The URL can be used to link to this page

06/27/1994 Palm Beach County's "Mini-Grace Committee" COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE REPORT TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON PALM BEACH COUNTY'S "MINI-GRACE COMMITTEE" JUNE 28,1994 Submitted by: 111/6/ 4) 4 David R Craig Approved for: Productivity Committee Ar/ /// j, Jack McKenna Chairman copies to: Commissioners Mr. Dorrill Mr. McNees CCGPC FILES 4 others 2 Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 2 ABSTRACT This report provides information on the Palm Beach County Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency ( "the mini-Grace Committee" ) including its origins, history, structure operations, and accomplishments. The concept is compared with that used in Collier County, and recommendations are made to the Collier County Commission regarding same. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The support and enthusiasm of Mrs . Denise Jeanne Cote, Palm Beach County' s Director of Public Affairs, without which this report could not have been written, is gratefully acknowledged. INTRODUCTION At its May 30 , 1995 Workshop, the Collier County Commission tasked the Productivity Committee to investigate and advise the Commission on the following aspects of the Palm Beach County Mini-Grace Committee: - Its nature , structure, history, operating philosophy and procedures - review its successes and failures - examine applicability of the concept to Collier County This report is prepared in response to that direction of the Board of County Commissioners . PALM BEACH COUNTY ' S "MINI-GRACE COMMITTEE" Although generally called the Mini-Grace Committee, the correct official name for the organization is Palm Beach County Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency. Its purpose is, obviously enough, to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of county government and, not so obviously, to result in high levels of morale of County employees and to ease the problem of future growth caused by the demands of a growing population. The full text of Palm Beach County's implementing resolution, R-85-1177 dated July 30, 1985, is contained in Attachment A. The following summarizes the most important elements: Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 3 ■ The Joint Committee is purely advisory to the Board of County Commissioners . ■ The Joint Committee is composed of thirteen members, one of which is a County Commissioner and serves as Chairman. Terms of the other members ( including Task Force and sub-group members) are three years, appointed by the Chairman and approved by the County Commission. Reappointment is permitted (but see below) . All members shall "possess special expertise and experience in managing large businesses , but the membership shall be balanced in representing views of the entire community" . The Joint Committee [steering committee] includes high ranking government employees as well as members of the private sector . ■ Joint Committee functions are defined as: ( a) Assist in identifying areas of County government where the need for increased efficiency is greatest . (b) Review existing County government structure, organization, staffing, management, business practices and procedures. (c) Make recommendations for increased efficiency and assist in implementation. (d) Joint Committee, BCC, and County staff will select the study areas . After selection, the Joint Committee will identify sub-area topics and organize special technical task forces. These shall be comprised of volunteer experts from the private and/or public sector as well as consultants hired by the County. ( e) Joint Committee will make final recommendations to the County Administration and/or the Board of County Commissioners . HISTORY OF MINI-GRACE The original proposer of the Joint Committee was Mr. Ken Adams, then a County Commissioner, in 1985 . It was modeled directly after the Reagan Administration' s Grace Commission. Headquarters of W. R. Grace Co. are now located in Boca Raton, and, as noted later, Mr . Grace was of great assistance in formulating the concept of the Joint Committee . Mr. Grace met with County and Joint Committee representatives at least annually until his recent death. History, accomplishments , and many other aspects of the Mini-Grace Committee are well-disclosed in an untitled document of the Joint Committee contained in Attachment B. As you read it, please note especially the portion on page two headed "Results-Oriented Approach" . Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 4 When asked what was the Joint Committee ' s greatest success, the following were immediately identified: (1 ) Its role in stemming budget growth, and ( 2 ) Introduction of its cost-saving initiatives . It should be noted that the local newspapers, West Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel and the Post, are supportive of the work of the mini-Grace Committee . Joint Committee work products receive favorable reports in those papers. Although press releases are sometimes made available, the local press most often attends the Task Force meetings and obtains its information directly. CHANGES IN OPERATING PHILOSOPHY OVER TIME As noted in the implementing resolution in 1985, high level representatives of county government were planned to be members of the Joint Committee. In fact, the original steering committee was half public and half private sector. The Joint Committee did operate as described in the resolution. The Joint Committee ' s original support staff consisted of one person, then Mrs. Carol Elmquist, who was subsequently appointed to a vacancy on the Commission and later elected for a full term. As staff to the Joint Committee, she reported directly to the County Commission through the Chairman of the Joint Committee . One successor in the support position was Mrs. Denise Cote who is now the County' s Director of Public Affairs. Over time, the County Commission has changed both membership and policy emphasis . Additionally, the County administration has been reorganized by moving to a "flat" organization which gave much authority to the Assistant County Administrators . The Joint Committee' s support staff, still one person, reports to Mrs. Cote, who now reports to the County Administrator. At the peak of activity some years ago, the Joint Committee consisted of the Steering Committee and a number of Task Forces and sub-groups for a total of about 125 individuals. Today, only the Budget Oversight Task Force and the Privatization Task Force meet regularly. Other groups are called upon as needed. The Steering Committee is inactive, although it is not officially disbanded. It was concluded that it merely added one layer of hierarchy without adding any real value; the Task Forces have always made their reports directly to the County Commission and are under the continuous supervision of the designated Commissioner. The feeling now is that some turnover in the Task Force membership is good in order to infuse new blood and new ideas into the process . However the Budget Oversight Task Force is led Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 5 by Messrs . Vecellio and Rhine, both of whom are of long standing and provide continuity and "corporate memory" . It is regrettable that no cumulative summary of cost savings and non-financial contributions to the County has been maintained. To develop that data now would be an Herculean task. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS Organization of the County Government under the County Commission is shown in Attachment C. Organization of the Joint Committee is contained in Attachment D, which shows the currently active Task Forces Organization of the Budget Oversight Task Force, with sub- groups is contained in Attachment E. A MEETING OF THE BUDGET OVERSIGHT TASK FORCE On June 9 , the writer attended a meeting of the Budget Oversight Task Force of the Joint Committee in the County Center at 0800 hours . That meeting was conducted by Mr. Leo Vecellio as Vice-Chairman and attended by Commissioner Aaronson and about six other members of the Task Group. It was a public meeting, and formal minutes were kept . The minutes are contained in Attachment F . That meeting was the third and final meeting of the task force, and received a very detailed presentation of the changes to the originally proposed budget and the modified budget which would be formally acted on in Budget Workshops . Material presented to the meeting appears in Attachment G. The review was virtually line by line. The presenter was the Financial Management and Budget Director, Mr. Richard Roberts . The County Commissioners ' Internal Auditor, Mr. Fred Jenkins, followed with a statement regarding internal audits in process and the status of each. The discussion was both free-wheeling and informal . From memory, points of particular interest to the writer were the following: - Investment policy: Who made investment decisions? who made investment policy? Did other Constitutional Officers have the right to hold and invest their own funds? What was the correct accounting/evaluation technique for long term assets? What was the exposure of the County to Orange County problems? Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 6 - Salary policy: What across-the-board increases vs. merit increases were contemplated in the revised budget submission? What were Constitutional Officers proposing? - Information Age: What would be the role of libraries in the "information age"? Possible integration of libraries with schools. Support of non-computer-using senior citizens. - Welfare State: Duplicate monitoring of recipients costs money; "how much does it cost us to give away money?" Should county officials and employees be permitted to serve on not-for- profit boards? - Estimates of total cost: Problem of accurately determining recurring, non-recurring, and ancillary and peripheral costs of any project, particularly information systems and software. Is there anyone fully responsible? Need to determine incremental costs for each advancing step in technology so as to be sure it is worth doing. -- User fees: Cost of a new water installation for a six inch meter in a commercial building: between guaranteed revenue fees , impact fees , etc. , cost is $650 ,000 , which stops manufacturers from coming to Palm Beach County. Consider no longer accepting requests for increases in user fees without challenge. Take a hard look at operation of Water Utilities. Although not directly applicable to this visit , the 1992 Budget Oversight Task Force report is an appropriate sample of the product of this Task Force and is contained in Attachment H. Of particular interest is the recognition of the tenor of the times regarding respect for government generally and the fact that the task force was invited by a Constitutional Officer to study the functions of his office. Also of interest is the composition of the membership of this task force and the occupation of each member . TYPICAL REPORTS Other reports , representing typical Joint Committee work, are attached. Attachment I , a Subcommittee report on recommendations regarding Fire Rescue, is dated September 15, 1994. The matters discussed have been reviewed in two Workshops, but have not yet gone to the County Commission for final action and implementa- tion. Apparently they will be on next months Agenda for action and it is said that about one-third of those recommendations are expected to be adopted. Attachment J , two reports from the Privatization Task Force Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 7 dated May 9 , 1995 , and April 22 , 1995, is included here because of the known interest of our Collier County Commission in this subject. INTERVIEW WITH MR. KEN ADAMS On June 26 , 1995 , Mr. Ken Adams, former County Commission Chairman and the originator of the Joint Committee proposal, became available for an interview. It should be noted that Mr. Adams was a personal friend of Mr . Peter Grace and had extensive discussions with Mr. Grace about the work of the federal Grace Commission. Mr . Grace concluded that the work of the Commission had resulted in excellent analysis and recommendations but had really achieved little in persuading Congress and the Administration to implement its ideas . Accordingly, the Palm Beach County Joint Committee was structured somewhat differently. Those differences are highlighted in this report, the most significant being the continuous participation of the Board and the Staff with the private sector. The word "Joint" is of extreme importance. Mr. Adams felt that on the whole the Joint Committee had achieved its original objectives based on the large number of its recommendations which had been implemented. On being asked to identify the key elements that made the Joint Committee a success, he responded with the following points [author ' s paraphrasing] : ■ The County Administration must appreciate and be supportive of the Joint Committee ' s efforts. That had not proven to be the case at the outset, however a new County Administrator had a more positive attitude. Present County Administrator Robert Wiesman is a soft-spoken, non-publicity-seeking man; he wrote an Op-Ed piece for the newspaper in which he stated that mini-Grace had worked incredibly well . The operative word was "we" ■ It is essential that the full participation of Staff be recognized and exploited. Many, perhaps most, problems are recognized by Staff and usually Staff can suggest a potential solution. Staff should be given the credit where possible. Staff , as well as the County Commissioners, should recognize mini-Grace as a resource . ■ Task Forces were assigned to solve specific problems. When the solution was determined and found to be satisfactory, that Task Force was disbanded or became inactive. . ■ While participation in the effort by one or more concerned Commissioners is essential, the private sector should chair and lead the effort . ■ The strong support of private sector businessmen- members can relieve a bureaucrat ' s fear of making a mistake. Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 8 "We do not embarrass staff; we work with them. " Several examples were cited in which the Board had first refused the County Administrator ' s request; then after review and endorsement by a Task Force, the Board accepted the request . ■ It is the relationship of the Task Force and the concerned Staff that is all-important . Mr . Adams noted that since Collier County does not have the large industrial/manufacturing base available in Palm Beach County, recruiting will probably have to take a different tack. He remarked on the large body of retired business executives resident in the Naples area and suggested that their wide experience be harnessed for any advisory board activity here. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr . Adams volunteered that if invited by our County Commission, he would be pleased to bring himself and Mr. Vecellio to Naples at some mutually convenient time for a presentation to the County Commission. COUNTY COMPARISONS In order to understand the data available it is necessary to compare some of the statistics of Collier County with those of Palm Beach. Attachment K provides county profiles from the 1995 Florida Almanac for the two counties. In addition it is important to note that Palm Beach County has a remarkably active Business Development Board and is extremely sensitive to economic development issues. Manufacturing employment, according to its business directory, in the top eleven manufacturers is about 20,000 persons. The top four companies are Pratt & Whitney ( 5000 ) , IBM ( 3700) , Motorola ( 2300 ) and Siemens (2000 ) . COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS Mini-Grace is not the only advisory body in Palm Beach County. "We have many too many other advisory boards, perhaps eighty in all" . They are mostly special-interest oriented. Palm Beach has attempted to sunset most of them, without success . "They seem to have a political life of their own" . The real problem is apparent in the lack of specific goals and the lack of measurement of accomplishment against those goals. A current roster of Collier County Advisory Boards shows thirty-seven advisory committees utilizing 309 advisory board members and three ad hoc committees utilizing 48 members . A listing of these is contained in Attachment L. Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 9 Many of those boards make input to the Collier County Commission regarding matters of "efficiency" . Some are specifically charged with functions similar to those of the mini- Grace Committee, including in that category - Productivity Committee, - Council of Economic Advisors, - Development Services Advisory Committee, - EMS advisory Council, - Tourist Development Council , and - Privatization Plus Task Force, all of whose charters include some sort of budgetary recommendation requirements. In addition to the quasi-public advisory boards, comment and recommendations regarding budgetary policy are made to the County by private organizations , such as the Taxpayers Action Group and the Greater Naples Civic Association. It appears , then, that from a practical point of view there is little difference in the way that the two counties commissions receive appropriate input . CONTRAST AND BENEFITS What are the significant differences in approach to advisory boards between Collier and Palm Beach? And what are the benefits obtained in Palm Beach County from those differences? In the author ' s perception, they are these: (1 ) Not even the most expert , well rounded, experienced County Commission can be expected to be totally proficient and fully informed on every issue presented to it . It needs the benefit of business-oriented outside support that understands the problem in terms of the County' s long term needs . Mini-Grace members are recruited from among the major players in the economy of Palm Beach and represent directly applicable experience at a high level . Palm Beach has a large pool of expertise and active industrial and professional talent from which to pick and choose for specific assignments. Recruiting is done by the Commissioners, the Chairman of each task force, and members who recognize need for additional capability for unique problems . All appointments at any level are approved by the County Commission after a review of credentials which is not just a cursory reading. Since the recruitment is at high levels, many of the prospective members are already known to the commissioners. Utilization of recognized, high level talent leads to a high quality product, which in turn leads to good public relations . The author is not aware of any specific recruitment efforts Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 10 by the County Commission in completing the membership roster of any of the advisory boards. (2 ) The mini-Grace implementing resolution requires a community balance and a dilution of special interest representation on the Joint Committee, and these mandates are observed. The result has been to focus attention on coalition building for long-term benefits to the County. Further , the Board of Commissioners is insulated from accusations of domination by special interest groups . Collier ' s resolution for the Productivity Committee, for example , does not contain similar caveats. ( 3) The Palm Beach mini-Grace Committee is primarily focussed on control of the cost of delivery of services and the rationality of ways of providing the services. This is much closer to the tasks of the federal government ' s Grace Commission. The benefit is concentration on delivering essential services of reasonable quality at lowest cost . Collier ' s Productivity Committee ' s work product is focussed on process, the way in which the County' s work is done, with the objective of simplifying, combining, and eliminating the various stages of the process as well as giving the public a better interface with the process . ( In a few cases, such as the Sheriff ' s helicopter , the 800 MHz radio system, and this report , the Commission has directed this Committee to make a factual report on status and facts , with or without recommendation. ) As presently understood in the Productivity Committee, cost reduction is not necessarily the primary objective of the Committee' s study, although that may be one result. ( 4 ) In Palm Beach, mini-Grace is under the constant supervision of one or more interested Commissioners and receives their full participation. Further, membership on the team by Staff has added synergism and harmony toward fulfillment of the County' s long term objectives. The various Collier advisory boards interface with the Board of Commissioners primarily at workshops conducted aperiodically and through written reports . The expertise of Staff has not been utilized directly nor has Staff been given credit, and in some instances an adversarial attitude has developed. GENERAL RECOMMENDATION The Board of Commissioners should examine the roles of those advisory panels which in some way relate to budgeting matters and determine what it expects in that regard from each. It may be that some charters should be amended. Additionally, the Board Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 11 may wish to redirect the Productivity Committee ' s primary concentration from one of process examination to one of cost saving/cost control. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS The Productivity Committee also recommends the following: (a) The Collier County Commission should direct the Office of Management and Budget (which function presently supports those advisory boards dealing with budgetary matters ) to maintain for each advisory board or committee recommendation a tracking log of each recommendation showing - brief summary of recommendation - action taken, and if not approved by BCC, the reason - estimated cost saving (recurring and non-recurring) - cumulative cost savings of approved actions . (b) The County Commission should undertake an active high level recruitment program for each advisory board. (c ) The County Commission should consider ways to achieve appropriate publicity for successful actions by each of the various advisory boards . Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 12 ATTACMOT A Palm Beach County Resolution R-85-1177 , July 30, 1985 , creating the Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency ( "mini-Grace Committee" ) 7.31.85.TM.1k RESOLUTION NO. R-85-1177 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COKMISSIONERS OF PAL."( BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING THE PALM BEACH COUNTY JOINT COMMITTEE TO INCREASE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY (MINI-GRACE COMMITTEE), PROVIDING FOR MEMBERSHIP, PROVIDING FOR MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES, PROVIDING FOR VACANCIES, PROVIDING FOR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS, PROVIDING FOR COMMITTEE ACTION ADVISORY ONLY, PROVIDING FOR STAFF SUPPORT AND FACILITIES, AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY WHEREAS, there is a recognized need to assist County government in increasing its efficiency by improving business- and management practices; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beech County, Florida is desirous of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of County government. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. CREATION. An Advisory Committee entitled the Palm Beach County Joint Committee to Increase County Governaant Efficiency (Mini-Grace Committee) is hereby created for the purpose of increasing County government efficiency, resulting in high levels of morale of County employees and easing the problem of future government growth caused by the demands of a growing population. SECTION 2. MEMBERSHIP. The Comittee shall be composed of thirteen (13) individuals. One member shall be a representative of the Palm Beach County Commission who shall be selected by the County Commission. The selected member from the County Commission shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee for the duration of the selected member's term of office as a County Commissioner. The remaining twelve (12) members will serve for a term of three (3) years and will be selected by the Chairman of the Committee and approved by the County Commission. They shall po pecial expertise and experience in managing large busi , but the membership shall be balanced in representing views of the entire community. Further, the Committee shall include high ranking governmental employees as wall as aesthete of the private sector. 7.31.85.7.1.1k Of the remaining twelve (12) members to be first appointed to the Committee, the first five (5) members appointed shall serve for three (3) years; the next four (4) members appointed shall serve for two (2) years; and the last three (3) members appointed shall serve for one (1) year. Thereafter, members shall be appointed for three-year terms. SECTION 3. MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES. After the initial appointment, members of the Committee shall hold an organizational meeting. At said meeting the members shall determine a time and place for regular meetings of the Committee and shall adopt such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary. Provided however, that a majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the concurrence of a majority of the members present and voting shall be required to take any official action. All meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public and shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 286 Florida Statutes. SECTION 4. VACANCIES. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as provided in Section 2 above. An appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term only. Any member may serve for any number of consecutive terms. All members shall serve without compensation. SECTION S. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS. The Palm beach County Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency (Mini-Grace Committee) shall have the following duties and functions: A. Assist in identifying areas of County government where the need for increased efficiency is greatest. b. Analysis and review of the existing structure, organization, staffing, management, business practices and procedures of County government. C. Maio recommendations for increased efficiency and assist in implementation of those recommendations. D. The Committee and County staff will select the study areas. Once selected, the Committee will identify specific sub-area topics and organize special technical task forces. These task forces will analyze the specific area, document their findings, submit 2 7.31.85.....1k alternatives to problems and then make their recommendations. The special technical task forces shall be comprised of volunteer experts from the private and/or public sector as well as consultants hired by the County. E. The Committee will review and evaluate the task force findings and make final recommendations to County Administration and/or the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION 6. COMMITTEE ACTION ADVISORY ONLY. The actions, decisions and recommendations of the Committee shall not be final or binding on the Board of County Commissioners, but shall be advisory only. SECTION 7. STAFF SUPPORT AND FACILITIES. Upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners, County government will provide legal, administrative and consultant support and facilities as needed which is hereby declared to be a County purpose. SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, or clause of this Resolution is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The foregoing resolution vas offered by Commissioner Marcus who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilken and upon being put to a vote, the vote vas as follows: KEN ADAMS - AYE RAREST T. MARCUS - AYE KEN SPILLIAS - AYE JERRY L. OWENS - AYE DOROTHY H. WILKEN - AYE The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 30th day of July , 1985. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; BY -ITS LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS."'•' '•. John B. Dunkle, Clerk .}, d p I Of ) �'•.A By 4.4., / /e'r County Attorney Oaputy•hark .•' , 03 . ;,. 3 Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 13 ATTACHIBIENT B Untitled, undated document of the Joint Committee providing overview of the Joint Committee and its accomplishments Board of County Commissioners County Administrator \\ i Mary McCarty, Chair Robert Weisman • Ken L. Foster, Vice Chairman jOint. Committee Karen T. Marcus Carol A. Roberts to Increase County Government EfHdency Warren H. Newell Hurt Aaronson, Chairman Warren Newell, Vice-Chairman Burt Aaronson B�9 Leo Vecellio, Jr., Vice-Chairman Maude Ford Lee �Q+ Denise J. Cote, Administrator alcr INTRODUCTION \JLN.1 Since 1985 , Palm Beach County has sponsored an innovative program called the Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency. A joint effort between County staff and private sector professionals, the program has a general purpose of helping to increase the County' s efficiency. PURPOSE OF OVERVIEW This overview provides basic information for committee candidates, interested parties, and public administrators who wish to initiate a similar program. Numerous agencies and local governments have expressed an interest in our program, including the federally-focused Grace Commission (Citizens Against Government Waste) , which uses our program as a model for local governments . Over the years, the Joint Committee has been informally called "Mini-Grace" . CREATION The Joint Committee was created by the Board of County Commissioners in July 1985 (by Resolution R-85-1177) with the stated purpose of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of County government. Commissioner Burt Aaronson currently serves as Chairman of the Joint Committee; Commissioner Warren Newell serves as Vice-Chairman; and Leo Vecellio, Jr. is our Vice- Chairman representing the private sector. All members of our Board of County Commissioners participate, at varying levels of involvement, based on interest and time availability. FUNCTION Steering Committee and Task Force members must possess expertise and experience in managing large businesses and/or in the specific study area. Highlights of the Joint Committee's responsibilities: . . . assist in identifying areas of County government where the need for increased efficiency is greatest; . . . review and analyze the existing structure, organization, staffing, management, business practices and procedures of County government; intro.djc "An Equal Opportunity- Affirmative Action Employer" Page Two . . . make recommendations for increased efficiency and assist in implementation of those recommendations; . . . in conjunction with County staff, select specific study areas and organize technical Task Forces -- comprised of volunteer experts as well as consultants hired by the County -- to document findings and make recommendations for improvements; . . . submit Task Force reports which offer observations and final recommendations to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners and the County Administrator; and . . . schedule periodic follow-up to ensure a high degree of implementation. An organizational chart depicting current Task Forces and subcommittees is attached. Meeting summaries and reports provide substantive information on the specific activities of the various committees, including current and emerging issues . RESULTS-ORIENTED APPROACH The most distinctive aspect of the Joint Committees -- which truly sets it apart from other citizen "tax reform" committees -- is the combination of public and private members . Recommendations are developed with the cooperation of County staff and, by design, presented to a Steering Committee which includes top level government administrators . Our goal is to avoid the path of least resistance. There are other conditions which motivate a results-oriented approach: - there is broad political support for our efforts; - continual recruitment stimulates the development of new ideas and concepts ; - special interests are diluted by ensuring well- balanced representation from all segments of the business community; - a project management approach includes development of work plans, objectives and final reports for all Task Forces and subcommittees; and - periodic review of reports and recommendations, with the cooperation of members of the Board of County Commissioners, encourages follow-up by County staff. Also, because the committee's administrator reports to the Board Page Three of County Commissioners (rather than the County Administrator) , we avoid the perception or the reality of being controlled by the Administration. There are no sacred cows . ACCOMPLISHMENTS Committee accomplishments are extensive. Although quantifying many of the recommendations relating to policy, organization or management is sometimes difficult, cost savings and cost avoidance amounts to millions of dollars each year. A few examples : • The Negotiations and Purchasing Task Force recommended in 1986 that the County benefit from tax-free purchases . When two major