff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: A motion to adopt the pollution control millage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to adopt the pollution control millage. Hearing no questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. RESOLUTION 98-379 ADOPTING THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next one, we need a motion to adopt the amended tentative budgets. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I'd love to make that motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd second it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, excluding pollution control. We'd need a separate millage -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's precisely what I intended. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- separate motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Hearing no questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And now? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay, the tentative millage rates to be adopted county-wide, 3.6015 pollution control -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These are just going to be readings that we don't have to adopt anything more? MR. SHYKOWSKI: You have to adopt the pollution control -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The pollution control budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: You've done that. Yes. I'm just announcing those for the public and then announce the final hearing and we are done. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Smykowski, would we not need to adopt the tentative budget for pollution control? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, we didn't do that. We got one more budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sorry, we didn't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the tentative budget for pollution control. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Hearing no further questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You just wanted to make one motion tonight, didn't you, Pam? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just had to. MR. SHYKOWSKI: General fund, 3.56021, .6 percent over the rollback rate. County-wide, 3.6015, 1.5 percent over the rollback rate. Aggregate, 4.2694, 1.6 percent above the rollback rate. A final hearing on the budget will be two weeks from tonight, Wednesday, September 23rd at 5:05 in this room. We'll make final decisions on the millage and budget at that point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hearing no further -- having no further business come before this board, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:03 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC