Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/07/1999 B (Budget)September 7, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5:05 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 7, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter Michael Smykowski, Budget Director Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 NOTICE: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Tuesday, September 7, 1999 5:05 p.m. ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIR_MAN. Bo C. D. E. F. G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - BCC - Fiscal Year 2000 Tentative Budget. Discussion of Tentative Millage Rates and Increase Over the Rolled Back Millage Rate Review and Discussion of Changes to the Tentative Budget Wrap-up Items Public Comments and Questions Resolution to Adopt the Tentative Millage Rates Resolution to Adopt thc Amended Tentative Budget Announcement of Tentative Millage Rates and Percentage Changes in Property Tax Rates Announcement of Final Public Hearing as Follows: Final Public Hearing on the FY 1999-00 Collier County Budget Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:05 p.m. Collier County Government Center Administration Building CF) Third Floor, Boardroom Naples, Florida 3. ADJOURN. September 7, 1999 Item #2A DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASE OVER THE ROLLED BACK MILLAGE RATE CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good afternoon. We'll call this budget hearing to order on Tuesday, September 7th, 1999. If everyone will stand, please, we'll have the pledge of allegiance and then we'll begin the public hearing. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Mr. Smykowski, racing up the stairs again. Then he gets up here and huffs and puffs and we wonder why. What's the matter, Mike? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Cuban cigars. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I hope it's not that bad tonight as it was the other day. Okay, first order of business would just be some housekeeping items. If people want to register to speak, there are forms available in the hallway. There's also copies of the agenda available for members of the public. In accordance with Florida Statute, the first item of discussion are the tentative millage rates and the increase over the rollback millage rate. Those are on Page 3-A; Page 1 in your packet. First item is the general fund. We're increasing support to EMS and the road and bridge department, enhancing service and libraries, stormwater management and the Sheriff, coupled with a decrease in available fund balance. The proposed millage rate is 3.5058, which is 7.8 percent above the rolled back millage rate. Water pollution control fund, the proposed millage is .0355, a decrease of 6.1 percent below the rolled back rate as a function of increased reimbursement revenue that the -- that department will be receiving for services provided. The overall proposed county-wide millage rate is 3.5413, an increase of 7.7 percent above the rolled back millage rate. Running down the MSTU list, Road District 1 has been deleted. Road District 2, the increase above the rolled back rate is 32.4 percent. The millage is .1422. That's a function of median landscape construction, two principal projects: Goodlette-Frank Road from Solano to Pine Ridge, and the North Tamiami Trail from Seagate to Gulf Park Drive. Road District 2 is median maintenance, as well as a couple of construction projects: CR 951 and the East Trail from Airport to Rattlesnake. The increase over the rollback rate, 24.5 percent. Proposed millage, .4587. Road District 5, the Immokalee median landscape maintenance. The increase above the rollback rate is 75.2. Proposed millage is .33. Unincorporated area general fund, there's a decree of 4.9 percent below the rolled back rate. Proposed millage, .5203. The tax levy is approximately equivalent to that as FY '99. Due to the increase in taxable value within the unincorporated area, the millage does decrease. Golden Gate Community Center, there's a decree of 20.5 percent below the rolled back rate. The proposed millage, .226, and that's a function of the decrease in capital outlay, as well as an increase in Page 2 September 7, 1999 value within the district. Marco Island beautification has been deleted. There's no tax levy proposed in Naples Park drainage. Within the Pine Ridge Industrial Park the decrease below the rolled back rate is 63.5. Proposed millage, .0356. That's a function of additional fund balance being available, as well as a decrease in cost due to favorable bids that were received for the contract maintenance work. Within Victoria Park drainage, decrease is 4.6 percent below the rolled back millage rate. The proposed millage is .114. The taxable -- the tax levy itself decreases approximately $100, but due to increased value within the district, there is that decrease of 4.6 percent. Golden Gate Parkway beautification, that's an increase of 4.8 percent above the rolled back rate. That's a constant one-half mill tax levy. Naples Production Park construction, there's no proposed levy. Naples Production Park maintenance, the increase above the rolled back rate is 377.2 percent. That's for maintenance within this district. In addition, one parcel this year the board had seen and approved via an executive summary during the course of this year. A parcel within the district was declared to be non-taxable and non-assessable; and, therefore, to recoup that difference in funding to be received, the millage increase increases accordingly to repay that balance. Isle of Capri Fire is one mill, 2.9 percent above the rolled back rate. Ochopee Fire levies four mills. Same as in FY '99. An increase of 4.8 percent above the rolled back rate. Collier County Fire we're increasing to a two mill tax levy again, 3.8 percent above the rolled back rate. Goodland/Horr's Island Fire MSTU, this is the first tax levy within this district proposed at 1.1750 mills. This district was created a year ago. They were included within the Collier County Fire District. Radio Road beautification levies a constant one-half mill. That's 3.3 percent above the rolled back rate. Sabal Palm Road, there's no proposed tax levy. A decrease of 100 percent below the rolled back rate. Essentially the state has been buying up the land within that area; therefore, no additional efforts are going to be expended to secure permits to attempt to build that final segment of the road out there. Lely Golf Estates beautification levies a constant 1.5 mills. That's 2.4 percent above the rolled back rate. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU decreases 42.4 percent. The proposed millage is .0601. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage, there was no levy in FY '99. The recommendation proposed is one mill in FY 2000, and that's for stormwater and roadway improvements on Forest Lakes Boulevard. Immokalee beautification levies a constant one mill. That's 3.9 percent above the rolled back rate. Bayshore Avalon beautification is proposed at three mills. The same as that levied in FY '99, 2.2 percent above the rolled back rate. Again, within that district they're accumulating funds to do the Page 3 September 7, 1999 median and right-of-way beautification work on Bayshore Drive between Thomasson and U.S. 41. The Parks GOB Debt Service decreases 8.7 percent below the rolled back rate. That is debt service on the outstanding bond issues which were used to construct the community parks within Collier County. Just as a footnote, those will be -- those bonds, final payment will be in July, 2003, so we're nearing the end of that bond issue. Marco Island beach renourishment has been deleted. Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue, that's the debt service portion of the Isles of Capri, is a decrease of eight percent from the rolled back rate. There's a slight decrease in the debt service requirement by the station renovations in FY 2000, and an increase in the taxable value within the district. Collier County Lighting has a decrease of 9.4 percent below the rolled back rate. Proposed millage is .1719. There's a slight decrease based on actual expenditures for the principal expenses. Electricity, based on actuals, the budget decreased slightly, coupled with an increase in value in the district, results in the lower millage rate. Naples Production Park street lighting, there's an increase in tax levy. It's 893 and a half percent above the rolled back rate. There's a decrease in fund balance, while the percentage is a very large increase. We're talking about an increase in the tax levy of $12,100, just in terms of order of magnitude. Marco Island lighting has been deleted. The final fund is the Pelican Bay MSTBU. Zero percent change from the rolled back rate. When compared to the previous year's millage, it is a decrease of a $1.80 per 100,000. Again, there's an increase in the available fund balance and an increase in the property value within that district. That concludes Item 3-A. Item #2B REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET Now move to Item 3-B, which is a review and discussion of changes to the tentative budget. There are three pages that I'll walk through briefly that identify changes to the tentative budget that the board had last seen. In terms of summary, things that would have changed would have been board action in the intermittent period. In some cases the actual budgets were received, such as the case of the tax collector. In certain instances we've gotten final notification on grant awards versus what was originally estimated, and we've revised the budget to reflect the actual grant awards. General fund, no increase in the fund total. It does include a -- the amendment to the reserve policy approved by the board on August 3rd. And the outreach coordinator position was moved from the extension services budget that will -- that position will be administratively centered in the library budget. The tax collector budget of approximately 7.6 million, that budget was submitted on August 1st. The Road MSTD 2, Fund 103, there's a net increase of $95,000, and Page 4 September 7, 1999 we're recognizing a donation for the construction of median landscaping. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: From? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Solano Road to Pine Ridge Road. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, donation from? From whom was the donation received? Somebody -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was a -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC KIE: Well, maybe somebody can find out before we're done. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm assuming a developer, but I don't -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC KIE: Just curious. Can't picture who it is. But if you could find out during the break, I mean, while we continue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Looks like Mr. Kant has an immediate answer. CHAIRWOMAN MAC KIE: There you go. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, we believe it was the DeVoe Buick people, which -- DeVoe Buick. CHAIRWOMAN MAC KIE: Oh. Okay, we knew that was coming, didn't we? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC KIE: Okay. Thanks. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We will verify that, though, and if that was incorrect, we'll let you know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC KIE: That gives us 100 grand. It's good to know who. It's nice to say thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Miscellaneous grants, the actual grant award notice, we're going to receive slightly less than our original budget estimate by $1,800. The summer food service program grant increased $235,800. This program is funded 100 percent by the state. And this will allow for a much greater participation in the program. It will virtually double the size of the program. So that's I think a testament to the parks and rec. staff, and I believe that's coordinated by Mr. Jim Thomas. That's been a highly successful program for the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's basically where kids who get free lunches during the school year continue to get them during the summer. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Breakfast and lunch during the summer recreation program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's okay, it's not county money. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a great program. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next is Services for Seniors from 123. An increase of 134,900 for appropriating carryforward, as well as revenue from the State Medicaid Waiver Program. Isles of Capri Fire District, there's no net change to the fund total. We simply moved funds from reserves to capital outlay for the replacement of a portable fire pump on the boat. I believe it was $4,700. The next series of changes that I'm going to go through are related to your capital projects. Essentially what we do is initially staff makes an estimate of what projects will be under contract prior to the end of the fiscal year. This is during the budget development phase. You're talking March, April. Obviously, as we get to this point in the year, if a contract -- if a project is not under contract, what we do is simply revise the Page 5 September 7, 1999 project forecast and rebudget the funds in the subsequent fiscal year to eliminate the -- or minimize the number of carryforward budget amendments that are necessitated right at the start of the fiscal year. In Fund 301, the county construction fund, there's a change of approximately 8.7 million dollars. And that's essentially from two projects: The Sheriff's administration building and the Domestic Animal Services facility. Parks capital, again a function of project timing. That changed approximately $170,000. Within Clam Bay restoration, the original budget assumed that Clam Bay improvements and maintenance would be split between WCI and Pelican Bay property owners. The board made a policy decision during the budget workshops to pay for the Clam Bay maintenance, thereby reducing the matching funds from WCI, because Pelican Bay will be responsible for the balance of remaining capital improvements solely, of which 50 percent will be paid by WCI. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Mike, why did we decide WCI wasn't going to do that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was a -- that decision the board -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, maybe I can help with that one. I believe that the board's interest was in removing the burden for the maintenance of this project from the residents -- solely from the residents of Pelican Bay. And -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Putting that burden where? MR. FERNANDEZ: Distributing it more generally. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Because it's a NRPA. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't recall when we did that. I remember having long discussions on it, but I don't remember -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just didn't remember. I mean, that's why when I read it I needed some refreshing. MR. FERNANDEZ: The direction we got from the board was to change that arrangement. What Mr. Smykowski is describing is that the arrangement was that there be an equal split between the amount contributed by the Pelican Bay residents and WCI, so by that action, unnecessarily reduce the amount from WCI. In fact, when Mike and I talked about it, I wasn't sure that the board was aware that that's the impact that it would have, less money from WCI. I wasn't sure that was your intent either. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You may well have gotten that direction. I just don't recall it. And I wondered maybe if we can dig out the minutes from whenever that direction came. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's why we're here tonight. If that's not your direction, you can change it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. And we also have a budget hearing in Pelican Bay on Thursday evening, so certainly -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think anybody -- I mean, I don't remember -- if there was going to be some grace given, I thought it was going to be to the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- not to the former developer of Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wasn't that 130,000 total, somewhere close to that -- Page 6 September 7, 1999 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- that was in the original budget? And then because it was a NRPA, that we were going to do that. I did not -- I'm like the rest of the board, I did not know that that meant that WCI was relieved of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we have an answer on the Thursday meeting then? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, what I'd like to do is go back and recompute this so that the amount of commitment from WCI, the dollar amount, does not change in order for us to reduce the burden on the Pelican Bay -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- residents. And I think that's more in keeping with what the board had in mind. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you can also provide those minutes in the meantime, though, so we can see what our direction was, because I just have no recollection of it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, when did we have the -- was this a part of the budget discussion? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was part of the budget workshops in June. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it seems to me this is probably one of those where the intended result of ours -- I have another one that's going to come up that the intended result was not what resulted. So go ahead. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Stormwater management capital is solely a function again of project timing where we're just rebudgeting projects that will not be under contract before the end of the fiscal year. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, I hate to interrupt because we're running along so smoothly, but I have questions on that. Is this concerning our Lely basin stormwater project? Is there anyone in staff here present that can answer? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Here again, this doesn't affect the amount of funding for the project. What it does is acknowledge the amount that we'll be able to complete in the current fiscal year and rolling forward the balance to next fiscal year so we can continue the project. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I understand that, and that's why I apologize for interrupting, but the question I have is if this is the Lely basin stormwater project, are we still unable to get permits for that? MR. VINCENT: Gary Vincent, office of management and budget. The Lely basin project is one of the projects that is being carried forward. I'm not sure whether or not it's because of inability to get permits or not. MR. ILSCHNER: I can't answer that for you, but I will get you an answer for it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, actually all I wanted to do was to bring that issue back to the board if we're still unable to get permits, because it's been years trying to get permits. If we can't get permits, let's sue them and do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe what we should have -- it's a Page 7 September 7, 1999 really good point -- is let's have staff advise us on the status of those permits -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- on the next available agenda. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. We can still set that for the agenda on the 14th and add that, just a status update, as to the Lely basin project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If the 14th is the appropriate agenda, we'll rely on staff for that, because that's a long agenda already. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Understood. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Imagine that. Okay, keep us rolling. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 2 under Item 3-B are changes to the roads capital. Again, primarily project timing. To a lesser degree some additional impact fee revenue to be received in this fiscal year. I guess the most important thing probably are -- there were two projects where there were budget increases in the project; one of which is Golden Gate Boulevard from 951 to Wilson Boulevard. It increases two million dollars, based on the completed design, which fully addresses drainage and stormwater issues within the area. The second project with an increase is Immokalee Road, in which staff is recommending an additional mile of roadway lighting be added at a cost of $1,033,000 on that project, an additional funding for construction engineering expenses. Those were the two substantive changes. The balance of changes are really related to project timing and whether or not a specific project would be under contract before the end of the fiscal year. Those were the two areas where there were project changes in the actual cost of the project. Page 3, the parks -- the first two funds are park impact fee. Again, that's solely a subject of project timing and just revising the project forecast and rebudgeting projects in the subsequent fiscal year. Within the county water sewer district debt, that increase is two million dollars. There's been a revised cash flow schedule for the state revolving fund loans. The regional water facility have five million gallon per day expansion. The SRF loans are reimbursement based, and that cash will not be received before the end of the fiscal year being rebudgeted next year. Within water system development charges, total project expenses increase approximately 3.3 million, of which 1.6 is carryforward of projects due to timing. There's also increases in the cost of the manatee storage system upgrade, as well as the board had approved a second phase of engineering on the eight million gallon per day regional water treatment plant project in which we are designing future expansion capability into the initial design. Water capital, 412, increases slightly, again, primarily a function of project timing and rather minor scale increases in revised project cost estimates. Sewer system development increases approximately 1.3 million dollars; primarily a function of additional impact fee revenue to be received within the current fiscal year. Project cost estimates increased 548,000 for three various projects, the 30-inch Immokalee forest main, for additional -- for easement acquisitions. 149,000, based on construction bids for the Page 8 September 7, 1999 pump station at Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41. And there was a $10,000 increase in the back pressure sustaining valve project to make controls Y2K compliant at the Pelican Bay irrigation pump station. Sewer capital overall reflects a decrease in total appropriations of approximately $62,000. There were some project revisions, though. Addition of a pond liner at the north county water reclamation facility, a cost of $341,300. And a $260,000 increase in the Pelican Bay irrigation potable water fire system changeover. These are available from reserves, project funding. within the Solid Waste Management fund, total appropriations decreased almost 2.6 million dollars. Originally the early closure of cell six was budgeted in the FY 2000 budget. That is actually under contract this year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That means earlier instead of later. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Earlier rather than later in this case, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want to be sure, because it's a mess right now. You know, it's nasty right now as they're doing the work. As I'm sure Commissioner Constantine is very aware. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A mess. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, thanks. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The final item on the list is the GAC land trust fund in which there'll be an extension for the purchase of the approved safety refuge shelters. And that concludes Item 3-B, the revisions and discussions of change to the tentative budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mike, I have a question. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know where it was, but the one that we talked about briefly in my office that I thought was this great idea about how to put these accumulated funds into the general fund, where is that on this -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's on the wrap-up list. That's where we're headed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's wrap-up. Not on this change list, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. The actual resolutions fund by fund are the next approximately 30 pages in your package. I just used the summary description to reflect the net change to the fund total with a brief explanation of what had transpired. Item #2C WRAP UP ITEMS The next item is in your agenda package 3-C, which is a public hearing wrap-up list. It includes a series of flagged items, there are actually five, and there are some general topics. Item 6 on the agenda, Commissioner Mac'Kie, to answer your question, we'll address quickly. But just starting from the top, the flagged items from the budget workshops, the first of which was an ambulance billing position within the Department of Revenue. That was pending the results of the consultant's study that was being conducted by LaRue & Associates, and the consultant's study supported a recommended funding this additional position in that regard. Page 9 September 7, 1999 In the DOR, there was -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before you -- so as a result -- I mean, this item is flagged because the board hasn't decided whether or not we agree to go along with the consultant's recommendation? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct -- well, there was not a recommendation during the budget period during the June workshops. The board -- the study was underway at that point, had just gotten underway, and the board just simply said let's flag that and hear what the results are after the consultant's study comes in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because I thought that we were going to discuss that to see whether or not it was necessary even if the consultant recommended it, as we looked at the whole -- maybe I'm thinking about the utility billing position instead of the ambulance. But I thought we were concerned about the expansion of those positions in DOR. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think with respect to this one, the discussion was that there were problems with the collection of ambulance bills. We could address that through a number of mechanisms that have been identified by the consultant's study, which we are in fact implementing. However, I think even the department admits that if we don't do the additional position, we don't give them the additional position, they're still going to be handcuffed and they're going to have a difficult time meeting our expectations. We're either going to have to fund this office adequately or decide to outsource it. The recommendation from the consultant was that they didn't see that the outsourcing is a panacea here. This is a very complicated, difficult function to perform and recommended that we try to at least make the improvements first before we do -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, I thought the question was whether it went back to EMS to do their own billings. But basically this is a designated EMS person under the umbrella of DOR? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And there's not an amount here for this particular one. What is the amount? Because I assume that as -- I mean, we've already set the millage cap, so we can't be adding things without taking something out. Isn't that the drill at this point? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: $31,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is $31,0007 MR. SMYKOWSKI: We do have a copy of the minutes -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that for each position, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was for the ambulance billing position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then utilities -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's in the budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, so these are not items that we have to find the money for. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That and utility we don't have to find the money for, they're already in the budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. And I do have a copy of the minutes. Page 10 September 7, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Each one is 31,000; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BERRY: What about the utility one? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The utility position is bound to be in the same ballpark, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Let me give you the perspective, though, of the discussion from the budget workshops. Commissioner Mac'Kie, "I wonder if it's makes sense to add the EMS" -- talking about the EMS position -- "pending the study that you guys are telling us is ongoing. I think I'd rather leave that out until you finish your study and then tell us what you need. That's my personal vote." "Get this pulled together" Let's see. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if I thought it was a crummy idea, there must be three people who thought it was a decent idea. I mean, not that that's a pattern or anything, but -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, my question with this whole Department of Revenue, I spoke briefly to the county administrator this afternoon. At some point I thought we were going to take a hard look at this through -- either Pete Marwick was going to give us an assessment of this; the tax collector had said based on an audit that he would have an interest in bidding on doing this service. Somewhere along the line, I don't know if we've ever given direction to staff, my question to the board is where are we on this? Are we going to take a hard look at DOR and find out is it -- are we going to keep it, are we going to outsource it, are we going to bid it out? Where are we? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have the same question. MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, if I may, for the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. In terms of taking an independent look at the Department of Revenue, I know that your -- the board's citizen productivity committee did a fairly extensive review of that operation less than a year ago and issued a report. I'd be happy to give you copies of that report, if you have -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Leo, I've seen that report. But it seems to me, and I'm just asking the board to help me recall this, that we had further discussion on this function. And if we were going to get a hard assessment on this, even outside of that, to find out are we going to outsource, are we going to let other people bid on it, are we going to keep it. Because if we're going to add $62,000 imposition here, you know, let's figure out where we're going with this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and we did -- you guys -- I mean, here's what I recollect, Jim, is that there -- there was some discussion about that we -- what percentage DOR charges for something and the tax collector ran over here and said I can beat that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I mean, we didn't dream that up, that really did happen. I don't know where we decided to go with it, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: In our discussion I mentioned to Commissioner Carter that I do recall that we had the discussion. There was some consideration of some options that we should pursue. I don't recall that we had direction from the board, and I do know that we do not have a study budgeted. So if that's the board's Page 11 September 7, 1999 intent tonight, we need to talk about coming up with a dollar amount for us to go forward with that study, if you'd like us to do it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you have any idea what it would cost to do this study so that we could -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That really depends upon how in-depth we'd like to go. We know what it costs us to do the ambulance billing project, but that was very small, and I think what you're talking about is a much more comprehensive review of the entire department, their functions and their cost effectiveness and so forth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think there's anything we can do that will affect this budget as far as whether or not we have to put these two positions in. I think we have to. And they're already in the budget. But I think what you're hearing from at least two of us, and I understand you need from one other person before it's direction of the board is -- I was so distressed, frankly, with the ambulance billing information that it makes me question the effectiveness of the overall effort. And if there is a majority of the board who wants to look into that, you need to hear that clearly. I hear it from two. Does anybody else want to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'd like to hear from Mr. Yonkosky about -- just talking about the ambulance billing situation, if you could refresh our minds about that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that going to be on our agenda September 14th, the resolution of that problem? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't have that scheduled at this point. Mr. Yonkosky can -- I would like to have him give you, if he can off the top of his head, an idea of the kinds of recommendations that were made by the consultant and the improvements that we are putting into place. I will tell you that the consultant did not clearly say the solution to our problem is to outsource this; in fact stops short of recommending that, and indicated if we put into place the recommended improvements in some of our procedures, that we should see some marked improvement in the results in the collection rates and so forth. So Mr. Yonkosky maybe can speak to some of those specific things that we've done to improve the operation since the study. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And maybe even outline -- I think what Commissioner Berry was asking is what is the ambulance billing question generally. I mean -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Remind us, it had to do -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: What the problem is or, you know, so we -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Had to do with Naples Community Hospital and those bills? MR. FERNANDEZ: Maybe I can frame that. The problem was that we did some budget estimates, remembering the estimates based upon what we expected to collect. And we were reaching a point very early in the fiscal year that it became clear that that estimate was not going to be realized because of the rate of collection. The decision on billing the hospital of course was a big part of that. But also, there were other indications that collections weren't coming in as we had hoped. So that's what really prompted the study in the first place, is there another way that we should be structuring Page 12 September 7, 1999 this function to get better results. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if this is really a good item for tonight or perhaps some that we should schedule for some other time in depth. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I would agree with that. But I was just reacting to the idea if we've got to make a decision tonight, then I wanted to hear from the Department of Revenue. But if it's all right with the rest of the board, I would much rather have it on an agenda item, which gives them time to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It needs some -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- prepare some comments and then we can go forth from there. But if we're okay with what we're doing tonight, that's perfectly all right with me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think we can't do anything other than what we're doing tonight on these two items, but that late September -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Berry, I would agree with that. I would just like to take this forward like on the 28th or maybe it's the first meeting in October, so that we get some direction or resolution of this, because it seems to me like this keeps coming up as a reoccurring point of discussion in bits and pieces. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, let's get some kind of either we go forward with the DOR or we do something else -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: We need to do something here. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- but at least let's get a clear direction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds good. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So did the Florida Association of Counties' dues actually go up $4,200? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, Commissioner Mac'Kie, they did go up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Darn. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Over our objection. But we were a minority. It was like we were -- 19 percent voted against it and, well, you know what the other percentage was. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that in the budget or do we have to find that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we have to put that money in the -- we have to find it somewhere because we did not budget on that basis. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So did we have to find this money, or is it in the budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is not in the budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we have to find it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we include NACO in this year's budget? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much was that? Because that might be a way to find this money. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know if you can do it, if you've already paid the dues, Tim. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's already paid. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope not. MR. FERNANDEZ: In fact, I believe we did that as a budget Page 13 September 7, 1999 amendment in this year. Because we're already NACO members. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, I had supported -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we find out whether that's -- what the deal is? If we end up scrounging for money for this, if I've got to choose, then I would -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, me, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rather have the Florida Association of Counties. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I had asked -- I had supported our joining the National Association of Counties, hoping that they were going to fund this project at Florida Gulf Coast University that involves studying Southwest Florida, blah, blah, blah. Didn't happen. So I'm not as hot to give them our money if they're not going to give us some back. So we'll flag that one? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Flag it for final hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have to make an offsetting cut of $4,200 in order to pay that money? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Actually, there is a -- yes, funded from reserves, or there was -- there were some slight changes in the final indirect cost allocation plan of 8,200, the difference between what is actually charged versus budgeted. You could fund the difference from that 8,200. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: left. So we have $8,000 of found money. Let's use that and that will leave us 4,000 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sound agreeable? Sounds agreeable. Sounds agreeable to me. Now we're down to nickels. Moving on the Monopoly board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's the Christmas party. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, my favorite topic, Healthy Kids. Give us a report. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Do you still want a report on the NACO dues, or are we finished with that one? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we're done with NACO. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in -- we don't need it in a meeting, but I'd love to know when we paid and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If the dues come up again, though, we might want to know about that beforehand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If we paid pro rata through October 1 or -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Healthy Kids. The -- that issue was raised during the budget workshops, and again on August 3rd when we addressed the adoption of the proposed millage rates. At that point in time the discussion kind of focused that commissioners would discuss their private fundraising efforts at the Page 14 September 7, 1999 public hearings, and here we are. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Take it away, Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I raised $3,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's good. That's wonderful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about you guys? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was not successful in raising money. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I will come back to where I was when I originally proposed this to the board, that I have private people who will pay half of this if the county will end up paying the other half. So that's 43. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it ends up if Tim's raised three and half of this would be 43, so you're talking about $40,000, right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's only 8,000 each we have to raise. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. Speak for yourself. We can have a bake sale. I've got my 43. I don't know what you -- Is there anybody who could talk about what this would -- this $40,000, if we found it, would pay for? Because what I -- the little bit I've been researching, what I understand is that there are 1,000 school kids in Collier County who would qualify for and need this health insurance, but our program is maxed out and cannot be expanded to include these 1,000 children. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will tell you, I was in Orlando about a week ago, and there are a number of the larger communities in our state where they can't get enough people. And they have the money sitting in accounts. And what we may want to in the next two weeks -- I just found that out literally last week -- what we may want to do is see if there is a way to shift some of those monies around. They're literally not using them and they're sitting there -- they're going to get to the end of their budget year and not have them available because they don't have enough people to sign up for the money they collected. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, one question I have -- that's an interesting concept, Tim. I didn't realize that, that that was a fact. But you said 1,000. Is that based on the free and reduced lunch? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's based on -- and Tom Olliff, are you back there? Or I don't know who else might better know. I know that you have to qualify for free and reduced lunch. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I'm not sure if these are 1,000 -- this is something that Senator Saunders -- information he gave me. And I don't know if it is kids who can qualify or if it's kids who have applied, or if it's kids -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, see, that's my question. You may have 1,000 out there, you may have 2 or 3,000 out there. If they don't want to pick this insurance up, there's nothing you can do about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So I want to know if this is 1,000 children that have applied and were turned away. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hi. MS. CRAIG: Hi. I'm Susan Craig with the Collier County Health Page 15 September 7, 1999 Department. You're wanting to know what the current status is of children who have applied but have not yet had their applications filled? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MS. CRAIG: There are approximately 300 needy. But those go up daily. I'm not sure whether you know, but with the new Kids Care health insurance, there's four products. You apply for them on one application. So even though a family may be applying for Healthy Kids, it may turn out they're actually eligible for Medicaid or for Medi-kids or one of the other products. So that activity is going on daily. And there are applications being sent up to Tallahassee through Healthy Kids. On any given day, no one really knows exactly how many of those applications are going to end up being Healthy Kids' applications as opposed to one of the other insurance products. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there -- could you also just -- it's been a long time since we heard this, remind us how though program works? Is it matching funds from the state or -- MS. CRAIG: There are federal funds, there are state funds, and then there are local county matching funds. We are in the fourth year, and so the matching funds for the -- at the county level are now 20 percent, which is the highest it will go. It will remain at 20 percent in the ongoing years. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What did it start off with; do you -- MS. CRAIG: Five percent. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Five percent. MS. CRAIG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And up until now, the match has been paid privately? MS. CRAIG: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it's finally gotten to a high enough number that at least private people want us to pay half of it or want the government, county government, to pay half of the local match increase amount, not just half -- not half the local match, but half of the local -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize the problem remains regardless, but what's a little frustrating is the letter that came when we first started this program, Commissioner Berry, when you asked what was -- at the beginning, indicated that the private group that had picked up the ball to start with would do it through year five. And not only do we have them, we also have Cleveland Clinic now, we have others participating. And yet they're cutting back their number and saying well, we can't do this. So it's contrary to the promise. And it's private sector, they can do that, but it's contrary to the promise that was made when the program started. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How many counties participate? Do you have that information? You seem to know a lot about this. I appreciate that. MS. CRAIG: I don't have that right now. I can get that for you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you know if there are any other counties that have their county match paid privately, or are all the other counties paying it with tax money? That may not be persuasive to anybody, but -- Page 16 September 7, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just because everybody else has a higher tax rate doesn't mean I want to do that either. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And one other question I have about this, because I think it might be persuasive for Commissioner Berry and that is, is this a free insurance program? Is this something -- a freebee giveaway, government giveaway, or do parents who qualify for this have to pay something? MS. CP~AIG: No, it is not. They must pay the family share. Up to 200 percent poverty is $15. It's gone up. If you're over 200 percent of poverty for Healthy Kids, it has gone up. It is now $75. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a month, year? MS. CRAIG: That's a month. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Month. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if we were to pay this $43,000, how does it leverage? What do we get from the feds and the state? MS. CRAIG: Basically based on the calculations for last year, every dollar of local match leveraged about $5.35 worth of state and federal match together. And that's just for those positions that are -- those slots, if you will, that receive their funding with county match. There are other slots, 533, that are considered free slots that the state and federal government do not expect any local match for. And that's not added into the calculation of that $5.35. It's actually higher than that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's actually higher. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We put up one and they give us 5.35. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, but if it's 20 percent match, then we put up one and they put up four. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One other -- my question, you guys know that I continue to come back to the TV show for $100,000. Is there a way that we could cut the budget for the TV show to $50,000 and take 50,000 and put it in Healthy Kids? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, the TV budget was 65. That would give you 35. All you have to do is scramble around now for about eight more thousand, I guess. Mike's digging in his notes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if we could -- if we gave up the TV show, we could fund Healthy Kids, except for $8,000. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I thought we'd budgeted about $65,000 for the TV show. Now, I may be -- I don't know if I'm correct on that number or not. It sticks in my mind as 65,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 65,000, that's correct. It was originally contemplated over 100,000. reduced it to 65. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 20,000? $22,000. COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The board, during the budget workshops, So what could we get for a TV show for Nothing. Nothing? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is anybody willing to give up the TV show for the Healthy Kids funding? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know you're not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'd prefer we not inform the 200,000 residents of Collier County? Page 17 September 7, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would prefer that rather than inform them with this special television show that has more bells and whistles, I would prefer that the children have healthcare. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'd like to see us find the money somewhere. I think -- where are we short now, Mike, if we get private funding of 46? We're about 40,000 short, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What option do we have to pick up $40,0007 MR. SMYKOWSKI: 40,000 from reserves, and there's about 4,000 from the indirect cost allocation plans. You'd have to absorb the other 36 in reserves at this point. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have another question here, too. If it's 86,000 this year, what's it going to be next year? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We hear private match is for this year, I assume, only. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't know. I mean, it's hard to say. Maybe they will continue to do it. Maybe the hospitals will ante it up next year. I mean, I don't know. I can only -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're not obliged to continue the program, obviously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but this -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm going to tell you, once -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Once you start. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- you put this in place, it becomes an entitlement. And the minute you take it away, you are going to have the wrath on your head. So I -- it's one of those things. And Pam, the only thing that concerns me -- I'm not against anything to do with kids, you know that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I do know that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've worked too long in education. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But this isn't a program -- I mean, there's a lot of people that struggle out there that somehow find medical care for their children, okay, and that's their priority. Now, I know there's a segment of the population that they don't have the wherewithal. But I'll bet that many of those are already covered in some of this. If that's the case, they're covered through Medicaid or they're in some of those situations. I just have a real hard time taking taxpayer dollars for an insurance program. That's exactly what -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know you do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- you're doing here, and I just have a problem with it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know. I respect that. I know that you're having -- it's a fiscal conservative position you're coming from. But I want to be clear about who these kids are. These are kids whose parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid and -- but whose parents work or they could otherwise qualify, okay. If they were lazy, they could be on Medicaid. These are working parents who work in jobs like waitressing and lawn services and those -- and frankly, a great segment of the jobs in Collier County that don't provide health insurance. And yes, these people do eventually find healthcare for their kids and they don't let their children die. But why is that? That's because they take them Page 18 September 7, 1999 to emergency rooms and do emergency care instead of regular routine healthcare like we do for our children when we can pay for it with insurance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many children have been turned away from Healthy Kids? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She told us. Right now there's 380 something waiting. And that number changes daily. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they've just been told no? MS. CRAIG: No, their applications are suspended. They are held until a slot opens up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Till some other kid doesn't qualify, and then -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: We just have a segment out there, and the question is will this program continue to grow. I would suspect as Collier County continues to grow there will be a percentage of increase. That's -- there would be no doubt in my mind about that. However, that does not in my mind answer the question, how do you take care of kids that have fallen through the cracks, as Commissioner Mac'Kie has just addressed us about people who are working hard yet still have a shortfall. And I think when you're looking at a half a billion dollar corporation, that we ought to be able to find $40,000 to take care of kids. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, now, let me -- This is health, safety, welfare. I've got a counterpoint here. It is health, safety, welfare. Not insurance, though, Pam. I've got to counterpoint this. We're focusing on this $86,000, and that is nowhere near the total private match. That's only the little portion that's not being funded privately. What's the total private match? MS. CRAIG: For this year? For this year, $260 (sic). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thousand. MS. CRAIG: 260,000, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 260,000. MS. CRAIG: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the hospital could pull out at any time and then we go from 40,000 to 250. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't think that the hospitals in this community would not be -- I don't see them being that irresponsible. I don't think that they would do this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they've already backed away from what they originally promised, Commissioner. Why don't we poll the board and see -- rather than argue about this, why don't we poll the board and move on. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Who does this pay, this insurance? Does this pay the hospital or does this pay the doctors? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not one nickel goes to hospitals. MS. CRAIG: This money pays Healthy Kids Corporation, which is an insurance product like any other. There is then an HMO in town that is connected with that. Children go to those doctors who are part of that HMO, they get their healthcare, and it is paid for in the traditional ways that HMO's work. Page 19 September 7, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The Healthy Kids -- MS. CRAIG: With the insurance company. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- pays the doctor. Hospitals don't get paid. Doc -- MS. CRAIG: No, none of this money goes directly to the hospital. It's paid directly to Healthy Kids Corporation in Tallahassee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And let me tell you this, too, from my own personal experience, because I try to be diligent about using a pediatrician who participates in the program so that I'm helping support. My kids' pediatrician has shared with me the very low reduced rates that they get compensated under Healthy Kids. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I understand. I know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not like the doctors are making money off this. This is a money loser for doctors. They could be, you know, taking care of my kids and making money instead of Healthy Kids and, you know, paying a very -- getting paid a very reduced rate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we poll the board? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, I guess we can poll the board. I want the -- the question is $43,000 if we could get Jim's private match. The question is, this year can we get $43,000 from something else? My suggestion being reducing the budget for the television program to $20,000. But if there are other suggestions -- I would eliminate the television program, John. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know you would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I -- rather than touching that sore animal, I would rather take it from reserves or find some other further way to do it. I think both are necessary and each has its own set of objectives. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Both are important. But it's just like a home budget, you know, you have to pick what you can afford and prioritize. But what other alternatives are available to us, Mr. Smykowski, besides -- is reserves an alternative? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Reserves, cutting something else -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we poll the board to see if there's interest before we try to determine what the alternative would be? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I wanted the board to know if there was an option or if we had to find a cut somewhere. And what you're saying is that reserves is an option. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the question, Commissioner Constantine, is asking, is there three people on the board who would support finding it somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm going to stay with my original position. CHAIRWOMAN M_AC'KIE: Okay. Airport authority. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those were flagged items, the mitigation and vegetation management projects. Actually, those are probably more appropriately addressed under Item 7, the additional one-time general fund revenue. Probably be again more appropriate to address them there. There is a staff recommendation on the following page. If you'd prefer, what I'd like to do is move to Item 6 and then Page 20 September 7, 1999 we can address the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, Item 6 is -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- airport authority amidst the recommended uses of the additional one-time general fund revenue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Item 6, would you remind the board what that is? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. There was a discussion -- there is a road assessment receivable fund. It's numbered 341. It has approximately a million dollars budgeted in reserves next year. The question the board raised during the budget workshops was whether or not that money could be transferred to the general fund to offset expenditures. Since then we've reviewed that with both the County Attorney's office and in conjunction with the finance department, tracing the history of that money, going back to the late 1970's. That was essentially road -- it was assessment-based road resurfacing and paving projects in the unincorporated area of the county. Therefore, the staff recommendation would not be to use that to transfer it to the general fund and fund operations, since the origin of the money was road improvement-based in the unincorporated area of the county. I will also tell that you in the last 18 months, the available revenue here has been used as somewhat of a -- somewhat like a revolving loan fund in that beautification districts advance their projects in anticipation of future tax collections. For instance, the Immokalee beautification borrowed $100,000. We did -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I cut through here? Because if everybody recalls, this is basically something we thought would be sort of a nice, easy -- what was it? I don't remember, $800,000 or some nice amount of money that we could plunk into the general fund on a one-time basis. And the reality is, is that it has a useful function where it is as helping the beautification districts get their projects moving forward. And the other is that it's probably inappropriate for general fund because of what the source was already. So I'm happy to say thank you for looking into it, but it needs to stay just like it is. Does anybody else -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the only other thing, could it be transferred to some other unincorporated area road project? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a number of them that I'd like to suggest. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it actually is used for that kind of a function by virtue of this revolving loan usage that Mike was just describing. For example, the beautification district in Immokalee. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Lely beautification also used it. There was also a small sewer assessment project in the north end of the county where the county had to take over that operation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So leave it as is and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Leave it as is. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. The next item is additional one-time general fund revenue. If Page 21 September 7, 1999 you turn to Item 3-C, Page 2, it identifies the source of that revenue as state revenue sharing. The amount of the surplus is $1,039,700. It is of a nonrecurring nature. Therefore, staff is recommending as in the past that this should be used for one-time expenses such as capital projects. There is no recommended change to the FY 2000 budget, as the revenue budget for the state revenue sharing program was based on state estimates that reflect the major changes to the intangible tax, and the state provided estimates to the counties as to the impact that the reduction in the intangible tax would have on each county's revenue picture. Therefore, we would not recommend a revenue adjustment in FY 2000. That does, though, again leave a surplus of 1,039,700. At the -- the next item identifies the recommended -- staff recommended uses of that nonrecurring revenue. At the bottom of the page it does identify general fund capital projects that were requested and not recommended by the county administrator. And then the final portion of that list is capital projects that were recommended by the county administrator but not approved by the board during the budget workshops. Again, the idea behind this list was that rather than addressing the issue of the moment, we should reconsider in the total -- kind of the big picture perspective of all the projects that were in the hunt for the available dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically we have a million dollars of one-time money. And we had $932,000 of capital improvements recommended by the county administrator that the board cut. So that -- you're saying to us that at least would be a good starting place to look at the big picture about where to spend this million dollars, unless we could use it to cut taxes, which you recommend we don't, because it's a one-time income source. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. The staff recommendation, the first one actually is not on your list. It was a project that was forecast to be under contract this year. And an executive summary that will be going to the board next Tuesday is the domestic animals services building. Based on construction bids received, the project was over $900,000 over the initial estimates. A portion of that is going to be funded by impact fees, and a -- one component of the project was reduced in scope just to reduce the overall cost, leaving a gap in funding of $650,000. Now -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's just pretend that we didn't just find a million dollars. What would we have done for the doghouse then? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the what thing? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Doghouse. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doghouse. Domestic Animal Services. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The staff recommendation would have been to borrow the money short-term and repay it in fiscal year '01. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you would have had this money plus some interest, probably. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The issue is you have an existing facility on Page 22 September 7, 1999 north Airport Road that is initially too small. If you attempt to reduce the scope of the proposed project down to a level to meet the existing budget, you would end up with an animal control facility relocated to a new site but with no greater capacity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just so I clearly understand, it was -- the amount that you would have recommended we borrow if we hadn't found a million dollars was 650 or 9 -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 650. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 650. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So theoretically then you're saying we could plug 650 of this million dollars we found, and then that would leave 350 for something. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Healthy Kids -- no, sorry. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's my recommendation that we not adjust the scope of the project down and end up building an obsolete facility. I think we should stick with the original design as much as we can. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does the 600 get us there? 600,000 get you to where you want to be? MR. FERNANDEZ: 650, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you. If we're going to move, we might as well do it right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Do it right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only concern is I know we do our three-year forecast and sometimes longer, but we always do a three-year forecast for what the budget is going to look like and what the tax picture is going to look like. And if memory serves me correctly, fiscal '00/'01 looked pretty darn tight and looked -- had the potential for an increase. And so if we can set aside -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Some carryforward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- any part of this for carryforward, we ought to take advantage of that so that next year at this time we're not killing ourselves for having to increase taxes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: My question would be is this a case where we should look at -- would it be better to go ahead and borrow this money -- keep the 650,000 and go ahead and borrow it? What's the financial implication in doing this? Because this is another one of those facilities that are not only going to serve currently -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- but it's also going to serve the future. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: That same logic applies to No. 5 on the list, the Sheriff's building debt. That's one project where the board has said go ahead and do that building. This is the additions to Building J. And the dollar amount here represents the amount that we would not have to borrow and therefore pay interest on in order to do a project that the board has already authorized us to do. So our thought was to put this on the agenda for tonight to Page 23 September 7, 1999 reduce the amount of debt that we would have to incur for a project that the board has already directed us to proceed with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I realize one of the reasons we have such a good bond rating and so on is we don't traditionally borrow money. But it's a fair question if you're going to do this over a number of years. It may not be, but I'd love to hear if somebody could tell us if it is or is not fiscally more sound to spread that out a little bit and -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- have that carryforward. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I remember -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The answer is yes, no question about it. The answer is that the financing should match the life of the facility. If it's going to be -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Like your house -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- you finance it for 30 years because you're going to live there for 30 years. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not all -- well, the life of the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, I don't do that so I can't argue that side. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, no, and it's a good point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You pay cash for your house? COMMISSIONER BERRY: On a previous board that I served on, we always prided ourselves on a pay-as-you-go basis on building schools. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And then we had a group come in and hit us and said you guys aren't very smart doing this, because those buildings have a 30 or 40-year life. Let the future help pay for those buildings. They had a point. And it became a very popular subject that it's nice to pay as you go, and certainly in your own household that's the thing to do, if that's your thought process. But on these kinds of things, I wonder if this is in the best interest for us to do it. I don't know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's going to be a little smaller. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The question is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just a little doghouse as opposed to a big doghouse. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The question is, do we have the taxpayers who are here today pay for the facilities that will be used by taxpayers -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- 20 or 30 years from now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's exactly the question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you've got $868,000 that you need to look at on this basis, if you take both the jail and you take the animal control building. So I think that's the question we're asking. Do we do it long term and use this money in a different way? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: That really brings us back to our discussion about the space plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's what our argument has been all along. Page 24 September 7, 1999 And that's the beauty of the space plan, it's a planned approach to meeting our capital needs over a longer period of time. It's keeping the capital cost of all these projects together instead of picking and choosing, as we seem to have done with a couple of these projects. It's really better to leave it in a plan and fund the plan on a long-term basis. The problem is finding an appropriate funding source of the size necessary to fund a project as large as that space plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Staying strictly on the item at hand, if we spread the doghouse out over a number of years, then I assume that million dollars would be available in carry-over to address what has been raised as a -- not only the interest on this issue, but potential shortfall for next year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, it would. Again, recognizing that it is a one-time nonrecurring -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- revenue source. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Talking strictly for next year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But yes. The answer to your question is yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But hey, it's close to a million dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know? I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I know -- I mean, you say it's one time, but I know some of the -- and you know better than anybody, but these budget things can go in cycles. I know for fiscal I think it was '97, we had the potential for a spike. I think we brought it down so it was still an increase, but it was a small -- that's the only increase we've ever done. But there were some one-time things to help offset that until we got back on track for fiscal '98 and beyond. So if we can do anything to help us ourselves for next year, we probably ought to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is the recommendation of the board that we go ahead and borrow the $650,000 for the domestic animal facility? Mr. Olliff looks anxious to speak. MR. OLLIFF: Just a suggestion. Tom Olliff, public services administrator. When you're talking about this, you're talking about borrowing on what is about 25 percent of that total project. If you're going to actually consider borrowing to stretch out the payment term on this to make it a 20-year payment cycle and all of the philosophies behind that, it would make sense for us to go look at the entire project then and look at the total 2.9 million dollar construction budget and talk about financing that as opposed to simply the unfunded portion. If you want us to look at starting to finance ad valorem supported capital projects, it's just like the county administrator said, I mean, we ought to look at space plan type issues and bring you back a little more comprehensive type -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I misunderstood, or did Mr. Smykowski say some of this, though, was being funded with impact fees? MR. OLLIFF: There is one portion of $180,000 of that project that's being funded out of regional park impact fees, only because it's a separate standalone horse stable where the ranger horses are being kept. But the vast majority of this project is a -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The gap in the project bid versus the project budget was slightly over 900,000. 650 is the portion the staff Page 25 September 7, 1999 recommendation was based on. Reducing it from 900, though, required the 180,000 in impact fee support and just a reduction in the project scope of $109,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, as far as I can tell, it sounds like, you know, Commissioner Constantine's point is only enhanced by what you're saying, Mr. Olliff, and that is that we should look at -- if the board has agreed and we accept this concept of the financial planning involves letting future taxpayers help pay for facilities that they will use, instead of putting the burden on the present taxpayers, what you're saying is that we should look at that for this three million dollar project instead of 600,000 of it. MR. OLLIFF: Not to mettle, but in this particular project, since it's going to be on your agenda the 14th, you know, that would give me some direction to at least go back and look at what some debt service cost would be and at least have that information for you so you could make that decision when you actually look at the construction contract for that total project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I for one would like to see that information. I don't know how the rest of you feel, but -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other thing is you do not have to make a final decision on it, but we have another hearing yet, and you could hear the presentation on the 14th with those other possible scenarios and then make a final decision at -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, that -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- your final hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- sounds like a plan. And just at the risk of straying too far, I'm going to say on the whole business about sales tax, a penny to pay for capital projects, if the board would look at the space plan, administrative space is something that should be paid for in this same way, then maybe people might vote for a sales tax for a jail and for stormwater. That's my personal opinion. Okay, next one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, the next item on the list is itemized at 107,500. This was a project the board had considered during the budget workshops. Computer network. Actually, the staff recommendation, since this has been put together, has been revised and we would only need $30,000. The computer room where the network equipment is housed, A, is due to the volume of equipment that's been added over time as the county network grows. It generates a lot of heat, and the heat in the room is nearing the point of being beyond the operating tolerances recommended by the manufacturer. Facilities management has done some interim steps to improve the cooling within that room with minor air conditioning and some venting changes. There are also fire sprinklers, water-based fire sprinklers CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the one that sends me over the edge. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- that sit above your million dollar investment in computer hardware. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But if it overheats and the fire sprinklers come on, what's going to happen is they're going to flood and ruin all of the equipment. Page 26 September 7, 1999 MR. SMYKOWSKI: So the staff recommendation here is $30,000 to provide some additional air conditioning in the room, as well as remove the fire sprinkler system and replace it with a gas-based system that would not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a price tag on the gas-based system? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe 25 -- $20,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's part of this 30,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 20 of it. Well, I think that's a great idea. So there's one for that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Fine with me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item is fire alarm monitoring equipment on campus. The current equipment is long out of date. The manufacturer no longer supports it, you can't get parts for it. The Sheriff had put the staff on notice that it was trying to phase out the use of this equipment. This would provide equipment that would provide monitoring equipment directly tied into facilities management for those emergency type calls for which the facilities management director is a principal individual involved in decision-making regarding building evacuations, et cetera. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this affects not just the Sheriff but also ambulance, anybody who's on 9-1-1. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I am, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Fine. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Jail shower pans was something the facilities management director had requested. The shower areas within the jail actually leak through the floors. So this is one of those pay me now or pay me later type of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We shower more people downstairs then? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That was bad. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How much is that? And I don't see it on my sheet. MR. SMYKOWSKI: $40,000. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Either that or we put fire hoses in the parking lot and take them out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think you -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The final staff recommendation was on Sheriff's building debt. It's listed on your page at 216,200. But with the reduction to Item 2, the computer network maintenance was reduced from 107,500 to 30,000, freeing up 77,500. That would increase the available amount to essentially buy down the debt on that new building by $293,700 for which the board had already approved interim financing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I guess you can't answer this question until we know the answer to Tom's question about how much we're going to -- if in fact we finance the Domestic Animal Services building. But of the million bucks of the found money -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Page 27 September 7, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- we will be spending all but 300,000? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's if we take -- if we buy down part of the debt on the Sheriff's budget. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right, otherwise you've got about 940 some thousand dollars. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we have 650,000 and 293-7, so 943,700. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So why would we not do that on the Sheriff's building debt? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same reason that you won't do it on the animal control. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, on that one the board has already approved financing, borrowing on the line of credit to be repaid over three years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this would be reducing that debt that we previously approved? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we would just borrow less. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know why we'd do that. I'd rather have it for next year's -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Same thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same argument. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. So you want to leave the sum of the 650,000 and the 293-7 for the final hearing as a final wrap-up item -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- pending -- after the presentation on the 14th regarding the Domestic Animal Services building? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Acceptable? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-hum. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There was one other item that was not on your list. The county administrator had sent the board members a memorandum related to employee Christmas party. During the strategic planning session, the board had agreed to fund a picnic and there seemed to be some support, but it did not end with a definitive policy direction as to whether or not there was going to be a board -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by way of history there, I'm sure the rest of the board will, too, but I completely support a holiday party, if we want to do that. I know we tried to do that around 1996 or somewhere in there, and there was not an overwhelming amount of support from the staff. So we may want to -- and that's actually where we ended up with the picnic is it was more of a family oriented thing, they could get everybody out, it was daytime and so on. And that was actually a staff-driven thing. They had said they would prefer that. If we want to do both, I don't have any problem with that, but let's -- and you may have already done this, Bob, but let's make sure we actually have a good number of people that want that. I'd hate to plan a big deal and then only have, you know, 50 employees or 75 employees. Because the number who responded three or four years ago just wasn't very high at all. I don't recall the circumstances Page 28 September 7, 1999 surrounding it, but they've done -- that's where we ended up with the picnic to start with. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, my question I had on here is what do employees want. I mean -- and I don't know. I mean, this is something that we create and say they need and they don't show up, that's a message. So if the picnic works and there's something else, fine. But let's make sure we don't -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't this the party that Senator Saunders has been fundraising for every year? And it troubled me to see that there was, you know, a former county commissioner getting a party together every year at Christmas time for county staff. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Couldn't be politically motivated or anything, would you think? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was actually -- his was -- well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Never mind. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, that's essentially what started the discussion -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- last time, the fact that can't we do something for our own employees for the holidays. And we do have the picnic, the annual picnic budgeted. It's at a different time of year, it's a different kind of format. So the question is, would you like us to do something in addition to that for the holiday period? What we can do is if the answer to that question is yes, we can budget an appropriate amount of funds for it and we can determine whether there's a level of interest that warrants us going forward. If there's not that level of interest, we don't have to go forward with the event. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If not, we'll have an employee year 2000 party. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: the check before? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER CARTER: there was an issue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris. Wasn't there an issue with the clerk paying They paid the picnic. Are you sure? Yeah. Better check on that. I see Marla shaking her head back there, Marla? There was not an issue. There was not an issue? Mr. Olliff? The whole head signal thing's not working, although we appreciate it. MR. OLLIFF: Again, for the record, Tom Olliff. It takes a separate resolution of the board to actually designate that there's a public purpose for the event and then the clerk doesn't have a problem paying it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what it was. We had to do something special to get the check out. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'm interested in adding this. I support it. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's probably about $7,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the employees -- Page 29 September 7, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: If the employees want it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- support it, great. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur. If the employees want it, we'll do it. If not, don't do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Do we have -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the wrap-up list. Point of clarification. Mr. Kant -- the question was on the $95,000 donation for that road MSTD. It's still under negotiation, but at this point the preliminary numbers are $12,000 from DeVoe and 83,000 from the Moorings Park group. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, that's wonderful. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So that's the source of the 95,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One thing that we hadn't yet talked about that we did talk about in our one-on-ones today was the airport authority's $50,000 mitigation money and vegetation money. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Amidst this million dollars essentially of what I'll call found money, the board did have two wrap-up items -- or flagged items pending availability of additional dollars. There was a mitigation and a vegetation management project. They were a quarter of a million dollars each, requiring a $50,000 county match. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What we need to know is how important that is to be done in this fiscal year. I think that's the answer that we need before we make a decision on that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We will -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And where will we get the Everglades City question about their -- how does that come before us? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Mohlke is here representing the City of Everglades. And I think we'll bring forth that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everglades City councilman Chuck Mohlke will be presenting that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know if that was a promotion or demotion, Chuck. Item #2D PUBLIC COHMENTS AND ~UESTIONS MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the wrap-up items. That would bring us to Item D on the agenda, this is the public commenting, questions. Again, public speakers, anyone interested in speaking, needs to fill out a form, provide it to Mr. Fernandez who will call the names of those interested in addressing the board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you do intend to speak, we'd like you to sign up now, because we're going to close that in the next five minutes. And if we could hear from Mr. Mohlke first. MR. FERNANDEZ: He's the only speaker we have. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, then first, last and all together. MR. MOHLKE: If it please this honorable board, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here this evening at the request of Mayor Sammy Hamilton, who because this is the regular monthly meeting of the Everglades City Council, he is about to hit the gavel to begin the meeting shortly, and asked me to appear consistent with a very Page 30 September 7, 1999 specific and informative letter provided by Tom Olliff, your public services administrator, outlining the issues here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chuck, I'm not sure I asked you to identify yourself for the record. Did that happen? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MR. MOHLKE: Thank you. My name is Chuck Mohlke. I'm a resident of the City of Naples and serve in a consulting capacity to the City of Everglades City. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. MOHLKE: I'm also benefitted by having a memorandum from Mr. Olliff through the county administrator, dated today, summarizing the funding request. And attached to that, I believe, commissioners, you have material that includes a memorandum dated August 16th to your Parks and Recreation director, and some additional material that is derived from meetings of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board during the recent past. The issue here, as it has been presented to me, is that two requests made by Everglades City to the board through your advisory committees and staff, although not technically in compliance with your formal procedures for workshopping these issues, has been requested for your consideration that a community center roof project in the amount of $14,000 is the first of these requests. And another request for a children's playground or safe area in the amount of $26,000 was also brought before you for consideration. In the three minutes that I have available, hopefully I won't have to utilize all of them, I think the request can be fairly summarized as follows: The community center roof project in the amount of $14,000 is an extension of a commitment previously made by this board and exemplified best by a completed roof project over the skating rink area in the amount of $22,000 that was funded by the board in the current fiscal year and was completed in July of 1999. The $14,000 project is to complete the roof project over what is referred to generically as the teen room and the kitchen area in the community center. And hopefully the board will find the resources available to fund the $14,000 to extend and complete the roofing project. It is my further understanding, if I may move on to the second item -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. MR. MOHLKE: -- that the kids' playground area or safe area, with a request of $26,000, has been evaluated by county staff. And at the risk of mispronouncing her name, I believe a staff member assigned to Immokalee, Annie Pappalardo, has come to Everglades City and been very responsive to this need, but did point out that although this would indeed improve the area, there are no programmatic features assigned to this $26,000 request for appropriation. And I do believe that on evaluation, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the staff is reserving judgment on the $26,000, but recommending for your consideration the $14,000 amount as the logical extension of the existing roof program. I think that fairly summarizes the issues for you, and I'm pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chairman, I have no questions of Mr. Page 31 September 7, 1999 Mohlke. I received the correspondence that was sent. And I would certainly consent with the 14,000. And again, the 26 I think we need to wait on until we hear something further. I just -- I think at this point in time, that's the safest way to go. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree about the 14,000, certainly. And it sounds like we may well have -- with this million dollar one-time capital money might be exactly where this should come from. The only thing I wondered about is if the playground equipment, if it's adequately described here as playground equipment or if in fact this is a necessity for younger kids -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that -- see, they haven't given you that information, Pam. And so that's why I would not go along with funding that at this point in time until we see something further on it. They have requested 26,000 for playground equipment but for what? How is it to be used? Is this just putting equipment in a play area for children to play, or what's behind it? And we really don't have that information available. And I think that's why the Parks and Recreation board did not recommend funding that 26,000 at this time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The request here recommends that the funds come from reserves, the ad valorem capital fund for parks. So really, this is not really then technically a budget item for this discussion, but more like a regular anytime agenda item that we could transfer money from reserves. So why don't we -- you know, I certainly favor the 14,000, and like the rest, apparently I would like to see more about the 26. Probably won't have an objection to it, but I'd like to see the information on it. So why don't we just do it at a regular meeting and take the money out of reserves, if necessary. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does that work, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, that's an option, sure. MR. MOHLKE: The City Council and Mayor Hamilton appreciate your remarks and would be looking forward to timely notice in terms of when you want to agenda this item. Their only concern, I think, would be that this be done to preserve the continuity of the roof program so that not too much time lapses between July of 1999 and the time that these dollars are available and the additional improvements can be made. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, would -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why wouldn't we -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- that just take -- this be a consent agenda item that Mr. Fernandez can put on the 14th or 28th and just do it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't we just go ahead and approve the 14,000 tonight and put the 26,000 on pending -- you know, for another -- for future, pending further information. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: the end. MR. MOHLKE: I have no objection. So let's do that. The 14,000 -- I think that makes sense. -- is approved in this budget. So it doesn't stop the flow of the project. Do you need a motion on that, Madam Chair? No, it will part of the overall motion at We thank you very much for your consideration and Page 32 September 7, 1999 your timely opportunity to speak to you this evening. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Chuck. MR. MOHLKE: Good night. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good night. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Don Hunter. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, we're adjourned, no further speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Late addition. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just kidding. Got to keep it -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Sheriff Hunter. SHERIFF HUNTER: What a warm welcome. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, he had told us that there was only one registered speaker. SHERIFF HUNTER: I wasn't sure that I should register -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What an honor to have you here. Please. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- or not. I flipped a coin. I thought perhaps -- Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County. Yes, a long day. And I thought I'd just take the mike for a moment and answer any questions the board might have of me. I did want to reassert -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's your favorite color? SHERIFF HUNTER: My favorite color. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Probably green tonight. Go with green. SHERIFF HUNTER: Blue. I'm blue. COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's blue. SHERIFF HUNTER: I do want to reassert the need for the contingency reserve. I have had a couple of discussions with individual board members and I would like the board to reconsider their position on that and come back to it hopefully in the very near future, let me make a full presentation on it, if you choose, and see what we can do about restoring some of those funds for the -- for unanticipated needs in the new fiscal year. I'm available for questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, Sheriff Hunter, that you've had my support, and I believe you had Commissioner Carter's support. Do I remember that correctly, or was I on a solo on that one? SHERIFF HUNTER: And I appreciate the board remaining open to this discussion. So again, I'm here only to answer questions. I know we have one more public hearing. I'm looking forward to working with the board. I would like to say for the record also that next year I hope to work with the board a little closer, and perhaps we could work out a multi-year funding program that would cause a little less stress, wear and tear on the board and your constitutional officers, and maybe put together something in the form of a more comprehensive strategic plan, at your direction, with your county manager. We'll work with him and see what we can do about multi-year plans. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So pending some change, though, we're -- unless somebody wants to speak up about a change in the policy and reserves, we're -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, it seems to me, if I'm not mistaken, that by lumping all of our reserves into one big pot, that the sheriff would probably have access to more funds upon request than he would otherwise; is that not correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. Page 33 September 7, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So I don't know what would be the problem. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this something -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Potential access, I should have said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. Is this something that can be resolved at the final budget hearing? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I guess continuing those discussions with the board members who might be open to that is the right thing to do over the next couple of weeks. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. I'll continue to work with the board. I just want to reassert the need and ask the board to remain open to discussion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you for being here. Sorry to have been unfriendly. Anything further? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski, what else? Item #2E RESOLUTION 99-337 TO ADOPT THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: If there are no further speakers, next item is a resolution to adopt the tentative millage rates, Item 3-E. Again, as we did in the past, based upon the strict reading of Florida Statutes, dependent districts should be adopted separately, so we will need two motions on the millages; one for the bulk of the funds, one for the pollution control fund, which is a dependent district. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the statute require two readings of this? Why are we doing this tonight if the final won't be for another two weeks? MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is required. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have to do it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this where you have to read the long -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, that's next, in two weeks. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the final one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, so somebody move the resolution in our packet. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3-E, Page 17 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 3-E, Page 1, second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It passes unanimously. And the other resolution. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We would need one again for the millage rate for the pollution control fund, separately as a dependent district. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Move approval. Page 34 September 7, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ail in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. Page 35 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 337 SEP- 7 1999 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES FOR FY 1999-00. WHEREAS, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, provides the procedure for fixing the millage rates; and WHEREAS, Section 129.03, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedure for preparation and adoption of the budget; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received and examined the tentative budgets for each of the County's funds; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 99-329, approving the County's proposed millage rates and setting the public hearings for adoption of the tentative and final millage rates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, an advertised public hearing was held on September 7, 1999, to adopt the tentative millage rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the FY 1999-00 Tentative Millage Rates as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted as the Tentative Millage Rates for FY 1999-00, pursuant to Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statues. This Resolution adopted this ~ day of ~~~,~=~, 1999, after motion, second and majority vote. i..D. ATE~ t,'~ Z/Y~Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ..TD~?:IGHT E>BR~C_K, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~> ~.:. ~,i :~,' :..,.~,,: ',.:' :." i~AMEL~. S. MAC'KIE, airwoman Approved as to torm and legal sufficiency David C. Weigel "' - ~ County Attorney Collier County, Florida Property Tax Rates FY O0 Proposed SEP- 7 1999 Attachment "A" Total County Wide Millage Rate 3.5923 3.2890 3.5413 7.79 Road District 2 103 0.1163 0.1074 0.1422 32.4% Road Dis~ict 5 106 0.2195 0.1884 0.3300 75.2% ~' ~. ~ ~ ~ -: ...... ~ '.. --~ ............ ~ ........~ ....~ .......... : ..~:.-. .. ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ,~,.. ...... ~ .... ~ ........... ~ '.~:.~ ~lden ~te Co~ity Center 130 0.2985 0.2841 0.2260 -20.5% Naples P~k Dra~ge 139 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ~/A Victoria P~k ~ainage 134 0.1240 0.1195 0.1140 -4.6% Naples Production Park 138 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ~N/A Isle of Capri F~c 144 1.0000 0.9714 1.0000 2.9% :~*;:~ ~ ~ j~-.j: ;:is.;-;.:.;.'.' ~.-~ ~ , ;~ ~ . ~;;-*~ · , .~-,s.-.,;...**. , . ~ :::'- -~:*.~. ~ , ~. ~. ~::; ~*~ , . . ~ ~:.~.::;:*-.:...~:.,~?,**- - ., :.~,;:,: Collier Cowry F~e 148 1.7979 1.gZ7S 2.0000 3.8% ~dio Road Beau~fica~on lS0 0.~000 ~.4841 O.S000 3.3% Lely ~lf Emtes Beautification 152 1.5000 1.4648 1.5000 2.4~ ? ' ~ ..................... ,. ~ ............. ~ · ..:.::,..~ Forest Lakes Roadway & ~a~ge MS~ 155 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 ~N/A Bay~ore Avalon Beautification 160 3.0000 2.9352 3.0000 2.2% Marco Island Coas~ Beach Reno~i~ 207 0.0000 ~a 0.0000 ~N/A Collier Co~ Li~t~g 760 0.1886 0.1897 0.1719 -9.4% ~M~co Island Li~t~g 775 0.0000 ~a 0.0000 ON/A Collier County, Florida Property Tax Dollars FY 00 Proposed Attachment "A" SEP- 7 1999 Control Total County Wide Taxes Levied 114 881,449 76,669,002 923,428 80,348,017 866,600 86,511,100 -6.2% 7.7% Road District 2 Road District 5 Golden Gat~ Community Center Pine Ridge Industrial Park Golden Gate Parkway Beautification 103 818,760 873,270 1,156,600 106 306,992 326,625 572,100 130 214,782 219,763 174,800 140 25,398 26,275 9,600 136 195,608 197, 637 207,200 32.4% 75.2% -20.5% -63.5% 4.8% Park 138 0 Naples Production Park 141 6,823 Ochopee Fire Control 146 496,625 Goodlancl/HoWs Island Fire 149 0 Sabal Palm Road MSTU 151 25,496 Hawksfidge Stormwat~r Pumping MSTU 154 2,098 [mmokalce Beautification MSTU 156 223,048 Parks GOB Debt Service 206 864,902 Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue 244 30,932 SC Lighting 770 1,301 Pelican Bay MSTBU 778 494,834 Total Taxes Levied 91,825,009 Taxes 90,929,175 0 7,082 509,532 0 25,938 2,603 224,299 915,206 32,725 1,349 52~093 96,292,792 95,344,861 0 33,800 533,900 61,300 0 1,500 233,100 835,800 30,100 13,400 520,400 103,11~500 102,253,600 gN/A 377.3% 4.8% /flq/A -100.0% -42.4% 3.9% -8.7% 893.4% 0.1% September 7, 1999 Item #2F RESOLUTION 99-338 TO ADOPT THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, we would -- that brings us to resolution to adopt the amended tentative budget incorporating the changes that the board has made this evening. That's Item 3-F. Again, we would need two motions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't suppose you'd want me to make those simultaneously, would you, Mr. Weigel? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MR. WEIGEL: No. But thanks for asking. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Make one of them, though. Come on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be 3-F-1 is what you're talking about? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second. Any discussion on that motion, 3-F-1. No. All in favor, please say aye. Passes unanimously. Can I get a motion on 3-F-27 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. Second. Ail in favor, please say aye. Passes unanimously. Page 36 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 338 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMENDED BUDGETS FOR FY 1999-00. TENTATIVE WHEREAS, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, provides the procedure for fixing the millage rates; and WHEREAS, Section 129.03, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedure for preparation and adoption of the budget; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received and examined the tentative budgets for each of the County's funds; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 99-329, approving the County's proposed millage rates and setting the public hearings for adoption of the final millage rates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, an advertised public heating was held on September 7, 1999, to adopt the tentative budgets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the FY 1999-00 Tentative Budgets as amended by the budget summaries attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted as the Tentative Budgets for FY 1999-00, pursuant to Sections 129.03 and 200.065, Florida Statues, as amended by Chapter 96-211, Laws of Florida. This Resolution adopted this ~ ~ ~eoh~'.~ffi~l:-xnaj ority vote. sJga~t, ure Approved as to form and legal sufficiency David C. Weige~'- County Attorney day of ~~~,~_, 1999, after motion, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: . S£P- 7 1999 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 1999-00 Summary of Budget by Fund Fund Title General Fund Constitutional Officer Funds Sheriff Tax Collector Subtotal Constitutional Officers General Fund (001) 128,941,300 138,574,100 7.5% (040) 56,199,900 59,998,300 6.8% (070) 7,485,360 7,582,400 1.3% 76,658,960 81,769,800 6.7% Road & Bridge MSTD Road Dist. 3 Pollution Cleanup Pelican Bay Security Special Revenue Funds (101) 8,200,500 8,932,400 8.9% (104) 2,175,200 2,868,900 31.9% (108) 524,000 119,000 -77.3% (110) 364,900 412,400 13.0% Comm. Development ( 113 ) 14,815,100 17,165,300 15.9% Sheriff Grants (115) 823,300 1,048,500 27.4% Natural Resources Grants (117) 27,000 59,700 121.1% Parks & Recreation Grants (119) 222,500 466,600 109.7% Services for Seniors (123) 91,700 134,900 47.1% Library Grants (129) 68,800 325,800 373.5% Pine Ridge Ind. Park (132) 683,600 721,300 5.5% Victoria Pk. Drainage (134) 10,200 10,200 0.0% Naples Production Park (138) 8,500 33,500 294.1% Pine Ridge Ind. Park Maint. (140) 30,800 22,000 -28.6% Isle of Capri Fire & Rescue (144) 206,700 270,700 31.0% SEP- 7 1999 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 1999-00 Summary of Budget by Fund Special Revenue Funds (Cont'd) Collier County Fire Control (148) 326,500 333,300 2.1% Radio Road Beautification (150) 462,500 717,400 55.1% Lely Beautification ( 152) 127,700 132,800 4.0% Forest Lakes Road & Dram (155) 71,300 161,000 125.8% Bayshore/Avalon Beautification (160) 520,700 823,000 58.1% Miscellaneous Fla. Statutes (190) 25,100 58,200 131.9°,4 Public Guardianship (192) 60,900 60,900 0.0% Tourist Development (194) 2,820,400 3,041,500 7.8% Economic Disaster Recovery (196) 450,700 604,900 34.2% Museum (198) 443,700 541,700 22.1% Subtotal Special Revenue Funds 72,938,900 86,317,600 18.3% Debt Service Funds Race Track Bonds (202) 753,400 756,600 0.4% 1986 Parks G.O. Bonds (206) 864,900 857,700 -0.8% Sales Tax Bonds (215) 9,898,500 9,926,900 0.3% Pine ~dge/~apl~s I~d. Park (232) 7,620,7~0 8,107,500 6.4% Special Obligation Revenue Bond (290) 4,247,900 4,144,200 -2.4% Commercial Paper (299) 1,705,600 3,977,100 133.2% Subtotal Debt Service Funds 27,361,900 31,114,200 13.7% S£P- 7 1999 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 1999-00 Summary of Budget by Fund Capital Projects/Expenditures Funds Wiggins Pass (304) 93,100 96,600 3.8% Library Cap. Improve (307) 259,700 293,500 13.0% Museum CIP (314) 0 63,000 N/A Pelican Bay Irrigation/Landscaping (322) 632,500 1,046,800 65.5% Road Impact District 1 (331) 11,767,600 13,365,700 13.6% Road Impact District 3 (334) 1,340,300 2,266,600 69.1% Road Impact District 6 (338) 2,226,000 4,497,300 102.0% Road Impact District 8 (340) 45,100 49,100 8.9% Regional Parks (345) 15,382,500 427,300 -97.2% EMS Impact Fee (350) 1,314,500 1,730,100 31.6% Dist 5, Immokalee Pks (365) 700 10,900 1457.1% Ochopee Fire Control (372) 0 12,100 N/A Subtotal Capital Funds 105,681,700 124,691,700 18.0% SEP- 7 1999 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 1999-00 Summary of Budget by Fund Enterprise Funds W/S Debt Service (410) 34,045,300 24,323,400 -28.6% Water Capital Projects (412) 9,884,800 11,282,100 14.1% Sewer Capital Projects (414) 9,293,200 10,240,300 10.2% Goodland W/S District (441) 671,900 803,800 19.6% ;i ~0lid ,W~s~ D~pgS~ ii ~~(470~ ~ ~ Landfill Closure (471) 4,878,900 5,117,600 4.9% Mandatory Collection (473) 7,904,1 O0 8,697,200 10.0% EMS Trust (491) 290,200 126,900 -56.3% Airport Authority Operations (495) 1,358,300 1,773,500 30.6% Subtotal Enterprise Funds 199,529,500 194,975,400 -2.3% Internal Service Funds Department of Revenue (510) 2,599,700 2,754,700 6.0% Group Health (517) 7,227,300 8,420,500 16.5% Fleet Management (521) 2,319,900 2,419,700 4.3 % OCPM (589) 3,597,400 3,140,900 -12.7% Subtotal Internal Service Funds 26,649,300 30,787,100 15.5% SEP- 7 1999 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 1999-00 Summary of Budget by Fund Trust nnd Agency Funds GAC Trust-Land (605) 395,100 502,400 27.2% Animal Control Trust (610) 108,900 119,600 9.8% Drag Abuse Trust (616) 16,000 22,300 39.4% Legal Aid Society Trust (652) 0 95,200 N/A Court Administration (681) 3,210,600 3,498,000 9.0% Subtotal Trust Funds 5,885,400 6,534,200 11.0% Lighting District Funds Collier Cnty. Lighting (760) 632,300 610,300 -3.5% Pelican Bay Lighting (778) 704,700 789,400 12.0% Subtotal Lighting Districts 1,369,100 1,434,500 4.8% Total Budget by Fund 645,016,060 696,198,600 7.9% Less: Inter".~l] ~ ~?~,~i! Net Count~ Budget 493,457,660, 542,121,300 9.9% September 7, 1999 Item #2G ANNOUNCEMENT OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX RATES MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, next item is the announcement of tentative millage rates. General fund, 3.5058, 7.8 percent above the rolled back rate. Pollution control, .0355, a decrease of 6.1 percent for a total county-wide millage, 3.5413, 7.7 percent above the rolled back rate. Item #2H FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 221 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And finally. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The final public hearing will be held Wednesday, September 22nd in this room at 5:05 p.m. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything further? We're adjourned. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:55 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL "'~.J::..'~W'I~HT '~E. BROCK, CLERK "'?" .. These minutes approved by the Board presented on~, as or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 37