HomeMy WebLinkAboutTentative Budget Public Hearing Minutes 09-09-2010BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TENTATIVE FY 201012011 BUDGET
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: September 9, 2010
Convened: 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:15 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Charles Grande, Doug Coward, Paula A. Lewis, Chris Craft, Chris
Dzadovsky
Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Dan
McIntyre, County Attorney, Marie Gouin, OMB Director, Jennifer Hill, Budget Manager, A. Millie Delgado-
Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
INVOCATION
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011
THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO ADOPT THE TENTATIVE MILEAGE RATES AND A
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011.
A. DISCUSSION AND READING OF THE ROLLED-BACK RATE. THE ROLLED-BACK RATE IS:
8.2620. THE PROPOSED AGGREGATE MILEAGE RATE IS 8.0853, WHICH IS 2.14% BELOW
THE ROLLED-BACK RATE.
The Management and Budget Director advised those present of the following:
• Total Aggregate Millage 2009-10 7.3057
• Rollback Rate 2010-11 8.2620
• Proposed Millage 2010-11 8.0853
• Prior Year's Value
• Gross Value 2010-11
• Aggregate Millage Increase (Decrease)
2010-11 proposed millage 0.7796
• Increase (Decrease) over Rollback
2010-11 proposed millage -0.1767
• Percentage increase(decrease) in Aggregate
Millage over Rollback - 2.14%
Debt Service Funds:
Taxes: $124,423,595
Rollback Taxes: $125,479,465
Proposed Taxes: $122,796,514
$17,031,103,295
$15,187,541,100
• Environmental Lands 2009.10 Millage 0.0459 2010-11 Proposed Millage 0.0459
• Taxes 2009-10 $790,848 2010.11 Proposed Taxes 705,473
• Port Property Bond 2009-10 Millage 0.0154 2010-11 Proposed Millage 0.0154
• Taxes 2009-10 $265,339 2010.11 Proposed Taxes 236,694
Total Debt Service Funds: 2009-10 $1,056,187
Total Debt Service Funds: 2010.11 $ 942,167
Grand Total of Taxes: 2009-10 $125,479,782
Grand Total of Taxes: 2010.11 $ 123,738,681 (proposed)
B. BUDGET OVERVIEW
The County Administrator provided a power point presentation on the budget. (This presentation is attached
to the original minutes).
C. MILEAGES AND BUDGETS (NOTE: ONLY MILEAGES WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
FUND BUDGETS ARE PROPOSED AS LISTED).
_
nd ~_ L ~ r f y ~:~ P ..~.
~ ,,~ ~
''
Lurid ~Nam
`~ I w:
R
~ i l~ !{F~l,. l..~
~ ~'~' ~r i .~4,U.~V~ ~f,l '{k1 ~H.:~y~
~
`~ ~'
Fu
., ~
~
.-
r <.n.,_ e , ~.
~
~,,_~.
,. e.
-~.~~
~..; ~ ~
001 ~ General Fund ~ 2.8707 ! 155,016,767
101 Transportation Trust Fund 61,346,750
Unincorporated Services Fund (Community
102 Development MSTU) 0.4380: 5,085,279
Drainage Maintenance MSTU (Stormwater
102001 Management MSTU) 0.4731 11 349 483
_.
103 Law Enforcement MSTU 0.5103 ' 3 096,667
104 Grants & Donations Fund ! 588,174
;..._105 _ ,...Library Speaal Grants_Fund __. __. _ _..... ___._ 93,340
_..
..107 Fine & Forfeiture Fund 3.9699 71 102,311
._._109 :Drug Abuse Fund 51,164
111 River Park I Fund (SISD 1) 46 347
112 ;River Park II Fund (SISD 2) 9 046
113 Harmony Heights 3 Fund (SISD 3) 4,780
:114 Harmony Heights 4 Fund (SISD 4) 9 194
115 Sheraton Plaza Fund (SISD 5) 11 151
116 Sunland Gardens Fund (SISD 6) 10,181
117 Sunrise Park Fund (SISD 7) 3 155
118
__ Paradise Park Fund (SISD 8)
_ _ _
_ 15
_ ,11.1
119
Holiday Pines Fund (SISD 9)
___
__ ......
15 002
~
120
The Grove Fund (SISD 10)
_. _..... __
3,602
121 Blakely Subdivision Fund (SISD 11) 2,567
122
Indian River Estates Fund (SISD 12) ._......_...
17 358
123 Queens Cove Lighting Dist#13 Fund (SISD 13) 6 770
126 Southern Oak Estates Lighting (SISD 126) 4 625
127
Pine Hollow Street Lighting MSTU _.
7,130
128
Kings Hwy Industrial Park Lighting _..
11,520
129
Parks MSTU Fund
0.2313 __ _ _
10 377,966
130 SLC Public Transit MSTU 0.,1269 11,860,909
136 Meadowood MSTU
_.. __. _ _
. 28 697
138
Palm Lake Gardens MSTU Fund _ _.
5,269
139
Palm Grove Fund (SISD 16) .......___..
13,222
140 Airport Fund
.. 10,494,480
140001
Port Fund ..........:
8,770,546
142 Port MSBU Development Fund 90 788
145 Mosquito Fund 0.2036 6 915,492
146 Mosquito State I Fund
~ 36,263
150 Impact Fee Collections 359,996
160
Plan Maintenance RAD Fund
~ __
414,346
162 Tourism Dev-Sth Cent 186,763
170 Court Facilities Fund _ 2,396,748
171 Court Facilities Fund-Court Costs 175,417
181 SLC Housing Finance Authority Fund 31,815
182 Environmental Land Acquisition Fund 78 227
183 Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir 2,880,640
184 Erosion ControLOperating Fund (District E) 0,.0925 10,496,563
185 Housing Assistance SHIP Program 565,721
187 Boating Improvement Projects 956,335
188 Bluefield Ranch Improvements 129,175
189 Hurricane Housing Recovery Pla 1,265,412
190 Sports Complex Fund,.... 2,409,144
204 Communication System I&S Fund
_ 413,973
210 Impact Fees I&S 427,560
_
215 Sales Tax„,Revenue Bonds I&S Fund 6,718,533
2
! 216
,._ _.
217
218
,__. _.
242
__ .
250
,...262
._
273
_.
282
.....295
296
297
298
_..
County Capital I&S
_..
State Revenue Sharing Bonds I&S
__ _ __
Transportation I&S Fund
Port I&S Fund
__ _ _
Capital Projects I&S
Tourism Dev 4th Cent I&S Fund
SHI Sp Assessment Rfd 1998 Bond
. _ __ _
Environmental Land I&S Fund
__
River Branch I&5 Fund
_ _.
No Lennard Rd 1
_.___. __
No Lennard Rd 2
No Lennard Rd 1
301 ' So. County Regional Stadium 12,300
__ __ __ __
310
_ Impact Fee Funds
_._ 12,135,108
315
__ County Building Fund 2,087,673
316 County Capital ' 19,231,204
317 County Capital-St Rev Share Bnd 4,,334,588
.318 County Capital.-.Transportation 18,143
__.. ,7_~~._
330 Lakewood Park Fund 8,950
362 Sports Complex Improv Fund.,,,,,,, __ __959,212
370 MSBU Inhouse Financing Projects , 739,446
382 Environmental land Capital Fund 4 630,881
~.. ___
390
_. MSBU Capital 10 601,019
...
___ ..
396 Lennard Road 1 -Roadway Capital 5,384,996
...397 ... Lennard Road 2 -Water Capital _...937,842
__. _
398 Lennard Road 3 -Sewer Capital 305 625
~.
401
Sanitary Landfill Fund
__ . _ .
21 608,691
418 Golf Course Fund 1,443,323
451 S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund 4,859,270
458 SH Util-Renewal & Replacement 390,541
471 No County Utility District-Operating 6,395,839
478 No Cty Util Dist-Renewal & Replace _ 282,251
479 No Cty Util Dist-Capital Facilities 2,294,859
491 Building Code Fund 1,813,388
505 Insurance & Loss Fund ': 35,182,360
610 Tourist Development Trust Fund 646,691
611 Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund 418,926
620 Law Enforcement Trust Fund 428,909
625 Law Library . 417,627
665 SLC Art in Public Places Trust Fund 481,083
666
_ SLC Economic Dev Trust Fund 108,150
669 Lake Drive MSBU _ _ 13,171
681
_ King Orange 2
_ _
! 11,009
_
682
.... Skylark 2_.
° _ 7,705...
683 Revels Lane 1
_ _._ _ .....13,424....
685 Sunland Gardens MSBU 39,769
686
Greenacres MSBU _. _:
17,973
687
_ Indian River Estates MSBU
_. 874,720
688
... Briargate MSBU
_. 8,269
689 _
Rouse Road MSBU _
_ 15,492...
690 Treasure Cove/Ocean Harbor S MSBU
__ _
86,823
691
North A1A MSBU _
____
6,767
694 Raintree Forest MSBU 8,127
Total Budget 579,544,947
_ Aggregate Millage Rate _ 8.0853
__
D. COMMENT ON ERRATA AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES.
The Management and Budget Director addressed the Errata and Substantive changes.
The total Errata is $12,446,489.
E. PUBLIC COMMENT.
3
Mr. Vince Rahal, Property Appraiser's office addressed the Board and expressed the Property
Appraiser's position before his untimely death. He stated Mr. Furst was opposed to raising the
Millage rate. He advised the Board his staff is receiving calls from various residents indicating
they cannot afford an increase in taxes. He also provided information regarding homesteaded
properties and non-homesteaded properties.
Corn. Dzadovsky asked what would be the percentage of residents receiving an increase or
decrease in taxes should the proposed millage rate be approved.
Mr. Rahal stated 76% of the residents would receive a decrease and 24% would receive an
increase.
Mr. Jerry James, business owner addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed increase in
millage rate. He expressed his concern on how the small businesses in the area would be
affected.
Ms. April Gentile, are property owner, addressed the Board and stated she has several properties
in St. Lucie County and is having a difficult time keeping her head above water. She requested the
Board not raise the millage rate.
Ms. Patricia Ferrick area resident and representing Ms. Goodman from White City, addressed the
Board and encouraged the Board go to the Roll Back Rate in order to provide some funding for the
School Resource Officers. She also encouraged the Board to consider an MSTU to secure future
funding for the program.
Ms. Nellie Spinier, area resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the increase to the millage
rate. She addressed the transit system and recommended less buses be utilized due to the lack of
riders on the buses.
Mr. Bud Wild area resident addressed the high unemployment rate in the county and expressed his
opposition to the millage increase.
Mr. Craig Mundt, area resident and member of the Citizen's Budget Committee, addressed the
Board and commended the Board and staff for implementing the current policy. He stated he has
seen the plan for services and he believes the residents will not see degradation in these services.
He reminded all the valuation of property is the key component to the taxes. 76% residents will
see a reduction in their tax rate and he hoped the media would report those figures.
Corn. Dzadovsky asked if the figures provided by the Property Appraiser's office included the
commercial properties.
Mr. Rahal stated the only exclusions were the exempt properties i.e. government properties where
no taxes would be levied and excluded properties where exemptions were coming off and new
construction, otherwise all others were included.
Corn. Grande stated he believed the 76% figure included all properties and commercial in this
number they were not broken out separately.
F. BOARD DISCUSSION OF THE MILEAGE RATES AND BUDGET
Corn. Craft stated he believed Mr. Mundt made a valuable point. Three years ago they had a
reduction in the tax rate and they actually had 10 to 15 times the people in the audience than
today. The tax structure for the state of Florida is inequitable. There is an artificial cap placed on
homesteaded properties. He voiced his opinion against Amendment 1 and the tax reform passed
by the Legislature due to the fact he felt there would be consequences. It is very complicated.
He stated he would be supporting the tentative millage increase.
Corn. Grande addressed those who have enjoyed the save our homes benefit.
Corn. Craft stated the millage increase does not necessarily indicate a tax increase to all.
Corn. Grande stated anyone who has the gap and has a residential property based on what they
are proposing the increase would be 13%.
Corn. Craft stated every property has to be looked at individually
4
Com. Grande stated he is not sure this is the year, based on the today's economy to have a 13%
increase to those affected. This is too big of a jump based on an assumption.
Com. Dzadovsky addressed the 40 million deficit projected in 2013 and if this was done today they
may be able to close that gap and not have another increase in the future. When property values
were at their peak, they had a millage rate of 7.5 and now they are looking at a millage rate of
7.1367 proposed when values are down 36%. What is the cost of running the government of St.
Lucie County; this is a question he is asking. Beach front properties are coming back in value
however, he has concern that they may have to remove lifeguards from all the beaches also losing
the amenities and quality of life people expect businesses and people will not move here in the
future. He proposed a lower millage rate increase and he is not in support in approving the higher
rate proposed because there are many variables and they can review it next year if necessary. He
does not wish to see St. Lucie County looking like a blighted community. He encouraged his fellow
Board members to go to the .59 increase and not exceed that number as he recommended
previously.
Com. Lewis stated she has problem in mixing the figures. There is a problem in equating the value
and the rate. Roll back means they would be collecting the same taxes as last year and they are
not going to that, they are raising rates in hopes to prevent the large gap in FY 2013. If they wait
until next year when there is another 5% projected decrease in value, they will receive less and
waiting would be a dereliction of her duties. She believes they have no choice but to raise the rate.
Com. Coward stated we are in one of the worst depressions in history and he knows individuals
and businesses are struggling and there are many unemployed facing foreclosure. He believes
they need to look at the non-homesteaded people and businesses that are feeling the hit. He
stated he would support a millage increase but not at the magnitude that is being presented.
This is not a small increase; it is a significant increase that will have a further detrimental effect.
Com. Coward addressed the SRO program and stated the other agencies need to prioritize and
come up with some funding. Four years ago the program cost 1.4 million today it is costing 3
million. There are other areas that need to be cut. He addressed the transit department and the
director's salaries and the fact there have not been any cuts. He believes this needs to be
addressed. He also addressed the cost in operating the jail, the energy use in county buildings
and their inefficiency. Health benefits is another area that he believes should be reviewed.
He stated he cannot support what is on the table until all other areas have been reviewed.
Com. Lewis stated transit is handled through the Council on Aging and not under the county's
control.
Com. Coward stated he still believes this is too high of a salary and expressed concern with the
request of an increase in the millage for transit.
Com. Lewis will contact the transit department and obtain the information regarding any cuts in
personnel or salaries.
Com. Craft stated he did not believe this situation was going to be handled through an increase in
the millage alone. He believes they were to have further discussions as originally scheduled.
Com. Coward stated he would support an increase to offset the property value decrease created
by Amendment 1, he believes the millage proposed is too high. He does not believe raising the
millage now for many variables projected in 2013 is the thing to do. He does not believe Law
Enforcement should have been exempted from this and indicated their budget has gone up 250%
over the population growth. He believes there are additional cuts that can be made. His major
concern is with the Transit MSTU.
Com. Grande alluded to the previous discussions on the millage rate which was proposed for the
purpose of having a rate for the trim notices and not agreeing to this being the actual rate. His
question is are they looking to lower that rate tonight.
Com. Coward stated he was not in a comfort level today to indicate what the rate should be and
would like to continue to work with the Property Appraiser's office on the numbers and make a final
recommendation at the next public hearing.