capital projects geared up in 1990 (criminal justice and courthouse facilities) , there were no plans in place for tax- exempt purchasing of construction-related items . The Task Force, which is composed of procurement experts, was very concerned. Hours of discussion and research followed, producing a substantive program. To date, savings associated with the County's Sales Tax Recovery Program have exceeded $800, 000 . • The Environmental Resources Management Focus Group of the Budget Oversight Task Force raised a number of concerns relating to the County's potential purchase of huge tracts of environmentally-sensitive lands, including lost tax revenue and maintenance costs . Although most of the members supported the acquisition program, they urged full and accurate disclosure of fiscal impacts . • The Privatization Task Force researched and supported contracting out of the County's custodial function. Annual cost savings have exceeded $700, 000 . Recommendations to issue Requests for Proposals for surface transportation, pharmacy services, mosquito control and other County programs have also been offered. • The Real Estate Assets Task Force recommended that the County issue a Request for Proposal for office space rather than simply negotiate for a lease buy-out of a specific property. The committee felt very strongly that this was the most prudent action to take; in addition to discovering all opportunities, we would avoid any perceptions of a "developer bail-out" and ultimately capture the very best deal for the County. The Board of County Commissioners ultimately directed County staff to follow this course. The County's purchase price reflected a savings of over $4 million. • A sampling of Budget Oversight Task Force recommendations : - implementation of a 40-hour work week for all County Page Four employees ( for some vague reason, most employees worked 37 1/2 hours but were paid for 40 ) ; - raising the health insurance deductible to an amount closer to a private sector average which would yield calculable savings of approximately $200, 000 annually, plus savings associated with an anticipated decrease in usage; - revamping of County funding of non-profit "charitable" agencies which exceeds $4 million annually; - elimination of across-the-board (ATB) increases for County employees and establishment of a true pay-for- performance system. It was reported that ATB and merit increases to County employees have vastly out-paced cost of living increases over the past five years . A 1% salary increase for all County employees costs taxpayers approximately $3 million. Obviously, some of our recommendations are not politically popular or enthusiastically embraced by the workforce. This makes our job much more challenging. DECLARATION We believe that the community' s ability to participate in the governmental process , to share private sector perspectives and suggest solutions, is a cornerstone for building a better government and enhancing public trust. Through the Joint Committee' s involvement, the important quality of life decisions made by the Board of County Commissioners are properly influenced by their customers . If you have questions or would like additional information on accomplishments, procedures or current projects, please feel free to contact Denise Jeanne Cote at (407) 355-3808 . # # # Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 14 ATTACHMENT C Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Organizational Structure, Rev 2/8/94 'f` (--'----\ C W1 ID.: O c e E3. �p > CCm ucL i .1. N m >. G� d_ a O- ,n O C HES r� cU ink 8. ..aE e. 'E .iQE ; ►-z 'm -ems cEm 55 li Qc" am e- as °Oc iU di' . L U in J .,:._ 3 S E — E w r O E m Cl) pEp o a a l) U: U N p E Li 4 C Q;. ill A m e3 V '^ C OCe y. 7 0 z' „- of 8 cc F o' am -. .c C C F.° e N V a ink �3 O��m oLyy .T" C5.'=.K O r O 0 ET • >-±- Na Ly e 0 CN cr eQ }r �J H QQm g•w lm ?m JZ' 20 .e.c : Oum N = 2 o' c 0- aCI ¢U mo £ =mow am 3 U a LL C C ` m $ o ro Cl) .E ° r ` ... ::h..1,02'••i•11:1:1:Iii::Ii• (...„„) ,73 9! I;HuI j9Ipi,i d ;. O 1 l itiA— p 0 0 1f^» iE ELL m W C E.. W . lii C J ¢ •7 N C ' E —eq. V Z. -0 0 Q` ai — cc 0 z. c Ec e , cC liii ULOi55mO� I'D H om O Q C Q cm5. a'am . 8C2 z r pI 118 3 � °gvwU w = �2YUa 0 ca .... L m 4 I o C I m g ; �H. O o 8 a z c a' C IdVU m mU 5 —a2 ( r� oWL 28m C O O m m .•w 3 kkcD m U u m U - m Q S C C6, cc ° wY/ E N U U mE CO m c 8 2 I � — eu nOd E OW ' e '_ 3,1i2- g. 03 $. -gA_ 11 �Cmom • Et 08-P1'.. H c yam o a � m � 0c� h. U_c(AfA1 my o LL rav X7.2 .0,8 .c 2 g 0 9 R>��I .i�8 J m O � m m 2 <5 1 eO LL 1 1 n Lb 0 L-J Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 15 ATTACIIMEMT D Joint Committee Organization Chart, undated • JOInT COMMITTEE TO IfCREASE COUnTY GOVERnmEnT EFFICIEIICY Organizational Chart Board of County Commissioners fart' 7`1,cCarti3 , Chair County Administrator Bob Weisman Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency Burt Aaronson, Chairman Warren Newe1L, Vice-Chairman Leo 1JecetLio , Jr . , Vice-Chairman Denise 3 . Cote' , Administrator Budget Oversight Task Force Leo V ecetLia, Jr. , Chairman Human Resources Management Task Force Anne Cantwell, Chairman Information Systems Task Force 1taruly Cot jtler, Chairman Judicial Construction Oversight Task Force Joe $ova, Chairman Long Term Financing Task Force Paul CourtncLL, Chairman negotiations and Purchasing Task Force Terri Th Pasctuale, Chairman Organizational Effectiveness Task Force $itL Smith, Chairman Privatization Task Force Andy CarLtno, Chairman Real Estate Assets Task Force $iEL Sh.ubin, Chairman Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 16 A� P CHME E Budget Oversight Task Force Organization Chart, March 1992 it • BUDGET OVERSIGHT TASK FORCE Organizational Chart March 1992 JOINT COMMITTEE TO INCREASE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY BUDGET OVERSIGHT TASK FORCE I Clerk's Office Financial Organization Study Group Study Group Delegate I Professional Sheriff's Agencies I Services Office Study Group I Procurement Study Group Study Group Staffing Levels Study Group Engineering PZ & B Env. Resources Mgmt . Focus Group Focus Group Focus Group I Parks & Recreation Library System Focus Group Focus Group t 4 botfchart.djc Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28 , 1994 17 ATTACHMENT F Budget Oversight Task Force Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1995 A, &( 3( ( «Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Ken L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen T.Marcus Carol A.Roberts Department of Public Affairs Warren H.Newell Mary McCarty •4 13 Maude Ford Lee ihN Z. ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JOINT COMMI I'L LE TO INCREASE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY Budget Oversight Task Force To: Leo Vecellio, Jr., Chairman, and Members, Budget Oversight Task Force From: Jeanne Peterson Coordinator, Organizational Improvement Re: cutive Summary of Meeting: June 9, 1995 Date: June 20, 1995 Members present: Leo Vecellio, Jr., Chairman Marta Cano Steve Downey Scott Rhine Len Tylka Jim Watt Members absent: Peter Aquart Keith James Bill Levine Greg Nicosia Maurice Rosenstock Glenn Schanel K. Dan Shalloway Peg Stroupe Hugo Unruh Staff present: Richard Roberts, OFMB Director Steve Bordelon, Budget Director 1 "An Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer" •:printed on recycled paper Box 1989 West Palm Beach,Florida 33402-1989 (407)355-2754 FAX: (407)355-3819 John Wilson, OFMB Fred Jenkins, Internal Auditor John Dame, Finance Others present: Commissioner Warren Newell, Vice-Chairman, Joint Committee Denise Cote, Public Affairs Director David Craig, Collier County Leo Vecellio, Jr., Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:04 A.M. David Craig, from Collier County, was introduced. He said his Commissioners requested that he visit our Budget Oversight Task Force to see what we are doing. 1996 Budget: Richard Roberts [Note attached document: FY 1995-96 Budget Workshops] The BCC will discuss the budget in a workshop June 12 and 13 but there will still be room for budget adjustments before it's approved. The Countywide taxing distr t.budget is at roll-back but the Library is over roll-back by 1/2 mill. Sheriff's Investment Losses The Sheriff's "bad investments" are not recorded as losses. Selling at a loss and reinvesting that money was considered but consultants advised the County to hold the investments until maturity. Within the 20 to 30 year period we can expect to recover every dollar invested. Right now the book value is $14 million and the market value is $61/2 million. The Sheriff's Office has filed law suits against the four brokers. Task force members had several questions about investments: Why is the Sheriff able to keep surplus money and put it into investments? Commissioner Aaronson said that no one complained or said anything all the years the Sheriff was making money on his investments. The recommendation to hold the investments until maturity is right. How did this affect the Sheriff's budget? The Sheriff had to borrow money to prevent liquidation of other investments. It's a temporary loan. What is the policy on Constitutional Officers investing money? All of the Board of County Commissioners' money is invested by the Clerk and now that includes the Sheriff's Office. The County's investment portfolio is $750 2 million. Each Constitutional Officer has control over its own investments. The Tax Collector has a conservative policy on investment. Who is in charge of County investments? . . . one person? . . . a group? A staff of four in the Clerk's Office and one individual who is a broker. They must function within BCC policy and they meet quarterly with an investment committee. Investments are evaluated annually. Fred Jenkins, Internal Auditor, is satisfied with the policy and procedures. The BCC policy has recently been changed; it prohibits inverse floaters. Salaries Leo wanted to know if there were any plans to get rid of across-the-board increases. For years this committee recommended no across-the-board raises. Increase in Fire Rescue reserve for balances forward Members disagreed with increasing reserves from $2.5 to $4.2 million. The Chief advocated this because he expected Jupiter to decline county fire service. Leo suggested that Fire Rescue go below roll-back instead of maintaining reserves. Another member said the increase does not motivate the Chief to look for efficiency opportunities. Library - $700,000 in impact fees to be nosed for book purchases Members realize the Library is at the end of its planned expansion. They recommend under no circumstances should the Library build any more branch libraries. Commissioner Aaronson believes in the future there will be need for more libraries but our approach should be joint use of school facilities. It's much less expensive to add a wing to a school for a local library. Liability has always been an issue with the School Board when considering joint ventures, but Commissioner Aaronson feels that has been addressed. He said if there is further need to change legislation to allow the School Board to share facilities with the County, it will become one of the boards priorities. County Attorney request for Construction Attorney and staff positions At the last BOTF meeting members expressed concern whether all three positions were truly needed since much less construction is planned. Commissioner Aaronson said we need these positions and we will also hire outside counsel for construction litigation — we have a massive lawsuit over the new courthouse. These positions will help reduce the number of hours needed from outside counsel and will also help reduce outside legal fees. Chairman Vecellio, Jr. said he understands the need for these contracted positions, but is concerned that these positions will become permanent. Parks & Recreation request for 12 new positions (page 17) BOTF members were not pleased that all employees who worked at Southwinds were 3 kept on the payroll when privatized. Members are not convinced these new positions are needed. Tax Collector and Public Defender (page 12) Members questioned why these offices requested such huge increases in ad valorem money. Most of the increases are related to CJIS. Cost of CJIS Commissioner Aaronson said he would like to know the true cost of the CJIS project. When the project was proposed to commissioners, ISS estimated the cost would be $4.1 million; however, all costs were not included. Besides funding the project in ISS, we are now seeing additional costs appear in various other departments. Maybe the decision to fund this project would have been different if commissioners had been fully informed of costs. Water Utilities Budget (page 19) Members commented that unlike other department budget requests every one of Water Utilities budget requests were supported by the Management Team. One member questioned whether the department was over-budgeted, especially in light of the recent rate increase. This member also mentioned the hefty water meter ccinection fees for commercial buildings. Task force members would like to discuss Water Utilities budget with Bevin Beaudet at their next meeting. They would also like to know how that department's fees and total budget compare with water utilities departments in other counties. Members would like the department to prepare a package that members can review before the next meeting. 1995-96 Budget Document Chairman Vecellio, jr. congratulated Richard Roberts and his staff for this excellent budget summary. He said it was the best County budget presentation he has seen. Internal Audit: Fred Jenkins Fred Jenkins said the next set of audits will be released mid-July. Included in this series of audits: Workers' Comp, Water Utilities, Traffic, Fire Rescue Medicine & drugs, Airport car rentals, PZB accounting, ISS software licenses, microfilming and indirect charges. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for September 6, 1995 at 8:00 A.M. The Thomas McEaddy Memorial Chambers is reserved for this meeting. A proposed meeting agenda is attached. 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENCLOSED ■ Agenda for Next Meeting ■ 1995-96 Budget Document (for absent members only) ■ County Investment Policy (BOTF members only) ■ 1995-96 Budget Workshop Schedule ■ Recent News Clips Enclosures: as noted (or upon request) cc: Commissioner Burt Aaronson, Chairman, Joint Committee Commissioner Warren Newell, Vice-Chairman, Joint Committee Ken L. Foster, Chairman, and Members, Board of County Commissioners Bob Weisman, County Administrator Bevin Beaudet, Assistant County Administrator Jean Creamer, Assistant County Administrator Bill Wilkins, Assistant County Administrator Vince Bonvento, Assistant County Administrator George Webb, County Engineer Don Carter, Assistant Budget Director Denise J. Cote, Public Affairs Director Denise Dytrych, Assistant County Attorney Rick Poulette, CWA # 3181 Robert Galt Ned Barnes, Committee for Good Government Dorothy Wilken, Clerk of the Circuit Court John Dame, Finance 5 Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28 , 1994 18 ATTPLaWM G Budget Workshop Information presented to Budget Oversight Task Force Meeting of June 9 , 1995 Board n;County Commissioners County Administrator Km L.Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen T.Marcus Carol A.Roberts Office of Financial Management & Budget Warren H.Newell Mary McCarty g Maude Ford Lee y('1 OTc PALM BEACH COUNTY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Foster, Chair and Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Richard Roberts, Director ?i4& Office of Financial Managem nt & Bu e DATE: June 6, 1995 RE: Budget Workshop Information The attached material has been prepared for the Budget Workshops next week (June 12 and 13, 1995) . The information summarizes the progress to date on the FY 95-96 budget, which will be submitted later this month. The June workshops are intended to give the Commissioners an opportunity to give additional input into the process prior to submission of the proposed budget. "An Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer" Box 1989 West Palm Beach,Florida 33402-1989 printed on recycled paper (407)355-4034 FAX(407)355-2109 FY 1995—96 BUDGET WORKSHOPS 9:00 a.m., Monday, June 12, 1995 and continuing 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 13, 1995 McEaddy Conference Room Governmental Center 12th Floor ti x U N` om ° BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PALM BEACH COUNTY FY 1995-96 BUDGET WORKSHOP 9:00 a.m. Monday, June 12, 1995 AGENDA Page No. I. OVERVIEW OF FY 1995-96 BUDGET A. Major Budget Assumptions 1 B. Roll—back Calculation 2-3 C. Significant Changes From FY 1994-95 Budget 4 II. REVENUES A. Funding Sources by Category 5-6 B. Forecast of Major Tax Equivalent Revenues 7 III. OPERATING BUDGET A. Departmental Budget Trends 8-12 B. Supplemental Requests 13-19 IV. CAPITAL BUDGET A. Schedule of Funding Sources and Appropriations 20-21 B. Reserve Analysis 22 C. Estimated Carryover Funding by Category 23 D. FY 1995-96 Project Funding Recommendations 24-30 V. RESERVES 31-32 A. Contingency Reserves B. Other Operating Reserves C. Debt Service Reserves D. Capital Project Reserves E. Reserves for Balance Forward VI. OTHER BUDGET ISSUES A. Constitutional Officers 33 B. Economic Development Program 34 C. Westgate CRA 35 D. Financially Assisted Agencies 36 E. Beautification MSTU's 37 VII. BOARD COMMENTS AND DIRECTION VIII. ADJOURNMENT MAJOR BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS FY 1995-96 • Property Values new construction - $1.563 billion revaluations (net) - $556.7 million • Revenue Estimates Major revenues are estimated as follows: Current Year - avg. 4% over prior year actual FY 1995-96 - avg. 5% over current year estimate • Salary Policy 3% across-the-board on 10/1/95 and 2% avg. merit increase on 4/1/96 • Other Operating Costs based on current year requirements (Base Budget) adjusted for documented increases • Sheriff $9.0 million increase over FY 1994-95 ($8.4 million to be funded by ad valorem equivalents) • Other Constitutional Officers $2.9 million (5.4%) over FY 1994-95 budgets (partially offset by $1 million increase in revenue) • Supplemental Increases Ad Valorem Equivalent Funding: (Operating) Countywide - $2,921,437 Fire/Rescue - $ 804,061 Glades F/R - $ 54,686 Library - $ 699,410 Non-Ad Valorem $2,241,578 • Capital (Countywide) $9.4 million in ad valorem funding for capital projects $1.4 million in Parks Community Assistance $3.2 million in other ad valorem equivalent revenues to fund general capital projects (excluding road programs) • Economic Development $3.5 million in new funding • Sweep Reserves $6 million to be transferred from "swept" balances of completed road projects • Other Reserves General Fund Contingency to be increased by$1.0 million (from $4.0 million to $5.0 million) Fine & Forfeiture Reserves for Balances Forward to be increased by $2.3 million (from $7.7 million to $10.0 million) • Other(Countywide) Tax Stabilization Reserve - remains at$10 million $2.8 million included for debt service on CJIS/CIVIS and $1.2 million for the Judicial Garage $2.0 million previously designated for loan to WPB (to be used to fund debt service on Sunshine Pool) Property and Casualty Insurance to increase by 100% over current year funding level Indirect cost allocations based on 105% of current year amount; actual amounts will be available upon completion of plan update • Fire/Rescue Reserves Reserve for Balances Forward to be increased by $1.7 million (from $2.5 million to $4.2 million) • Library $700.000 in impact fees to be used for book purchases. 1 O: p CO w 0000 a 0 NO - •tre en % 0 00 CA ;5A V' h 0 M 0 M eq N 0004 0. in az I `o � n 44 44 is 0 49 64 49 0 W a J b N. cCet. C N vr.) .N. M � C v, 0o M in VZ CO 0` N1 'n O O 00 N CO Ni (Ni a N.'.: OIn C lit:: W 00 44 • N N N iit rg— 69 V9 1-.4.3. 9 w NO O M pet .�- 00. ,-•i ,.O M N 1-4 .- M et N tV -: 0000 Ceram CO' CMp ,-i ,n t0 .-+ h N �O• M Z Q c'� O M : 00 0 000 p M e}" N ON 0 o • _ I. M �1 a co tr,00- 07 M CO ,N-i ,M-i ti' ,moi ry� ��111 00 s-1 p ti ,--, 49 ,.,: 44 F� m N N 06 ON ,--� M : a a s9 49 Let O U �v:'C% Z W COcs4 0.1 00 N 00 M T sp9 8Q ,., 01 U U A a- et co. N O, N M M M p M: ~ 000 �0 M d Z. 'NI ni: NI N N O N o 4 ;CI U w !r M p• M M h -'Ittl` 2 0:1N M .moi tt N (NI eel 49 fd 04 I A le) lel 49 69 49 al F4 ° U O�/ C4 N Ot ,-- 0 — en N ,--i '.O 00 N O N 00 [Wr a o• ~o M o�0 h 0000 p ,r M '.O c.; v? '. C7 ,--i h to N ..r H p W: W � N. ai ' h — b N N 0 b ~ C7 e H N M � � 69 � M i 44 44 �. a 44 0 44 a 44 Ca)Z ¢ Q a 4t • °i• 6 `� .a o w a ¢ u3 0 In N ° C7 W g ] a H W W g W a 1.Z tii ] �a haw d Q °z � a F F > o2o > > QaQQ 0 y � 14w w � ztg C4 ° 0A z 0Z � .1 .1a, .r > v> t, v-, 00 p- .1 0 ° z 0 ONWONONON as aa a> °: g ' F.' ' f:4 g � 8° 2 M S . r 7 v* Pk At •AQf �� o Cir)» k vb «� @ aa. A@ v, i.V @ 0 coo s'I. 1-1\ 7 7 o @ s r « as so o2 co, el CZ \ r- 4o, a W W © r S r R 00 o « el 2 R o A � Cn M 4) 0 CA 0ctr \ wa w�� S\ � . 2 U k g 02• tn. CT 14) GNpW cA ':(5:;\ ....,e6 w � �\ ¥ 0 ill 104, Os 0 « r 2 G ia a t r r a ' P 0\ c" r et r- 40 k W CLI co. . ( rl A O PI--cm 7 0 4 � et f A e ea os OA vil# coel ca k �� Pip \ Q e « W p %0 p $c 0 Q 3 0 ® cla zO t 7'tle:t. dQ ¥ WA » O » 3 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN TAX EQUIVALENT FUNDING FROM THE FY 1994-95 COUNTYWIDE BUDGET EFFECT ON TAX REQUIREMENT - Increase/Decrease; In Mi lions SHERIFF --'Net Tax increase • $8.4' OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1.9 COUNTY HOME/MEDICAID 1.8``. COUNTY ATTORNEY 0.6 ENGINEERING 0.7 FPDC (Including General Services) 0.8< PARKS PUBLIC AFFAIRS;:; 0.5 PUBLIC SAFETY 1.1 PZ&R 1.3 ECONOMIC<DEVELOPMENT"(New Funding) (4.3) DEBT:<SERVICE -<9.375M CJIS/CVIS2.8 Judicial Center Garage 1.2 1st Municipal Loan (4.0) Sheriff Motor Pool Facility 0.2 Prior use of available Revenues/Reserves 0.5 0.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING (1.0) FINANCIALLY ASSISTED AGENCIES ($.2 million over modified budge.. 0.4 GENERAL:GOVERNMENT. (08) INDIRECT COST (1.1) PALM:GLADE HOUSING. (0.7) CAPITAL.PROJECTS (4.8) ADDITIONAL TAXES:FROM NEW COONSTRUCTION . (5.7) INCREASEIM BEGINNING BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD (11.0) INCREASE IN RESERVES.; General Fund - Contingency 1.0 General Fand' -Available for BCC Allocation 0.7 Fine& Forfeiture.F nd - Reserve for Cash.Carry Forward 2.3 4.0 REDUCTION:IN TRANSFERSiFROM>ROAD PROG.R.AM SWEEPS 14.6 ONE-TIME FUNDING IN FY 95 FROM"CAMDEN CASE 1.0 INCREASE'IN MAJORREVENUE3 • (12.3) OTHER INCREASES INTAX:REQUIREMENTS(NEVI')` 1.6 ($0.0) 4 M Cal U E+ C is Cl) 2CLI t. W O ' k7o a � N Gs.N F swot` rn�� ooh w=aim w... t�.mc� cS E>»CV ME.... 0M 0 o w�Ob .4 �M ohCA • o U z co m M E.c-, ka x AM..cm W co w C9 U — c1! as r7"' co c'] 6. zc w.-1 :•-• --------w•••••••••••••••-,,,, -\ •• M CZ toy 1'ss;. CT. O O x0 aE- w o co d, rn C4 Eye M .a w x Ed. z Z to Cr.) Cl) mw� wcv z wN zp�;� x.o UCn adZcAin (A-1 o co >oo or'm wmtt a0, am �a'.�. wC]~ �N.; E'o W M Ca wel CO E-, .4 w: q w E. M z . I 5 NNO NO u N .--- N O C co S C M N ( ON ON et N et •--1 N M M .--4 ef' et I. M [� V1 et N N et O as V'1 co No C\ as M 00 M 0Q C1 ON M M .-i NO ,� N O N N .--- .--- N h NO .o ON .-I Os a N 00..--i O v vo M c'3M-4 n ON 0., evo O as W 6 s ,.-4 ..-4 cN v) r O, O '0 O co O O N O N O c O et O M C' — >n +.+ Q; eh .-7N �i N u h O 0000 In 01 •-4 m �O 00 N O N O M ^' .'�1 .^'-4 t. MA U � O g 0 0 � 0 0 N 0 C 0 00 • , V�VD N O [.oo M 4 - '0 N vO s O bg 4, W A E0 CLI t` O O O D\ M O OI M pao M h M M O 00 en 00 ON 0 06 in CA F (,)2N vi N O N. 2 ..., 4,3. R! U I II O pa y ON en S O N O ON M O O OO O O O A CA y 00 et en ON M N et O l O S N NO Q pi 6, et 0 M VD VI NO 00 00 ON ON ON et CS •--i et e! N N O NO O C7 69 r N N 00 0 hi RI u V3 y U CI a E'. — U w a i C •rj" 2 u in W W a u a y vi � o u E `6 6, o �� o u E 0 0 as 2 cl u Irs CL+ u 4+ W a W c6 p" o o 11 e u 0 c y w p~.I C0 cd a 00 7, w ~ C6 — yj +' •p E e~e U - U W 2 - o F o W ° 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b as O CA O q O .-1 N N ri cA W U o 4 In In In 4 M 4.44.,., Aw I 2Ama gA W [� ypOp © O N M 0%Q ddN O I 00 0 0 00 . A i N WaN .-- N O 2 :U ¢ 4, W g W kp W H Ol n O in O N O N Z a0W Chi O ON '0 0000 ' - Ci O A N N et .Ma M WI W� waw 69 L• �o W Ch N. v: O O O O• N ,O 0 000 O N M C N • C�1 *0 ON N et cei M N N p� w 0 69 W � W • W N NNNN1 I O E ONO i r C P N N CO ►��"�II U N et •N-a M - O 69 mt 40i 4* w�/ W 0 0 A Lpo w .. esa Q W E-4co b ° wU •C Iy A .0 g U wU ,a y y O0 O ti q .0 w O uq' Uu v v ,? w W El 0 V) col � W U c > : w H0z u E ms 2 6 Q a� Q 4c Oy . .., cW r-4 1721 17) a Cn W ] O E 7 COMPARISON OF GROSS BUDGET,TAX EQUIVALENT FUNDING AND POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT FY 1994-95 Original Budget and FY 1995-96 Proposed Budget DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR CHANGE 1994-95 1995-96 AMOUNT % Airports Gross $143,762,632 $166,653,388 $22,890,756 15.92 Ad Valorem Equivalent 0 0 0 0.00 Positions 139 132 (7) (5.04) Community Services Gross 39,631,838 27,901,874 (11,729,964) (29.60) Ad Valorem Equivalent 22,422,253 13,304,696 (9,117,557) (40.66) Positions 646 373 (273) (42.26) FY 1994-95 includes$11,844,000 and 279 positions for the County Home. County Administration Gross 1,245,225 1,185,439 (59,786) (4.80) Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,027,627 968,312 (59,315) (5.77) Positions 15 13 (2) (13.33) Two positions were transferred to Public Affairs during FY 95. County Attorney Gross 3,301,191 3,764,408 463,217 14.03 Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,361,210 2,009,506 648,296 47.63 Positions 49 56 7 14.29 Three positions were added during FY 95. County Commission Gress 1,708.966 1,841.475 132,509 7.75 Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,708,966 1,841,475 132,509 7.75 Positions 29 29 0 0.00 County Cooperative Extension Service Gross 1,376,521 1,904,960 528,439 38.39 Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,347,269 1,877,792 530,523 39.38 Positions 30 33 3 10.00 FY 96 includes carryover funding for Agriculture Economic Development($400,000 and 2 positions). County Library Gross 15,374,015 16,672,584 1,298,569 8.45 Ad Valorem Equivalent 12,836,257 14,736,108 1,899,851 14.80 Positions 288 301 13 4.51 Employee Relations &Personnel Gross 1,920,479 1,984,428 63,949 3.33 Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,920,479 1,984,428 63,949 3.33 Positions 36 35 (1) (2.78) Engineering&Public Works Gross 35,389,387 35,915,278 525,891 1.49 Ad Valorem Equivalent 30,561,860 31,290,747 728,887 2.38 Positions 440 438 (2) (0.45) Includes capital maintenance projects. 8 COMPARISON OF GROSS BUDGET,TAX EQUIVALENT FUNDING AND POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT FY 1994-95 Original Budget and FY 1995-96 Proposed Budget DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR CHANGE 1994-95 1995-96 AMOUNT % Environmental Resource Management Gross 8,566,213 9,283,836 717,623 8.38 Ad Valorem Equivalent 3,298,608 3,605,974 307,366 9.32 Positions 92 96 4 4.35 Four positions were added during FY 95. Facilities, Planning, Design&Construction Gross 32,926,132 33,427,965 501,833 1.52 Ad Valorem Equivalent 14,163,188 14,935,946 772,758 5.46 Positions 357 359 2 0.56 Includes General Services,other than Fixed Assets and Records Management which are included in OFMB. Financial Mgmt. &Budget Gross 2,934,781 2,938,397 3,616 0.12 Ad Valorem Equivalent 2,705,373 2,688,465 (16,908) (0.62) Positions 39 40 1 2.56 Fixed Assets and Records Management,formerly a part of General Services are combined with Financial Mgmt&Budget. One position was added to OFMB during FY 95. Fire/Rescue Gross 72,792,610 78,369,602 5,576,992 7.66 Ad Valorem Equivalent 57,810,999 60,389,715 2,578,716 4.46 Positions 810 827 17 2.10 Health Department Gross 1,353,310 1,448,821 95,511 7.06 Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,353,310 1,448,821 95,511 7.06 Housing and Community Development Gross 24,959,194 28,591,560 3,632,366 14.55 Ad Valorem Equivalent 960,917 0 (960,917) (100.00) Positions 31 35 4 12.90 Affordable Housing has been combined with HCD. Information System Services Gross 15,788,646 15,942,817 154,171 0.98 Ad Valorem Equivalent 0 0 0 0.00 Positions 151 151 0 0.00 Internal Auditor Gross 824,470 838,351 13,881 1.68 Ad Valorem Equivalent 504,333 513,197 8,864 L76 Positions 12 12 0 0.00 Judicial Gross 12,641,615 12,146,635 (494,980) (3.92) Ad Valorem Equivalent 10,519,991 10,210,097 (309,894) (2.95) Positions 116 120 4 3.45 9 COMPARISON OF GROSS BUDGET,TAX EQUIVALENT FUNDING AND POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT FY 1994-95 Original Budget and FY 1995-96 Proposed Budget DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR CHANGE 1994-95 1995-96 AMOUNT 9$ Mass Transit Gross 40,584,239 49,142,614 8,558,375 21.09 Ad Valorem Equivalent 5,034,976 5,100,208 65,232 1.30 Metropolitan Planning Organization Gross 2,763,326 2,596,766 (166,560) (6.03) Ad Valorem Equivalent 424,244 224,943 (199,301) (46.98) Positions 10 10 0 0.00 Parks &Recreation Gross 23,113,517 27,744,948 4,631,431 20.04 Ad Valorem Equivalent 19,537,590 21,852,901 2,315,311 11.85 Positions 434 423 (11) (2.53) Planning. Zoning &Building Gross 30,623,713 32,288,913 1,665,200 5.44 Ad Valorem Equivalent 7,926,874 9,245,219 1,318,345 16.63 Positions 318 324 6 1.89 Public Affairs Gross 3,393,766 4,028,840 635,074 18.71 Ad Valorem Equivalent 2,562,843 3,091,586 528,743 20.63 Positions 40 46 6 15.00 Two positions were transferred from Administration during FY 95. Public Safety Gross 16,251,515 18,811,369 2,559,854 15.75 Ad Valorem Equivalent 10,631,391 11,773,686 1,142,295 10.74 Positions 211 226 15 7.11 Seven positions added during FY 95. Purchasing Gross 2,230,662 2,289,949 59,287 2.66 Ad Valorem Equivalent 2,114,959 2,182,522 67,563 3.19 Positions 45 45 0 0.00 Risk Management Gross 25,710,833 30,218,258 4,507,425 17.53 Ad Valorem Equivalent 0 0 0 0.00 Positions 30 30 0 0.00 Tourist Development Gross 16,755,478 20,248,787 3,493,309 20.85 Ad Valorem Equivalent 0 0 0 0.00 Positions 6 7 1 16.67 10 COMPARISON OF GROSS BUDGET,TAX EQUIVALENT FUNDING AND POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT FY 1994-95 Original Budget and FY 1995-96 Proposed Budget DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR CHANGE 1994-95 1995-96 AMOUNT 9b Water Utilities Gross 202,808,469 177,964,424 (24,844,045) (12.25) Ad Valorem Equivalent 0 0 0 0.00 Positions 429 429 0 0.00 NON-DEPARTMENTAL: Criminal Justice Commission Gross 269,240 311,885 42,645 15.84 Ad Valorem Equivalent 269,240 311,885 42,645 15.84 Positions 4 4 0 0.00 Weed&Seed has been segregated and reported as a separate program. Economic Development Coordination Gross 149,327 225,319 75,992 50.89 Ad Valorem Equivalent 149,327 225,319 75,992 50.89 Positions 2 3 1 50.00 One position was transferred from PZ&B in FY 95 ($71,290). Equal Opportunity Gross 706,790 744,311 37,521 5.31 Ad Valorem Equivalent 576,721 591,680 14,959 2.59 Positions 11 11 0 0.00 Minority/Women Business Enterprise Gross 426,065 476,175 50,110 11.76 Ad Valorem Equivalent 401,565 466,175 64,610 16.09 Positions 7 7 0 0.00 Legislative Delegation Gross 105,011 110,971 5,960 5.68 Ad Valorem Equivalent 105,011 110,971 5,960 5.68 Positions 2 2 0 0.00 Weed &Seed Program Gross 82,630 180,348 97,718 118.26 Ad Valorem Equivalent 82,630 0 (82,630) (100.00) Positions 2 10 8 400.00 Total BCC Departments/Agencies Gross $782,471,806 $808,195,695 $25,723,889 3.29 Ad Valorem Equivalent $214,320,011 $216,982,374 $2,662,363 1.24 Positions 4,831 4,627 (204) (4.22) The overall reduction in positions is a result of the Health Care District assuming responsibility for the County Home,eliminating 279 positions from the BCC employee complement. 11 COMPARISON OF GROSS BUDGET,TAX EQUIVALENT FUNDING AND POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT FY 1994-95 Original Budget and FY 1995-96 Proposed Budget DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR CHANGE 1994-95 1995-96 AMOUNT % CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS: Clerk of the Court Gross 24,708,545 26,044,700 1,336,155 5.41 Ad Valorem Equivalent 22,058,545 22,469,050 410,505 1.86 Positions 374 374 0 0.00 Represents budget estimate rather than actual request. Does not include Clerk's"Fee"Budget. Property Appraiser Gross 12,113,947 12,701,594 587,647 4.85 Ad Valorem Equivalent 11,706,947 12,201,594 494,647 4.23 Positions 232 233 1 0.43 Public Defender Gross 995,147 1,264,895 269,748 27.11 Ad Valorem Equivalent 995,147 1,264,895 269,748 27.11 Sheriff Gross 162,739,628 171,702,610 8,962,982 5.51 Ad Valorem Equivalent 148,349,639 156,777,298 8,427,659 5.68 Positions 2,500 2,535 35 1.40 Excludes Law Enforcement Trust Fund. State Attorney Gross 785,577 1,003,461 217,884 27.74 Ad Valorem Equivalent 785,577 1,003,461 217,884 27.74 Supervisor of Elections Gross 3,178,548 3,619,264 440,716 13.87 Ad Valorem Equivalent 3,153,548 3,539,264 385,716 12.23 Positions 32 32 0 0.00 Represents budget estimate rather than actual request. Tax Collector Gross 14,443,608 15,023,000 579,392 4.01 Ad Valorem Equivalent 1,843,608 2,423,000 579,392 31.43 Positions 249 249 0 0.00 Represents budget estimate rather than actual request. TOTAL CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Gross $218,965,000 $231,359,524 $12,394,524 5.66 Ad Valorem Equivalent $188,893,011 $199,678,562 $10,785,551 5.71 Positions 3,387 3,423 36 1.06 TOTAL BCC DEPARTMENTS/AGENCIES& CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Gross $1,001,436,806 $1,039,555,219 $38,118,413 3.81 Ad Valorem Equivalent $403,213,022 $416,660,936 $13,447,914 3.34 Positions 8,218 8,050 (168) (2.04) 12 . O 7 NJ 4C n N wNN ! in .- <,,i El 10 Pig)`:` ¢ .-o .-01000voovoco - 0000covo oo F3 8 r IT m a C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0..- Q 8 O O 8 O§O§ O ° 8"-•° c) N m j 2 2 ��jjN u' - N O m 1 . d2 Q -- ? ? 't 0§ 0x §a§;tia §a !g E2G4 ^ Acc vac D^9§WN3R�N m§' w — -- �'CU O Cb d't7 1A N O O O W O (D cE n o §caW � m� (0 � S _ gig g �pN v1°IAc, MNc7st t��—pp {mom 1(1 p--f�?� H� ^SN0m NEON N OI LO,, fOP N -.N Q O 1p . 0 V) c w O � r N '? 1n M N O O fC 0 0 � O f� O 0 0, 0-_O e o O.O C g W 0 Za cc Q' 1 Q a, 1— O' Z L6! 2 Li,' J a. 0. M y � 0 il SALk 1 E 1 $ i " IJ1 J to Uill �' € ill ii1 J1i wwwW�LL m 13 E c // ocS2 :*g-3 ooa,Q0000T §ooo ()goo g3 1-a811 **' o^� 7,iH(v$ N N P'.....' +► cQi�i in C r m(O C E 8, O c� 0 0 (9 •t o •-000 o '-cm m 0 0 0 3 a 0 09z. 0 0 0 C Qi. 2 - A 2 m � E0 O 7 If1 N (�)a[� m d) 0 0 Ill "m c..)- i— c O 0 g'(? po Yn .NNI•t1 gfg�N V QN tf[ N�� t _ cr o m • (O NIll TNm CVP iV g~N' • t,N (NO_ �NNv a� EEE EE EE € EEE' EE EEEE �. o p IkillTo IQ ta 0:0 tI3 CO gi gi ! oho U) 3 a (ea va as Nada: as<,a ease w Za N(7 . III . ° lift!1 SI 1C O. 8 ; B1 r�3' 8 ''�Woes.1. !9 i: i � 1....... «0333 c - 52 r. U aE a. cw t § Ll � �> has O ... /41„ • ... . . ... / .,.......... . .. .csat..... .. Ak......:........1C1 :::::: .... ........ ......... i .....!......:...- .......... : :i 1 ! "0wrw, E� I I _ _ <*< ti'.c I Ii I 1 1 1 I 1 >1 (' P P a z >. >. WWWWWW ., ' a _ w j 8 (26'3. 1j i' . 8? f cc c c "1.7.:= cE . 2'.... Z•-•••c 0U X0U 000000 0 A4c$ rN N!!'44,, wN; . ;.:0a,..444.--....--,-......-:.- 14 C OO O 7 . g NE N h N --. OM mD gy : QR : y� C CJ •-�imia� �SN.. m (14 . c :r ct I q� a)° S ac.. o -o a o 0 .-cote 0 N- a Q C 0 0 0Ei o. S 'r 7 N CWN 8- P et.U� 1 8 < ' 0 n ' 8U O 1Q� 1pA pQ pQ fp7 pp}i} Q¢ 8pQ QQ 8(�#1Q.. (t�j 8 •E 42ot(p §ul.8-. pO pO!rN i'l8 aO §O 8 8 §§ p5 .lf)§ ®f0 f01N 7 8 90 N R R et.i'D 4 CA r-.v g d' N• N $.r- *—/A' 'a V I�:N 8U Tli cr 1(Q}1pA QQ QQ fpp OWj c.it{ QQ 8�Qj QQ [�/$Q8 1t'lto. v O h Ni§ §g co gi@7 Inti! 0 �m- .2,....:1014 § r `� N 0 5 ChM A tO ti V tri O O : N N tt m M a t g.N R RN vN ....Nm . 1.. 404 . E E EEEEEE E E E E EE E c.H gigg. .2gd $ i ,8 m � cn a spa07 ,1-1,..0:2. o a a mm aN 4 ... .a e a o '�LU N ' to O O •-.C9 * O N W Za ` I x 2 18a o a m •_ g2p ill_ N F�- cs.a H i. i . 15 th 1H O1 aa G M 1:-. . ad, I $. .: 1• .'. g4._ f ::::::::: ./. 1-I..... c I g.. -8 I.- . . . •:0.-..1ci". , a.I w 2 _ 01c ' S C! !!1!! $ Z �W lx. �C11 N . ..♦ . -: ....... ... ...". .. : .. . . .g ii: ...17,.....!.::::::.:: -.... ..:'.:. :........: :.... .' i g • I �1G ra 8 t C S LL O3 1 c t8 I 1 I �8 I• 0000 CS -1 °C 2c °I, 2)Ell/ `� • a n.al a 1 1111111 € I W W. > IlkW. W 111 W L1t .W 11E W L3.IL IL U......'::::., IL .�CN Y CC$tG hi .'^01.44 4 -•"` ..4V Chi 15 N P. E� �' a� 25 c�S i i § ffi a2iA R4� �€25w�ra6,c, ppp - OO mr:rte: rN co"tei ; N G(h gg E. 1 rs O tN1f "' '^ o F3 CC 8 11 O_ O O C C (p 2 C... p CO -' (O # E� -E cc < oV < cQi $ aoa(osr * .-a ,a i .-te, Ka.aT.- ,_ u;,- ,,,,-_ 8 egg ---- _� 0 0> $U c �+��Q�Q ppOO Cpf 88 pppp 88 CC7� 88 88 S 8 8 pp Of tOA 8 1. app cp tifs§§ §§§ §i10 §§ §§ IQ:�Qa NO^1OY3§:a. l�Nw .�. 7• .t V.r'pppp lD 2(Or.r �. rN Oto(O t+ as p OcoO F m 4><ggNgrrr G hag M it;`,- -09 CDNtf „N.. cc EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEE cen 8, :15. jo 0 0 _ _ — — — oi eggg 00 f' LL� ov.esvcv,av•Esv-ov�vvvv vvv v�� to a a0 4 4 4 N a O E O 4 a0 O 0 o Q (0 4 4 4 0 4;as C Wcry r l0 N . M'P) .- E 0 O . W cc c Z a. a o Y Z . !i LL Icc J _ cn a. g , f3 v c ' c . cc � ' o 0 c 11: M 12h 1 i Ua �ato � '1)5")�: � � 15 . 3 I I 1 _ fa� • ^ c � 11111111111h1119 !III1;411 tof is . v Nc7.rutm �maQrnco.r� mtam raco ttn ectt Ps .... CV ^ •-',"' r r aQS -ElEttl i l i. D . u f 224 2 � iiiii. : im c� a .f@ Cry.ffi .ffi .8 LL Lt LL AL. O g O OO O 11 1 1; I f I '1 2 i : I11tsa h >ciI$$m.`(cBicLc �ic 1 �a 11 1 1 I l I l t l 1 I 1 1 I; 1 1 2bIUL I I 11::IL IL LL ti::LLie(ElErEitiELL LL LL Q., 16 E , .6.3 § n§im§c' i� I Rs -`- 1§ g� § R 8- a fgg�g A m 8 �$^53gg u'Ai zg CD co Qg 0 0 0 0 O c¢ 1 ¢ - - --, — rN r N Q 0 r 0 1 QQ Q 5 Q 5�QQ QQ c 25 25 0 §g g 24 § c.. a O..�iE N 8� Ncri cc cc ~ r�l� � QQ!! DI,_ N tr.aO�l -: pN 0 NO O C IA !OA th r 4' N N N O IA N fOr o o C7 OyNu pOp§pO mg0g 0 f� WNL mQ,��_. -U NFi l7 �_w all - C4NI_Ss 69223 73 ??I 8 8 8 �5S tp �Oy� spry 8 8 ISA pOp§pO § r.- ON 0tD �A sasr} � �[ol�iy5�i. ..O Nom}.-' O N gi— m gf i �.V 0 ci " ^ 1° N .^- ? N Iff tai I �1 O 'f t7 S f0 o, m EEZ,z,E.EE EEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE cn � 03 o gtgg ; o2 SS o . g 8 o l ~ 2+-'4 -°T) 1)17v vv vv �v-c3vvvvvv fl cn 4 4 S.2 4 tb 4 4 4 4 4'4 4 4 4 O 4 art 4 4 a O rm 11,1 0 rNr 1, - G1) (a c0 Z 0 100 W 2 La Z d W . ;E m Ij _ o — a a '� = § 5 c § c -� 'o 1 81 E i� cl !till l= v _ u g 0 E 1' c �.9 m cf) I 9-1 . 1 1&L �.. A m- - °- o .4......., 'NP)1 W oN rN __ — NN) Y Iflmf400 _ ,.� k a8La a acaLcLat4 $- SIS/ $ s-1i._ 8 g-ia Id c c �c-14.:t. g fl ]lii 21 Icillcillsg181!! :2:ii mi X4444444_?,g rtcrifgirgitif14144 �dt04"10viA gi -01 01 Il.ml4tD r�� lY 17 I E c oIA 000ao�00 000ar, §1.4R8§,,., I �rQ§§§1 „; . N ap 1 Z W ,p .- o,6i 25 i7S SSW X .- 2i c9* N Il � Nf:IA 'f°N X19 X17— . .. tfl�rN � E C'f mo11EE m, o'--r0000000 doom f a a c o chi § ``�' 0 ma �s a3 ao I �' f:f f '4".f ,�f t7 ch A 9R O 09 O(ti �[f N 'fir u') NI 61.08 o r N a0 CO '-N 0 pyo �yy S 8 pp e� •E sCD Q�t0 Y ng.i 1/�1.Nm1a��O�pp•�Ny O^lN �INpAF: ae� shy, O;„. O O i V a NY PV.IA iA N N NV' Ma0 ap r < I a:,, S c° m Im. N O i I N N^ tD N 'rC':II N t t0 *•+ ��N 3A w.1 aW Q c. EEolg EEEEEEEEE m EENEEEE E E;E EEEE co12 Ii8 i 81 ti—tli ti°-C2 wr � ` €;.3 §`, - »eeeteR. $ tat! � D 0 � � CI) 111 OS Itt 41 „W, ,g . r rr r N r N r r t00 40 0 a as Itt el la f W CC Z d a fE m `2J U) .2 m VI i a I-.Zr U ao E ILL J 0 0Ja v cee •g a o�Q Im° m R 1(i) M- a o1 �� y o @ ; tN p$pcffi t7, g4 5 g e s am.1 EgadtigY —Ji JiliIiiiIilH iiIIlilliIii lab z....., rNAf If,ml+^COAOr� rwrrrrNC1IWQef'f rNC9f: a E e scR8 o o2oRR c ,. 2.2 .2E E o c ` a a c I < vva U .8-4$i i i ia .-2 0, c.E• 1 iii EL Leccrnaw. .w � awWci LL !1 cc <NNNxNlVNNUCmFYlm a..c1a' , . . . 5ENElie 22.22.& rsrniaiaaIarwrO !N A A yzNlaffIi10Raior rw is E � � CO 03NBo- 801§ §§&PV§CIO §§8§§ § NO 1 : NI Iff Ce 411: 11)1s. 1.. C7 ( .-C°Csi l E vR a0 m� 2j' � � o c i-§ 2 a S C y p O N Co > E O V Q E U a H . 'a - Y 'f: ,6 m ittw:C;C7 W Occ 0 u) N OV < °� �§§ - ger- 0- 0' U CO 0 N:. m (O !� cc 0 NOY W^ CD1 (Om (p.nO1a)t�a) COa)CAON N6*2 211 CC co E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E •E E 11 12 3 ~ 1-3 v v �Ov`tSv o vvv v'Ov'6v-IIv'av t c C c fn a aaa:sam caaiaaaaamoaaa Wl1kWWW ,� g .-r ins � .- 4:> 0 w co Za -. 1 A Y m E 1 111 lID 110 J '.0 le r U a. iiillii i! II Of *Lig :;.. ilt U c,1 ti E¢ :Itgs4t; a1111 :ii_ .;.4a ri „� NC9 f IAf0� .-NC9 f Nnn aQ 0.-04 •-044.31"f) mer r w._ a 1 1. f12 i I 18 . } <��<<< c i AL I i I k I I I I �.a>.>:r�.'.a�.ah. a ▪ �, a m,ammmmaa i 8 a 5 a . -SaISu2,S < < v: < < < w 2 ' .YStYY525� S a�atig$!..8 8 • a ai 4 ui t►rd. eiui ii t.97s w�. y. • o�+1^h 19 FY 1995-96 PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET SCHEDULE OF FUNDING SOURCES TAXES(AD VALOREM) $ 9,364,379 INTEREST 11,088,436 GAS TAX 27,496,000 ASSESSMENTS 245,200 IMPACT FEES 18,923,000 BOND PROCEEDS 50,340,376 OTHER 17,168,505 STATUTORY RESERVES (3,316,661) BALANCE FORWARD 346,248,110 TOTAL REVENUES $ 477,557,345 APPROPRIATIONS BY CATEGORY CRIMINAL JUSTICE $ 58,340,786 ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS&BEACHES 68,587,118 FIRE RESCUE 8,525,737 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 95,560,127 LIBRARIES 5,761,677 PARKS 45,034,729 ROAD PROGRAM 182,313,063 STREET&DRAINAGE 13,434,108 TOTAL $ 477,557,345 20 `] 0' •2 O O O .0 V1 .-. O V1 — N N O V1 PI M o © o N © '0 •a. to h � a Q M O N O M h •D •-"• M n M N 0% e� 00 M F g 00 0 V' M O 00 vo 00 N [ 7 N o• M 0 " N 0� M \O Mrec N se b00O M 69 .-• N V1 (f+', N N N N 44 �9 H Ovi ©O O © © '0 ' N 00 0000 © © © 00 FC7 N N°LT N M "R. d• fst a o• a N vVi Lu Z V N 00 0% ( b I' en a M 1h a .- Q p H pp 4, Qi Q 00 00 01 eel cr9 V) O O O O 7 Oro p ON o b O o a h -= `� sO N .M. 00 ff N M I%0 O a R 000 M N N K M C! V1 N o �..i .0-.• ONO f esi f hl r .N. ONp 0. N M 0 00 O O O O N O VI N N O 1� o O. 41,1 a O N a C'. r N N Q V1 N a.. 7 8 M P Cu r `"� o �' ,D o .-, vi M V) vt - 0„ V1 M s. 49 N 0 S O O OO OO O O N( 44 p � No V1 so .O O. 1p a et�N0— 0 00 © v 00 N 00, •i n .. •trV1 V• u.1 r-V1V1 44m N N _ a 'o © © 0 0 00 e+1 r Pi p o 'o r N V1 O O �O N e} 00 r r O .N. Q M N O O V) 00 00 O N a tC O r M N 7 CN Cr W C., V. p .r.. .p v CO., .O O� .1. �O Z �, (7.1 69 N N VI 00 N l • N 4, W (7,1 001 00 O O 00 O 00 r_ N O •-• O M W .� W O O1 en V; r Ir �N MI fvl V .P. 0 as r- 7 V1 `^ 9 1 C4 "' 00 4 "1 00 N 4, Z y H S © © © © 00 r .. eo h 00 N ..= 1. a •--. . so. M auno v0 inm o un zn VI W Z N 69 « a wpm o o © © § .0 © in o 8 00 . o 00 0 a 00 M , 00 g v M o LIZ vis 00 a © .7 el vl o c '�+ N V1 '� N •e O. 00 re CO a.•y N M h N tn -. N Jr: a V N N Q IIQ 0 C N z O 00 C1 — O > z F C4 04 Ce W y Z X 0.. o o 3 z o w °' 0 m a s m m O F d' CA VI a ¢ k w a o d a a 6.N wLt. �' a s CN w n a E. y CZ a LLI z < o u� a �F' ¢ a 0 0 cLi. g E¢-, Er CCD < Cm 0 cn m E' t o. E. a C E' 21 FY 1995-96 PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET ANALYSIS OF RESERVES INCLUDED IN PROPOSED FY 1995-96 CAPITAL BUDGET MAJOR PROGRAM COMPONENTS TOTALS CRIMINAL JUSTICE $27,157,041 Criminal Justice Facility Program $3,059,938 PBSO Light Industrial Facility 5,970,000 Law Enforcement Impact Fees 2,615,490 Judicial Parking Garage 15,231,498 Total for Major Components $26,876,926 ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS&BEACHES $56,111,155 Environmentaly Sensitive Lands $52,076,636 Beach Improvements 4,034,519 Total for Major Components $56,111,155 FIRE RESCUE $3,551,611 Fire Rescue Improvements $615,398 Fire Rescue Impact Fees 2,936,213 Total for Major Components $3,551,611 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $4,104,071 Bond Reserves $390,867 Public Building Impact Fees 3,677,204 Total for Major Components $4,068,071 LIBRARIES $1,738,979 Expansion Program $700,242 Library Impact Fees 1,029,775 Total for Major Components $1,730,017 PARKS $13,695,457 Park Bonds $321,290 Park Improvements 2,131,909 Park Impact Fees 11,242,258 Total for Major Components $13,695,457 ROAD PROGRAM $122,342,468 Project Reserves $74,588,912 Sweep Reserves 4,567,887 Road Impact Fees 42,739,433 Total for Major Components $121,896,232 STREET&DRAINAGE $5,753,470 Program Reserves $5,753,470 Total for Major Components $5,753,470 TOTAL ALL PROGRAMS $234,454,252 22 g ' .s-� 0X0 N 000000 CA, 000 .--i N eI Z w On O M M 00 C' b O O b ' N 0000 O N O— ' - C7N rl >m in b h M M ,M� ,-73 E. a — M O CC ww ¢ vs W w Qy 49 ililQ V Q w 0000 N O ON 0 vn O 00 p O w cd N O O M '0 N 2 00 .p I- A I ] O 00 00 00 ,-i 00 .-1 _� c^ Z NI.CON ; 1 O ON Iin M - O" N ,..„,1": Q O n o N O� + N a CO w 0 W w (�y •N O W w 0. vs 490 O in in E..I E..i pMp 00 N N 00 N k.0 C w N .~-, N — '0 0'. 000 N cL ,:4>1 Tr I w (� °n CCO civ 00 - °i : NO c w a Q N ON N N N M CZ a ON m b 00 b N �� et V . .r > C A ;1... V c Id F >, s9 49i1 a '!t a 44 '0 nVO 7 VO N N O N > F., M " 4001 Fg O oo Oi. O n ,p I. • W E� On N c'., "1 O O� S w OA c ,.'.� O h . OT Ui .-i VI N 'O 1.* < A N .r Iry - A w •I V iVI 441 V O VI a+ U U cz a Q cQ OZ V CI VI VI L1.3 rx z4' w o. ti r.0 j O Ca 0 Q v0i C7 0.1 o' v) .. o Z 0 QCri CO h F4 z .-, u.1 < O F. F. ^o U w7. (.7 ,..1 0. z v) 23 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) MANAGEMENT FUTURE ESTIMATED PREVIOUS REQUESTED TEAM FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMENDS AMOUNT COST Ad Valorem Based GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS Community Services Replace Comm Svcs Bldg-Riviera Beach 0 1,621,500 200,000 1,421,500 1,621,500 CS Computer Upgrade 0 700,000 700,000 0 700,000 Total 0 2,321,500 900,000 1,421,500 2,321,500 Facilities Management-FPD&C Renovations to Bldg 501-HCD 0 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 Replace Cooling Tower Airport Ctr 0 27,000 27,000 0 27,000 Replace Chiller-NE Health Ctr 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 Indoor Air Quality Improvements: South County Admin Complex 0 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 Delray Health Center 0 80,000 80,000 0 80,000 Delray Health Annex 0 55,000 55,000 0 55,000 Replace A/C Units-Fleet Bldgs A to F 0 26,000 26,000 0 26,000 Replace Cooling Tower-826 Evernia 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 Replace Carpet-Government Center 0 55,000 55,000 0 55,000 Paint Interior-CJC Bldg D 0 250,000 250,000 0 250,000 Paint Exterior-Fleet Bldgs D&E 0 30,000 30,000 0 30,000 Paint Interior-West County Jail 0 32,000 32,000 0 32,000 Paint John Prince Park Bldgs 0 75,000 1 75,000 0 75,000 Paint Ocean Inlet Park Bldgs 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 Energy Conservation Measures 0 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 Weatherproofing Countywide 0 250,000 250,000 0 250,000 Paint/Seal Exterior-CJC Admin 0 63,000 0 0 0 Ventilation Imp.-CJC Kitchen 0 35,000 0 0 0 Building Imp.-Animal Care 0 40,000 40,000 0 40,000 Install Hurricane Shut-SC Courthse 0 35,000 35,000 0 35,000 Install Hurricane Shut-SC Admin 0 30,000 30,000 0 30,000 Install Emergency Generator-Stockade 0 72,000 72,000 0 72,000 Total 0 1,650,000 1,552,000 0 1,552,000 Fleet Management - FPD&C Fueling Site for North County Area 0 190,000 190,000 0 190,000 Fueling Site Belle Glade 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 Weld Shop Expansion 0 44,000 44,000 0 44,000 Total 0 334,000 334,000 0 334,000 Communications Division - FPD&C System 75 PBX Systems Upgrade 0 89,500 89,500 0 89,500 Interactive Voice Response 0 175,000 0 175,000 175,000 Tele Sys-NC Sub-Station 0 99,000 99,000 0 99,000 Tele Sys-Sable Palm 21,000 5,000 5,000 0 26,000 Fire Alarm System-Govt Ctr 0 81,000 81,000 0 81,000 Tele Sys-Belle Glade Expansion 78,000 10,000 10,000 0 88,000 Tele Sys Enhancements-Various 0 93,000 93,000 0 93,000 Tele Sys-Building 503 47,000 13,000 13,000 0 60,000 Tele Sys-Emergency Operations Ctr 103,000 0 0 0 103,000 Tele Sys-Governmental Ctr 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 800 Mhz System Towers 2,117,500 0 0 0 2,117,500 800 Mhz Trunked Radio System 10,415,500 0 0 0 10,415,500 Total 12,832,000 565,500 390,500 175,000 13,397,500 Public Buildings-Land Future Projects Land Acquisition 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 Total 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 Parks&Recreation Commission District/Community Assist. 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 0 2,800,000 Total 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 0 2,800,000 Note: The taxes funding the$1.4M recommended budget are shown in the General Fund and will be transferred to capital. 