Com. Grande reminded everyone that it is being projected the budgets are balanced for 2011 and
2012.
5
Com. Dzadovsky addressed the shopping in St. Lucie County and those who utilize the transit
system to go to Martin Memorial Hospital.
Com. Coward stated they have not been able to obtain any figures on how many people are going
to Martin to work however, if they could get the salaries in check within the Transit system and also
if they could direct the ridership to stay in St. Lucie County and direct them to St. Lucie West to
support the shopping area in St. Lucie County, he would be more apt to support the Transit MSTU
increase to offset the loss in the State.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he sat on the Board for a year and they had a pretty good idea of the
ridership even if they did not have the actual figures. The Eastl West corridor was added and this
was an added expense and transit systems do not pay for themselves nationwide. He stated while
he agreed to set the millage rate at this level, it was not his intention to make it the final number.
The County Attorney gave legal direction and options to the Board. He stated they would need to
set a tentative rate tonight and continue the meeting.
Com. Dzadovsky stated his proposal was to set the rate at .5900 millage rate increases, bringing
the current millage rate of 6.4612 up to 7.0512 instead of the current tentative rate of 7.1367 and
this is below the 2006 millage rate.
Com. Grande questioned the aggregate figure and if this was the total of the increase they are
dealing with.
The Management and Budget Director stated they would need to change each taxing district
individually and this is something she would need to be informed of.
The Budget Manager stated the aggregate millage rate calculation would be more difficult and this
is why she gave the figure countywide. If it was not changed from the last meeting it would be
7.1367 countywide and if it were 7.0512 which is Com. Dzadovsky's latest proposal, it would be a
reduction of 0.855 mills.
The County Attorney advised the Board if they knew where they wanted to take the 0.855 mills
from tonight they could move forward, or the alternative would be to move on the tentative millage
with a clear understanding it will be lower than at least 0.855 and ask staff to come up with
altematives such as a A/B resolution that actually shows where the millage projections would be
and provide direction where those funds should come from and at least they would have an
alternative unless they already know where they want it to come from.
The Budget Manager stated staff s recommendation would be it comes from the General Fund
because this is where the money that is set aside for the budget stabilization is budgeted and the
one place they would be able to re-balance out of the general fund and also have specific cuts to
identify.
The County Administrator stated her recommendation exceeded what they are considering and if
they are going in the direction of lowering it, she would ask they take the County Attorney's
recommendation and let them work through this because she is not ready to yield on the spot that
reduction be made on the General Fund and Fine and Forfeiture Fund side outright given what
they know today where the huge hole is. She would prefer not to work through it on the spot and
take the County Attomey's recommendation and come back.
G. MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 10-235 ADOPTING THE FY 2010-2011 TENTATIVE
MILEAGE RATES.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 10-
235, to include the County Attorney's comments, to bring back other recommendations
and other scenarios, with the understanding that there is direction to staff to come back at
the final hearing with reductions in the proposed millage of at least .0855 and provide the
Board with alternatives and any information the Board may request in the interim, and;
upon roll call, the vote was as follows:
Com. Lewis stated she would not want to wait until the final hearing to hear the
recommendations or changes and would recommend having a workshop prior to the next
public hearing.
6
Aye's: Coward, Dzadovsky, Lewis, Craft; Nay: Grande, motion carried by a vote of 4 to
1.
Corn. Craft requested the Property Appraiser's attempt to provide the number of how
many businesses will show a proposed increase and previously requested by Com.
Coward.
H. MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION N0.10-236 ADOPTING THE FY 2010-2011 TENTATIVE
BUDGET, INCLUDING THE ERRATA AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 10-236,
And; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Aye's: Lewis, Craft, Dzadovsky; Nay's:
Coward, Grande, motion carried by a vote of 3 to 2.
Com. Grande requested the background information be available to the Board to the earliest date
possible before the scheduled work shop.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman
Clerk of the Circuit Court
7