24 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) MANAGEMENT FUTURE ESTIMATED . PREVIOUS REQUESTED TEAM FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMENDS AMOUNT COST Public Buildings-Improvements Re-Roofing Program-96 0 755,000 755,000 0 755,000 Building Renovations-96 0 59,000 59,000 0 59,000 So.County Courthouse-Parking Imp. 102,757 440,000 0 440,000 542,757 NC Govt Ctr-Interim Imp 0 95,000 95,000 0 95,000 Midwestern Services Ctr-Clerk 0 30,000 30,000 0 30,000 Facilities Management System 0 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 West Cty Admin-Space Reallocation 0 249,000 249,000 0 249,000 45th&Australian-Beautification 0 85,000 85,000 0 85,000 Engineering Building Mods 0 395,000 0 395,000 395,000 Section 6 Connection Charges 0 63,000 63,000 0 63,000 Parking Garage Mods-OEO/Fac Mgt 0 65,000 65,000 0 65,000 Total 102,757 2,586,000 1,751,000 835,000 2,688,757 Public Safety EMS Upgrade 63,600 700,000 0 700,000 763,600 EM Disaster Systems 123,651 120,000 60,000 60,000 243,651 Total 187,251 820,000 60,000 760,000 1,007,251 Environmental Resource Management Environ.Compliance&Cleanup 2,194,001 0 0 750,000 2,944,001 Total 2,194,001 0 0 750,000 2,944,001 Criminal Justice State Attorney Improvements 0 276,000 240,000 0 240,000 Public Defender Improvements 0 251,000 251,000 0 251,000 Criminal Justice System(CJIS) 7,079,873 880,000 880,000 0 7,959,873 800 Mhz for Municipalities-WPB Sys 0 750,000 0 0 0 Total 7,079,873 2,157,000 1,371,000 0 8,450,873 Engineering Other Stub Canal 135,000 1,784,000 350,000 2,924,000 3,409,000 Local Drainage Improvements 0 570,000 200,000 0 200,000 Limestone Creek Area Improvements 968,000 0 0 2,650,000 3,618,000 Total 1,103,000 2,354,000 550,000 5,574,000 7,227,000 ISS Department WAN/Information Highway 1,400,000 1,562,000 1,562,000 1,254,819 4,216,819 New Technology 0 2,497,250 2,097,250 13,173,770 15,271,020 Geographic Information System(GIS) 1,000,000 995,000 995,000 1,400,000 3,395,000 Total 2,400,000 5,054,250 4,654,250 15,828,589 22,882,839 Total General Government Projects 27,298,882 19,292,250 13,012,750 25,344,089 65,655,721 Note:The$13,012,750 recommended for Ad Valorem projects is funded with$9.4M in Taxes,$1.4M Transfer from General,$2.1M in Interest Earnings and$.1M in excess interest in FY 95;reserves and other miscellaneous revenues net of statutory reserves. Dependent Taxing Districts LIBRARY PROJECTS Library Department(1) Central Library Roof Replacement 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 Pahokee Branch Library Roof Repair 0 40,000 40,000 0 40,000 Total 0 90,000 90,000 0 90,000 FIRE RESCUE PROJECTS Fire Rescue(1) Communication Tower/Hypoluxo West 0 350,000 350,000 0 350,0()0 Station 16 Roof Repair 0 27,000 27,000 0 27,0(X) Alarm Office/Operations Complex 1,100,000 700,000 700,000 0 1,800,0(0 Total 1,100,000 1,077,000 1,077,000 0 2,177,000 (1)The Ad Valorem requests for Library and Fire Rescue are included in the proposed taxes for those dependent taxing districts and do not represent requests for additional funding. Total Ad Valorem Supported Capital 28,398,882 20,459,250 14,179,750 25,344,089 67,922,721 25 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) MANAGEMENT FUTURE ESTIMATED PREVIOUS REQUESTED TEAM FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMENDS AMOUNT COST Impact Fees Parks&Recreation Zone 1 Peanut Island Phase I Development 200,000 250,000 250,000 650,000 1,100,000 Ocean Cay Park 650,000 700,000 700,000 0 1,350,000 Riverbend/Reese Grove Park- I 475,000 200,000 200,000 4,498,000 5,173,000 North County Fishing Pier 1,541,000 214,000 214,000 0 1,755,000 Dubois Park Marina 0 50,000 50,000 262,000 312,000 Coral Cove South/Pedestrian Access 0 70,000 70,000 0 70,000 Jupiter Beach Park Expansion 30,000 83,000 83,000 0 113,000 District/Regional Park Land Acq. 200,000 270,000 270,000 1,200,000 1,670,000 Total 3,096,000 1,837,000 1,837,000 6,610,000 11,543,000 Zone 2 District Park A-Western Communities 2,169,000 2,234,000 2,234,000 0 4,403,000 PBC Public Shooting Range-I 0 400,000 400,000 0 400,000 Okeeheelee Nature Ctr-Perm.Exhibit 200,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 500,000 Lake Lytal Pool/Facility Enhancement 0 150,000 150,000 0 150,000 Cholee Park Phased Development 185,000 707,000 707,000 4,110,000 5,002,000 John Prince Pk Maint.Expansion 0 225,000 225,000 150,000 375,000 Santaluces Athletic Complex/Field Lights 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 John Prince Pk Admin Building 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 District Park B-Acquisition&Develop 1,217,000 300,000 300,000 5,050,000 6,567,000 Total 3,771,000 4,416,000 4,416,000 9,410,000 17,597,000 Zone 3 So Cty Region.Pk Rec Ctr&Aquatic Ctr 1,708,000 584,000 584,000 0 2,292,000 Morikami Park-Add'l Park Areas 1,000,000 500.000 500,000 906,000 2,406,000 Caloosa Pk-In Line Skating Complex 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 South District Beach Acquisition 800,000 400,000 1 400,000 700,000 1,900,000 Total 3,508,000 1,584,000 I 1,584,000 1,606,000 6,698,000 Fire Rescue Reserves 2,064,000 593,000 593,000 3,025,000 5,682,000 Total 2,064,000 593,000 593,000 3,025,000 5,682,000 Law Enforcement Reserves-Zone 1 120,216 0 0 0 120,216 Reserves-Zone 2 1,258,501 564,000 564,000 1,520,000 3,342,501 Total 1,378,717 564,000 564,000 1,520,000 3,462,717 Public Buildings NC Government Ctr-Phase II 0 700,000 700,000 12,700,000 13,400,000 Reserves 3,258,452 418,752 418,752 0 3,677,204 Total 3,258,452 1,118,752 1,118,752 12,700,000 17,077,204 County Library Books,Publications,Lib Materials 2,186,604 700,000 700,000 0 2,886,604 Reserves 334,219 95,556 95,556 1,236,000 1,665,775 Total 2,520,823 795,556 795,556 1,236,000 4,552,379 Total Impact Fee Projects 19,596,992 10,908,308 10,908,308 36,107,000 66,612,300 26 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) MANAGEMENT FUTURE ESTIMATED . PREVIOUS REQUESTED TEAM FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMENDS AMOUNT COST Gas Tax Road Program as Adopted 12/20/94 Public hearing on mid—year Road Program Gas Tax 26,888,385 adjustment is scheduled for July,1995.List of Impact Fees 10,432,600 projects may change as a result. Interest&Other 2,202,015 Total Revenues 0 39,523,000 0 0 0 Projects 827A(Belle Glade)/Bolles Canal—SR 80 4,837,000 4,837,000 0 4,837,000 Blue Heron Blvd/I-95 to Ave S 1,623,000 1,623,000 0 1,623,000 Center St/Jones Creek&Sims Creek 1,707,000 1,707,000 0 1,707,000 Donald Ross/Prosperity Farms to US 1 3,028,000 3,028,000 29,935,000 32,963,000 Donald Ross/Prosperity Farms to US 1(Mitigation) 1,800,000 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 Flavor Pict/W of E-3 Canal—Military 1,727,000 1,727,000 0 1,727,000 Glades Area—R&R 800,000 800,000 800,000 2,400,000 4,000,000 Hagen Ranch Rd/Boynton Canal to L-22 Canal 321,000 321,000 0 321,000 Intersection Program 3,500,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 11,000,000 17,900,000 Jog Rd/Boynton Beach Blvd to Hypoluxo 100,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 0 4,100,000 Lantana Rd—FDOT Turnpike Agreement 393,000 393,000 0 393,000 Military/Palmetto Park Rd to S of Glades Rd 2,303,000 2,303,000 0 2,303,000 Northlake Blvd/Coconut Blvd to Ibis 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 Pathway Program 900,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 4,500,000 6,900,000 Reserve—Beautification Countywide 100,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 1,900,000 Reserve—Street Lighting 200,000 400,000 400,000 1,800,000 2,400,000 Reserve—Plans/Alignment 2,700,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 10,700,000 Reserve—Right of Way 2,700,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 9,400,000 13,600,000 Royal Palm Beach Blvd/Oraage Grove to Persimmon 1,160,000 1,160,000 0 1,160,000 South Shore Blvd/Pierson Rd to Big Blue Trace 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 Westgate Ave/Military to Congress Ave 3,224,000 3,224,000 0 3,224,000 Total Projects 11,000,000 39,523,000 39,523,000 66,535,000 117,058,000 Street&Drainage Interest 430,100 Assessments 245,200 Other 794,761 Total Revenues 0 1,470,061 0 0 0 Projects Reserves 1,470,061 No newproject5 are proposed for FY 1996 Total Projects 0 1,470,061 0 0 0 4th Cent Bed Tax Public Buildings Convention Center 5,146,385 725,000 725,000 7,925,000' 13,796,385 Professional Sport Facility—Debt Service 0 2,400,000 2,400,000 45,600,000" 48,000,000 West Palm Beach Stadium 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 150,000 Total 5,146,385 3,200,000 3,200,000 53,600,000 61,946,385 'This amount represents funds which would be available from the 4th cent tax over the next 10 years after allowing for the debt service on the professional sports facility bond. "Combined principal and interest on the proposed bond issue. Sports Facility Bond Public Buildings Professional Sports Facility 0 25,000,000 25,000,000 0 25,000,000 Total 0 25,000,000 25,000,000 0 25,000,000 27 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) MANAGEMENT FUTURE ESTIMATED PREVIOUS REQUESTED TEAM FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMENDS AMOUNT COST Other Revenue Parks&Recreation-Land Sales in lieu of Ad Valorem West Jupiter Community Center 0 230,000 230,000 0 230,000 Jupiter Farms Community Park-Phase II 0 400,000 200,000 0 200,000 Morikami Community Park 0 400,000 200,000 0 200,000 John Prince Pk-Campgmd Liftstation 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 Dubois Pk Shoreline Stabiliz. 0 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 Ocean Inlet Pk Shoreline Stabiliz. 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 Morikami Pk-Additional Areas 0 1,502,560 1,502,560 0 1,502,560 Total 0 2,932,560 2,532,560 0 2,532,560 Grants and Donations Mounts Botanical Garden • 100,000 0 0 1,250,750 1,350,750 Total 100,000 0 0 1,250,750 1,350,750 "Previous funding is ad valorem;future funding is grants/donations. Public Buildings- 32.7M Bond Fund South Cty Courthouse-New Courtroom 0 190,000 190,000 0 190,000 Total 0 190,000 190,000 0 190,000 Criminal Justice Facilities- 26M Completion Bond Medical Examiners Office Expansion 200,000 1,235,000 1,235,000 0 1,435.000 General Improvements-New Courthouse 0 125,000 125,000 0 125,000 Total 200,000 1,360,000 1,360,000 0 1,560,000 Public Buildings - Bond Proceeds PBSO Light Industrial Facility 0 5,970,000 5,970,000 0 5,970,000 Total 0 5,970,000 5,970,000 0 5,970,000 28 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) MANAGEMENT FUTURE ESTIMATED PREVIOUS REQUESTED TEAM FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMENDS AMOUNT COST ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES Gas Tax CoTran(PALMTRAN) Admin O&M Fac/Intermodal Hub 1,029,500 1,029,500 Motorola Vehicle Monitoring System 5,900 5,900 Shelters/ADP Software&Hardware 34,400 34,400 Gas tax portion represents 20%of 3 under 30'Chance Coachs 38,800 38,800 project cost with the other 80%being Shop Equipment&Bus Wash 10,500 10,500 Federal and State Grant funded. 56 Wheelchair Areas 21,000 21,000 22 Under 30'Chance Coachs 427,200 427,200 6 40'Buses 633,800 633,800 Hub Center Terminal Design 15,000 15,000 Capital Maintenance Tires 20,000 20,000 26 30'Buses 1,202,400 1,202,400 New Satellite Facility 434,000 434,000 Total 0 3,872,500 3,872,500 0 0 User Fees Water Utilities Water Treatment Plt#2-Relocate Filters 400,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 2,900,000 Water Treat.Plt#3-Membrane Capacity 7,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 1,458,000 13,958,000 Water Treat.Plt#3-Wellfield Imp. 0 135,000 135,000 1,215,000 1,350,000 Water Treat.#8-Plant Improvements 378,000 3,398,000 3,398,000 0 3,776,000 Water Treat.#8-Storage Tank 0 208,000 208,000 1,869,000 2,077,000 Water Treat.#9-Sludge&Chlorine 203,000 1,227,000 1,227,000 0 1,430,000 Water Treat.#9-Plant Improvements 0 1,217,000 1,217,000 10,950,000 12,167,000 System-Wide Improvements-Water: Plants 783,000 515,000 515,000 2,816,000 4,114,000 Wellfield Program 280,000 620,000 620,000 I 2,734,000 3,634,000 Storage&Interconnects 0 470,000 470,000 1,255,000 1,725,000 Transmission Mains 2,098,000 824,000 824,000 4,505,000 7,427,000 Conservation 100,000 100,000 100,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 System-Wide Improvements-Wastewater. Plants 500,000 515,000 515,000 2,816,000 3,831,000 Pump Stations 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,469,000 7,469,000 Force Mains 786,000 515,000 515,000 2,816,000 4,117,000 Emergency Generators 250,000 258,000 258,000 1,408,000 1,916,000 Gravity Collection System 838,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 9,148,000 10,986,000 Southern Regional WWTP: Phase II 15,300,000 15,300,000 15,300,000 0 30,600,000 Reuse&Effluent Disposal 938,000 4,720,000 4,720,000 4,720,000 10,378,000 9 North Master Lift Station 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 3,000,000 AWT/Canal Discharge,Phase I 50,000 250,000 250,000 10,000,000 10,300,000 Land&Landscaping 138,000 77,000 77,000 423,000 638,000 Buildings-Storage 20,000 81,000 81,000 240,000 341,000 Laboratory Complex 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 2,500,000 Southern Region O&M Complex 300,000 2,850,000 2,850,000 2,850,000 6,000,000 Buildings-Other 356,000 53,000 53,000 290,000 699,000 Transmission&Collection Oversizing 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,093,000 1,493,000 Telemetry&Computer Systems 1,700,000 500,000 500,000 2,734,000 4,934,000 In-House Billing System 50,000 500,000 500,000 250,000 800,000 Special Assessment Program 2,439,000 750,000 750,000 5,469,000 8,658,000 Total 39,607,000 47,283,000 47,283,000 79,028,000 165,918,000 Airports- Capital Budget Proposal will be submitted separately. 29 SUMMARY OF NEW FUNDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 1995-96 CIP (By Major Funding Source) FUNDING FUTURE ESTIMATED . ESTIMATED ADJUST- REQUESTED FUNDING TOTAL PROJECT NAME CARRYOVER MENTS BUDGET AMOUNT COST Tourist Tax Environmental Resource Management Restore Lk Worth Sand Transfer 148,875 0 148,875 37,936 186,811 Coral Cove Dune Restoration 23,272 0 23,272 1,728 1,151,037 Jupiter/Carlin Shore Protection 1,665,907 (956,907) 709,000 0 3,218,431 Jupiter/Carlin Dune Restoration 0 240,000 240,000 50,000 305,000 Delray Beach Shore Protection 1,013,068 (1,006,568) 6,500 0 888,613 Ocean Ridge Shore Protection 2,362,339 2,997,661 5,360,000 970,000 7,620,191 Lake Worth Inlet Management 0 5,000 5,000 575,000 607,000 South Boca Shore Protection 203,609 51,391 255,000 0 278,135 Juno Beach Shore Protection 0 395,000 395,000 4,470,000 5,010,000 Singer Island Breakwater 125,314 (125,314) 0 0 0 ICW Beach Sand 132,201 (124,701) 7,500 0 188,043 Shoreline Protection Program Activities 241,086 (160,644) 80,442 465,073 1,444,717 Palm Bch/So Palm Bch Dune Restoration 154,064 (136,064) 18,000 1,019,300 1,037,300 Beach Preservation 196,788 (196,788) 0 0 0 Riviera Beach Dune Restoration 186,050 (186,050) 0 0 0 PB/S.PB Shore Protection 156,062 (156,062) 0 0 0 Ocean Cay Dune Restoration 0 15,000 15,000 200,039 215,039 Loggerhead Dune Restoration 0 72,930 72,930 13,000 85,930 Lake Worth Dune Restoration 0 2,000 2,000 89,950 91,950 Emergency Beach Projects 0 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Town of Palm Beach 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 Reserves for Future Projects 2,394,246 (1,134,072) 1,260,174 0 1,260,174 Total 9,002,881 795,812 9,798,693 8,892,026 25,788,371 Note:ERM has restructured and realigned the beach program based on current funding and the apparent loss of previously anticpa ted State funding. Revenues include new Tourist Tax of$1,334,955,interest income of$145,730,elimination of$844,461 in a federal grant and$159,588 of additional estimated interest earnings in FY 94/95,for a net new revenues of$795,812. 30 c0 S en M at. R. -R. N � M .tr � ha §0o CM� O Cf 000 NN - G (3 h NPO V1 i 4 .,•:31A.,`:•`) O� 0i O.06...4 h et g•(4 t " M v'i M n:N 00 .-r (+i rl tO N 01 p h , r .v) t+o N:,,-,..t.::,... r M Or M o0 r4. N V1 a M �--i N:- . o r N 00 ,O 00 p t,.. " ,r,,,-...m.-p, e!•.r ci V1 .-i V1 00 ... ,c....00.7-, cV N 1,-,"1 N.�--i C V'Y 00. N N o.: N O---- N -:N 'f ...'c ,_;,..4.,,;.. N: M M N N'N. H Q 01/) U 8 oo z5 303 00 o- '', o � OP 44 4 q nn o W ~Ov� ........- wa 4 ' r 0 „O6.� N PoMW N N.6— l+l tel os a+ q W N (� CIS W r, v! �,, LLl 4,-. 8 A A � O M � M '.i 00.N O M.. co en (.74 Ol CY O0:N en `O: W t . O , N O,Oi O: %::;':r-7.%0 a �O O r T, rt O se", vol N b N • 4�0- N N 0 O Oi V U0 [� rt MNN.INj Qw QQQo‘ .o‘ -tn 8 bso (nN Oo Q 8 § .... g.§.§...... OGC — ,-, - -' 3'-'11-• M � • NU y n J G Se�o0NN +^ C 3 AM e''' e4.1 .yw [ tl ii 0. W W U H {, Q: a 2 .` ° ova 6 0.. q Via lat,!II c,; 4) q o a- av. h1fla W cvsI. < `� ,c ,• a 1 r4 — a �° a eo: a aw a sus 132..:OUQ u 0 0 &i' o o u .4 1 2 .3.) 2, ,,„ ,„ ..,... ;,>,o w a 0..f, 2:`"• ,0-c5.,47' a C7 x1wU '� C� .4Fct1 > /2h14 xd' x, wdC7 ac�i conk c ' ANS 31 egl �Q 0lVO9R � a � N*h �MNO� N oc4a s0000h0000MP7+ aO Vif g.,,5>r 0 h � C • � N NNS M r-i ems+.-i op'�p � M 0 w 44 a y �+ aa A to e-- 14rrl � a - - a � o N i4•1 i-. N 'C 1:0 LT.. § cdR 1:4 y § N ,t) CZ;0:1° py Q g$Ni N O °Wy , t0,aE. -M ! OQ . .rt OOaNF7y •OWWOG • 4.1 C� N w "A 49 y O `y BOQMM � M '�+ M W MN p, NNONooQQ% N 1Ri = O O�O oo •V Vt h 'r N cO N N N 4 ,i oo M N V CJ Oo MM E"-r-i 00 O*.4'vl a`'G o0 N E. OI ,1 N o ••y g CJ F (da rCtNt( M '�S>MLVMwaMMM ,.7 N� SNPI� '-- 0 c� .D a � Ot .� N .-MNKNe+4OtOv1C.% O N t0 t� 00C' -4 et Ot � O V a to - nomtti �JN .n,-� M ~ � N ‘A. p� N .+ oc� v "'F . a a� VY� tC [+ tar; N Ot Ot l� -O V1 eN N l� pp ,O C1 a, �98 ,3%, ppt0 °,..,,t' C\ A U y r/.. OG o0 N O Ct t0 00 O pO Ct '°. in pG.-r 8 w ; 'ei" N� Cr% M 00 en ."1 N 'cc'', O h M M 4 Vya • :N lA.._F. .- 14 .a W ii• U t �° °_° Ocs� a>i U A o sa W - aj . e a G� A Lt, V. le. g 0 ou eo > y ... G ° w W aa � o oLI Hii 4) .a oa ° . C7ua r0: U 6 ..:; W z ..t e: �.. 8 0.0. �.,' ., 0..!.1)...,,,,,,,,, at 0 a •.r • .off a towp. � 00.` C4 7.,,," a � VI �+ CI _ CO of tc c . en est »'a K,'as, w , a a' a a Q vs O � x C� a I-4.C7 E-� * 32 CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' BUDGET PROJECTIONS The FY 1995-96 budgets for the Constitutional Officers are projected to increase by $11,906,892 over the FY 1994-95 adopted budget as shown in the following table. FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96 OFFICER BUDGET PROJECTION INCREASE Clerk of Courts $ 24,708,545 $ 26,044,700 $ 1,336,155 Property Appraiser 12,113,947 12,701,594 587,647 Sheriff 162,739,628 171,702,610 8,962,982 Supv. of Elections 3,178,548 3,619,264 440,716 Tax Collector 14,443,608 15,023,000 579,392 $ 217,184,276 $ 229,091,168 $ 11,906,892 The projections were developed as follows: Clerk of the Courts: FY 1994-95 budget plus 5.4%. Property Appraiser: FY 1995-96 budget based on actual request plus postage. Sheriff: FY 1995-96 base operating request plus expenses paid by the County and the trauma unit. Supervisor of Elections: FY 1994-95 budget plus 6% and $250,000 for the special election. Tax Collector: FY 1995-96 budget based on current proposed taxes and statutorily determined fees plus postage. Note: Updated information reflecting actual budget requests for all Constitutional Officers will be provided at the workshop. 33 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING The FY 1994-95 budget includes $7.8 million in new ad valorem funding for Economic Development. Including carry-over funding from FY 1993-94, the Reserve for Economic Development is currently $7.5 million. The budget for FY 1995-96 includes $3.5 million in new ad valorem funding. It is also estimated that $3.5 million of the current budget will be carried forward, providing a total of $7.0 million in FY 1995-96. FY 1995-96 New Ad Valorem Funding $ 3.5 million Funds Carried Forward 3.5 million Total $ 7.0 million 34 WESTGATE CRA In 1992 the Westgate CRA issued bonds to provide infrastructure improvements in the Westgate area. At that time, the BCC entered into a Covenant to Budget agreement in the event the CRA was unable to meet debt service requirements. At the time the bonds were issued it was estimated that property values would increase generating additional incremental revenues. These additional revenues were to fund the debt service on the bonds. However, the Westgate CRA area has experienced declines in the property values the past few years resulting in insufficient incremental revenues to fund both operating and debt service expenses. The CRA has been able to partially fund debt service in the past with accumulated reserves. However, these reserves will no longer be available in FY 96. It is anticipated that the CRA will request a funding subsidy from the BCC in FY 96. Property Incremental Estimated Values Revenues BCC Subsidy FY 92 $230,114,448 $ 244,939 -- FY 93 227,621,214 238,585 -- FY 94 220,673,257 201,342 -- FY 95 214,027,137 155,187 -- Est. FY 96 216,167,408 160,000 $ 90,000 Est. FY 97 220,000,000 200,000 156,000 Est. FY 98 220,000,000 200,000 156,000 35 FINANCIALLY ASSISTED AGENCIES The process for reviewing funding requests from financially assisted agencies was completely restructured for the FY 1995-96 budget year and staff recommendations have not been finalized. • A Citizen Advisory Committee has worked with staff to establish service categories, priorities for each category, and evaluation criteria. Staff will be meeting during June 1995 to evaluate proposals and rank agency requests within each category. Staff recommenda- tions will be made to the Board of County Commissioners during the Budget Workshops in July 1995. OFMB has been advised that many of the agencies now receiving County funds have sustained cutbacks in other revenue sources. For instance, United Way has reduced its funding for local agencies by - $300,000 and reductions in State funding are anticipated. In addition, more agencies than ever before are requesting County assistance. A total of 75 agencies have requested County funding in FY 1995-96 compared to 46 agencies last year. The FY 1995-96 budget was prepared assuming an increase of $200,000 over the current year budget. Total funding requests for next year are approximately $2 million greater than the current budget as shown in the following table. FY 1994-95 BUDGET FY 1995-96 AGENCY ORIGINAL CURRENT PROPOSED BUD. REQUESTS $5,211,421 $5,384,283 $5,584,283 $7,383,976 36 THOROUGHFARE LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE MSTU's On December 20, 1994, the BCC adopted an ordinance creating seven Thoroughfare Landscaping Maintenance MSTU's. The boundaries of these districts coincide with the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of the seven County Commission districts. The Board has discussed a possible pilot program for the Unincorporated Area Thoroughfare Landscape Maintenance MSTU in District 5 for the first time in FY 1995-96. This would provide a track record and give the County staff experience in administering this type of program, so that this approach could be evaluated for its potential for other Districts in subsequent fiscal years. Engineering estimates that .06 mills will provide sufficient revenues for maintenance of unincorporated thoroughfares in District 5 where landscaping is in place today, plus allow for the increase of up to 2 miles per year of additional maintenance for areas newly landscaped by others. For purposes of comparison, the following table presents the FY 1995- 96 taxable property values and taxes that would be generated from .06 mills ($6 per $100,000 taxable value) for the unincorporated areas of each district. Taxable Value Taxes * District 1 $3,278,185,753 $ 186,857 2 1,831,244,882 104,381 3 2,939,171,551 167,532 4 1,692,884,196 96,494 5 7,409,129,221 422,321 6 4,307,296,902 258,437 7 76,499,689 4,361 * Taxes are net of statutory reserves. 37 Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 19 ATTACHMIT H Budget Oversight Task Force Report dated September 28, 1992 Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Karen T. Marcus,Chair Robert Weisman Carole Phillips,Vice Chair Carol A.Roberts Carol J. Elmquist Mary McCarty Ken Foster B Maude Ford LeeTr cr. �� 00 11 Clusec JOINT COMMITTEE TO INCREASE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY Budget Oversight Task Force To: Karen T. Marcus, Chair, and Members, Board of County Commissioners From: Leo Vecellio, Jr. , Chairman, and Members, Budget Oversight Task Force Re: Phase III Final Report Date: September 28, 1992 BACKGROUND INFORMATION - MISSION STATEMENT The Budget Oversight Task Force was established by the Board of County Commissioners in December, 1989 , as a special Task Force of the Joint Committee to Increase County Government Efficiency. As directed by the Board of County Commissioners, our committee conducted Phase III of its investigation, focusing on the County's proposed FY 93 budget. Our Mission Statement has remained constant through our three years of study: To review the budget of the Board of County Commissioners through a thorough analysis of all programs, departments and functions using private sector knowledge and perspective to determine and recommend possible expense and service reductions and/or revenue enhancements. Our Phase III work plan was presented to the Board at a workshop meeting in October 1991 and corresponding subcommittees and objectives were identified. Meetings were held on October 9 and November 15, 1991; and January 24, February 28, April 3, May 1, May 29, June 22, July 20, August 31, and September 28, 1992 . Executive summaries of meetings and collateral information was shared with Board members and key Staff throughout the process . The Strategic ,Budget Process, instituted in 1991 by County Administration, provided a framework for the committee's involvement. Our study approach changed significantly from prior years as members agreed that a stronger focus on fundamental countywide policy and personnel issues was essential . botfph3.djc "An Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer'' Box 1989 West Palm Beach,Florida 33402-1989 (407)355-2030 Suncom(407)273-2030 punted on recycled paper Page Two Although the media tends to nourish the perception that the committee is always faultfinding and critical, it is generally agreed that the County's self-examination, facilitated by the Strategic Budget Process, is a meaningful and beneficial exercise motivated by competent staff and encouraged by the Board's support. It is important to acknowledge the high level of staff support and participation throughout the year, with a special note of thanks to Steve Bordelon, Fred Jenkins and Brad Merriman. Our information requests were responded to promptly and completely. Members of the Budget Oversight Task Force are as follows : Leo Vecellio, Jr. , Chairman Ranger Construction Industries, Inc . Peter W. Aquart, P.E. Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc . Marta Cano Smith, Barney, Harris, Upham & Co. , Inc . Steve Downey General Electric Capital Rene Fernandez, C.P.A. Keith James, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig et al William C. Levine, C.P.A. Levine & Levine, CPA's Jack Mitchell Human Resources Consultant Gregory Nicosia, Esquire Karl Preusse DFP Associates, Inc . Scott Rhine, C.P.A. Rhine & Company, CPA's Glenn Schanel Flagler National Bank Margaret F. Stroupe, C.P.A. Stroupe & Keelor, P.A. Page Three Len Tylka, P.E. LTL Associates • Hugo Unruh Hugo Unruh and Associates Jim Watt, Esquire Steel, Hector, Davis, Burns & Middleton Charles E. Wildermuth, C.P.A. Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart In addition, numerous subcommittee members participated, providing ideas and feedback along the way. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Surveys indicate that public confidence in government is at a record low level . The current economic situation has heightened taxpayers ' interest in downsizing government and halting tax increases . As recently observed in a TaxWatch publication, raising taxes during a recession, when business and personal income is declining, is not an economically sound action; raising taxes would "further weaken economic conditions by further reducing disposable income and consumption. . .and further increasing unemployment and the demand for government services . " While we recognize that the recession has caused an increased demand for particular County services (e.g. , community service programs) , there has been a concurrent decrease in demand for other services (e.g. , construction-related activities ) . Managers are challenged to respond to shifts in workload trends by essentially re-matching needs to available resources -- and to "do more with less" . This is the primary purpose of the program prioritization exercise. The County's budget review efforts and support of the committee's endeavors demonstrates a commitment to achieving "no net increase" in taxes . Although the public should be generally pleased with the County's course, and the positive and measurable results accomplished over the past two years, there are still significant changes to be made and deficiencies (organizational, management and systems) to be corrected. We know that the widespread financial crisis being experienced by local governments is not a short-term predicament; more permanent and longer-range solutions must be sought. The RightFocusing (rightsizing) Plan proposed by County Administration appears to present a logical and constructive method for dealing with the wholesale challenges of future years ' budgeting. This plan should yield fundamental improvements in the way government conducts its business, for example: Page Four • decentralize authority; • streamline processes and simplify rules; • empower all levels of workers; • effective use of performance evaluation; • enhance management culture; • develop meaningful productivity incentives for all employees; • integrate customer feedback to improve the decision-making process; • redesign current restrictive merit rules; and • involve the private sector in providing solutions for the community. In addition, there should be a strong focus on renewing the County' s fiscal stability and strength through economic revitalization and responsible growth. Tom Rankin, President of Lykes Bros . , Inc . , recently commented that Florida's "anti- business/no growth bias . . .does not give the private sector the required predictability that it needs to plan long-term investments which generate jobs . . . " We believe that the community's ability to participate in the budget process , to share business perspectives and suggest solutions , has been a cornerstone for building a better government and enhancing the public 's trust. This process allows the important quality of life decisions made by the Board to be properly influenced by our customers . APPROACH TO BUDGET CUTTING Findings: At least one third (over $30 million) of the FY 93 budget shortfall is proposed to be eliminated through deferral (capital projects, road program, major acquisitions and delayed occupation of facilities) rather than reductions in programs, staffing and personnel costs which would yield true recurring savings . We are experiencing a temporary tightening action in response to a fiscal crisis; however, not one program was eliminated as part of the Strategic Budget Process. In addition, the Board continues to approve new facilities and program expansions . In order to • continue to fund all currently-approved programs and meet levels of service established in the Comprehensive Plan, there will be enormous tax requirements in the outyears . The proposed countywide millage for FY 93 is 4 .6221 and each mil generates approximately $52 million in tax revenue. Deferred budget items will continue to reappear in following years; when decisions are made to fund those items, significant tax increases will result, spiraling the County toward the 10-mil cap. Recommendations: Rather than rely on capital project cuts and Page Five deferrals to eliminate projected budget shortfalls, ongoing budget reviews should focus more aggressively on reductions in programs, staffing levels and personnel and benefits costs . An effective rightsizing effort should focus on restructuring (streamlining) the organization, eliminating management layers, and finding new ways to deliver services . The Board's goal should continue to be "no net increase" in taxes . New program and staffing requests should be strictly scrutinized and, whenever new funding is approved, corresponding budget cuts should be made. Our comparisons indicate that the County is more generous, both in pay and benefits, than Palm Beach County's largest private sector employers . This largess can no longer be afforded by the taxpayers . As recommended in Phases I and II of our study, the containment of human services costs is at the heart of our budget control effort. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COSTS Findings: Palm Beach County's criminal justice costs have increased 376% since 1983 . Over the past two years, the County's budget has been balanced at the expense of other programs, capital projects, road construction and infrastructure, while funding for criminal justice continues to increase at an extraordinary pace. Recommendation: There should be a dynamic and coordinated effort, perhaps facilitated by the Criminal Justice Commission, to develop creative methods of funding criminal justice needs and controlling escalating costs . Cooperation with municipal public safety agencies is essential . FIRE-RESCUE CONTRACT Findings : The Fire-Rescue contract approved by the Board last year provided effective salary increases of 11 . 85% - 16 . 85% -- in addition to other significant management concessions -- and required the addition of 54 firefighter positions . The committee warned against such a generous settlement through the contract negotiation period. In addition to the comprehensive multi-year fiscal impact of the contract ($24 million) , the agreement set a dangerous policy precedent which has clearly influenced the salary expectations of other employee groups, most notably the Sheriff 's Office. Recommendation: The committee recommended re-opening the Fire- Rescue contract, if necessary, in order to create greater equity across the workforce and break the chain of affect on other salary policy decisions . CWA/UNION CONTRACT Page Six Findings : The salary policy approved for the CWA provides a 6% across-the-board (ATB) increase in FY 93 (no merit) and returns to the standard policy for longevity increases (without retroactivity) . The fiscal impact for the term of the contract (FY 93 - FY 94 ) is approximately $6 . 3 million (assumes an average 2% merit increase in FY 94 ) . The County's basic pay philosophies were developed before there was typical parity between public and private sector salaries, which is no longer true. The CWA agreement will broaden the gap between public and private sector salaries and benefits . As in prior years, the CWA agreement set a baseline salary expectation for all County employees, effectively eliminating the Board's options . Recommendations: The committee (as well as the Human Resources Management Task Force) recommended implementation of a pay-for- performance system which includes a "0" category. History indicates that the CWA contract sets the stage for general salary practices; these policy decisions should be made independent of each other. ACROSS-THE-BOARD (ATB) vs. MERIT Findings: As supported by the committee, the salaries of all BCC employees (and most Constitutional Officers) were frozen in FY 92 . This decision presented a significant opportunity to re- structure the ATB/merit system and introduce a completely merit- based system. However, the Board has agreed to award ATB increases of 6% in FY 93 (on October 1) to all BCC employees . Each 1% salary increase for all County employees costs approximately $3 million. Recommendations: As recommended in Phases I and II, a total pay- for-performance system for all County employees should be implemented as soon as possible. ATB/cost of living increases are warranted only during periods of high inflation; rather than being built into the system, these increases should be considered only when necessary. LONGEVITY INCREASES Findings: The County's current longevity policy provides the following salary adjustments: - 5% after 10 years employment - 5% after 20 years of employment. Longevity increases were deferred in FY 92 but are funded for FY 93 . Again, the County's policy was introduced at a time when the public sector's salaries were not as competitive with the private sector. The cost of longevity awards, which is approximately $286, 000 annually, increases exponentially as it is rolled into the base salary (vs . lump sum) . As part of the Strategic Budget Page Seven Process, the Board recently approved a policy which eliminates longevity increases for future employees but maintains the existing policy for current employees . Recommendations: As recommended in earlier reports, longevity increases -- which are archaic and excessive, given the competitiveness of public sector salaries -- should be eliminated for all County employees . One-time limited dollar bonuses or other alternatives should be explored. HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS Findings: A recent staff report revealed that health insurance costs for BCC employees equal approximately 6 . 6% of total salary costs . High levels of claims and usage have placed a critical strain on the County's self-insured health plan. As the workforce continues to mature, the County's risk will grow. The health insurance plan is substantially better than the community "mainstream" , particularly relating to deductibles, co-payments and coverage for additional insureds . By raising deductibles to $100/$200, savings were recently estimated by staff at $180,000 for a one year period (including the bargaining unit) . Recommendation: As recommended during Phases I and II , the committee endorsed an immediate increase in the health insurance deductible. An average industry sample of $250/$500 was recommended. It is our understanding that the Board has approved an increase to $100/$200, effective October 1 . However, savings are almost entirely diminished by additional incentives and benefits proposed as part of an expanded Flexible Benefit Program. A more conservative plan should be designed. SICK LEAVE POLICY Findings : County employees have 13 available sick days per year (plus 12 holidays and 10-20 vacation days) . The CWA is given 7 sick days plus a limited disability program. Firefighters are allowed 7 shifts of 24 hours each. Upon leaving County employment, employees are entitled to 25% pay-out of sick leave accrued after 5 years employment and 50% after 10 years . 100% is only paid in the rare instances of verified early medical retirement. Due to payroll computer system limitations, data could not be generated for selected days to determine if there are particular abuses of sick leave. Information provided by Personnel indicates that the average days of paid sick leave for FY 1989-90 was 6 . 4 days (when the Firefighters are backed out, this average is reduced to 5 .5 days) , which was much lower that anticipated. Recommendations: Sick leave benefits are an unfunded liability and, as the work force matures, will become an increasingly Page Eight substantial liability. There is a need for a short- or long-term disability program. The number of available sick days per year should be correspondingly reduced. The County's vacation/holiday/sick leave policies are superior to most of Palm Beach County's best and largest employers . The Human Resources Management Task Force has recommended a multi-tiered flex plan, which is use-oriented and self-controlling. The committee should continue to review these benefits, in the aggregate, in helping to design a benefits package that is more in line with private sector comparables but also expands employee choice. With Board approval (FY 93) of a new payroll system, more specific information tracking and data capture will be possible. EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAM Findings : The County's Employee Suggestion Program was rescinded in 1990 . Responsibility for a proposed expanded incentive program is not clear at this time. Although there will be many challenges in developing a valid and meaningful program (e.g. , it is difficult to measure cost savings and to determine the legitimacy of employee recommendations) , this type of program should be especially embraced during economically difficult times . Recommendations: As recommended in Phases I and II , an expanded Employee Incentive Program should be developed. Specific recommendations were offered by the Human Resources Management Task Force, including immediate implementation of an aggressive 6-month pilot program. SALARY POLICY Recommendations: The committee recommended that the FY 93 pay policy should allow salary increases which total 6% for FY 92 and FY 93 (combined) for all County offices, including Constitutional Officers . It was acknowledged that this may necessitate reconsideration of labor agreements . At least a portion of the increase should be merit-based. A total pay-for-performance system should be implemented by FY 94 . POSITION VACANCIES Findings: As of 2/10/92 , 64 permanent BCC positions had been vacant for 6 months or more. Although these positions were scrutinized during the budget process, as of 6/1/92, there are approximately 287 positions that are frozen or vacant (92 positions for six months or more) . Staff argued that if vacant positions are categorically eliminated after a certain period of time, departments will be penalized for choosing to not fill positions right away. This may cause an adverse reaction to fill Page Nine positions immediately. Recommendations: Positions that have been vacant for six months or more should be eliminated, with the exception of those positions related to new facilities and certain extraordinary circumstances . Strict oversight is essential . [Effective 10/1/92, the BCC approved deleting all positions vacant for six months or longer, with any exceptions requiring Board approval] . STAFFING TRENDS; JUSTIFICATION PROCESS FOR HIRING Findings: There was a significant net gain in positions from FY 89 to FY 92 , despite reports of mass position deletions . There are a number of issues driving staffing levels, including: • new facilities (water utilities , fire stations, parks and libraries) ; • new regulations being imposed by state or federal government (e.g. , National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Americans with Disabilities Act) ; and • an increased public demand for services . County Administration believes that although we may not yet have achieved optimum utilization of staff, County managers have gotten the message and are clearly moving in that direction. An adjusted comparison of approved positions for FY 92 and FY 93 reveals a net increase of 31 positions . Approximately 900 positions were filled in FY 89 and 650 in FY 90 . Of the 576 positions filled in FY 91, staff explained that many were internal promotions (therefore not "new hires " ) and 150 were AIM employees transferred from the Property Appraiser's Office. All new positions must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners . The Board's philosophy has favored budget cuts that minimize lay-offs . In response to a "hiring freeze" directed by the Board in January, 1991, a justification process was instituted to determine whether or not a vacated position should be filled. Some health and public safety positions (e.g. , firefighters, nurses) are exempt. In addition, departments are required to demonstrate that an undue hardship will be caused by not filling a position. Criteria for enterprise-funded positions are less strict. Recently, many positions have been "justified" simply because they are budgeted for FY 92 and 93 . Recommendations: Overall, there appears to have been a "status quo" reaction rather than a dramatic effort to reduce staffing, which is a very different philosophy from what prevails in the private sector at this time. The purpose of the justification process should be to reduce Page Ten expenditures and staffing levels (at least on a temporary basis) and to challenge managers to improve productivity and develop alternatives to traditional methods of service delivery. Instead of asking for "impacts to not filling the position" , we should be asking "tell us how you will calibrate your operations to deal with this vacancy" . Enterprise-funded positions should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as other positions . Very few, if any, justifications/applications are denied, therefore, the process does not appear to be producing the intended results . Because it is labor- and time-intensive, the process should be made sufficiently strict or discarded altogether. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' COMPLIANCE WITH FY 93 BUDGET STRATEGIES Findings: There has been an inordinate focus on BCC programs during the past two years in order to eliminate budget shortfalls . This has been intensified by increased service demands, no salary increase in FY 92 and an increase in the work week to 40 hours (which equals a net decrease of 7% in salary) . BCC departments are undergoing extensive scrutiny; however, the Constitutional Officers ' budgets are not subject to the same level of examination. During the period of FY 86 - FY 91, there was a 51% increase in positions for all Constitutional Officers . Recommendation: All Constitutional Officers should allow a thorough external review of their budgets and should be required to comply with the Board's budget and salary guidelines, including a minimum targeted overall reduction of 5% in FY 92 . SUBCOMMITTEE NOTES Financial Organization Study Group (Steve Downey, Chairman) : The main issue that emerged from this subcommittee relates to the organizational structure and decentralization of the finance function. A great deal of information was reviewed. Many of the committee's observations and concerns were addressed in a recent Internal Audit report ( 92-21) . The continuing role of the committee will be determined. Engineering Focus Group (Len Tylka, Chairman) : Phase III report distributed separately. ERM Focus Group (Andy Carlino, Chairman) : One component of the Phase III report was a review of the Wetlands Ordinance. When the Ordinance was first adopted by the Board, it was acknowledged that there was overlap of other agencies ' responsibilities . Although it was intended that duplication would be eliminated through delegation by other agencies to ERM, a sunset clause was added that would require that the program be evaluated after 2 years . A delegation schedule was put forth but has not yet been fully accomplished. Page Eleven A "delegation agreement" between ERM and DER was recently approved by the Board. Although ERM processes the applications, DER is still required to sign off on the application. Fees are collected by ERM and submitted to DER. A compromise recommendation emerged from the ERM Focus Group that the "delegation agreement" should be approved, that the sunset clause should remain in the Wetlands Ordinance and extended to March 1993, and that the program should be reviewed at that time. The Budget Oversight Task Force, however, rejected this proposal and recommended that, in consideration of the current budget crisis , the fact that duplication had not been eliminated, and potential savings that could be realized, the Wetlands Ordinance should be allowed to sunset. A full report of this subcommittee will be issued at a later date. Clerk' s Office Study Group (Scott Rhine, Chairman) : This subcommittee was established in response to an invitation from Milton Bauer, Clerk of the Circuit Court. A major emphasis was placed on personnel costs and benefits . There has been an 11% increase in the number of employees in the Clerk's Office over the last 4 years which must be considered in the context of the expansion of the court system. The subcommittee was concerned that 5% salary increases were awarded to employees of the Clerk's Office in FY 92 . We were not able to solicit the Clerk's support for reducing FY 93 salary increases to 1% (total of 6% for both years) or presenting significant budget reduction strategies (5% was proposed) . Because our involvement came in the midst of budget development, it was agreed that we would resume our work plan in November. We are hopeful that the newly-elected Clerk of the Circuit Court will allow the subcommittee to continue its review at that time. SHERIFF'S OFFICE FY 93 SALARY REQUEST Findings : The Sheriff 's Office proposed FY 93 budget calls for a 10 .5% salary increase for PBSO employees (4 .5% "step" ; 6% ATB) at a total cost of $7 . 7 million. The Sheriff believes the "step" increase is an employee entitlement. Such generous salary increases are particularly unwarranted during this period of economic difficulty. In the spirit of cooperation, a compromise proposal to reduce salary increases to 9% for law enforcement and bailiffs, 7 . 5% for corrections officers and 6% for civilians was supported by the committee. The Board, however, did not support this plan. Another suggestion was considered which would award one-half of the step increase in a lump sum rather than being added to the base salary; this would generate estimated savings of $847 , 000 in FY 94 alone. Page Twelve Salary increases should not be used to compensate for job risk or danger; the base salary should accurately reflect job worth. Salary surveys done by the Sheriff 's Office place the PBSO in the middle of the range, however a number of benefits (e.g. , take- home cars; 37 . 5 hour work week; full pension contribution) are not quantified. Market-driven indications are that PBSO salaries are competitive: the turn-over rate is less than 3% and hundreds of applicants respond to job announcements . Recommendations: Consistent with the above-referenced recommendation (Salary Policy) , the committee supports a 6% increase for all County employees, including the Sheriff 's Office, and elimination of ATB and "step" increases . The Sheriff should be held accountable to spending millions of dollars on excessive salary increases rather than using those funds to improve level of service by employing additional deputies . FUNDING OF ROAD PROGRAM Findings : There is a public perception that the FY 93 budget has been balanced on the back of the road program, resulting in $31 .5 million in cuts ( $12 million ad valorem; $19 .5 reserves) . This action challenges the integrity of growth management and the Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. Recommendations: Although the committee did not favor the extent of the road program reductions, now that those decisions have been made, it is imperative that the reserve funds are not raided for sundry projects . Funds should be re-allocated to road building as soon as staff 's ability to meet the objectives put forth in the Five Year Road Program is assured. CAPITAL RESERVES/ "SWEEPS" Findings : The recent discovery of $55 million in reserves (capital and road program) , much of it budgeted for complete or inactive projects, indicated that the County has serious capital project budgeting and accounting deficiencies . In addition, interest earnings on these funds were grossly underestimated. The committee recommended the funds be kept in reserve and strongly recommended against using any of the accessible ad valorem funds to expand or re-instate funding for any proposed budget cuts . This committee has issued alerts for two years that the capital projects budgeting and accounting was woefully inadequate. We are pleased that the County Administrator has insisted on full disclosure to the Board and a thorough review of Engineering and all general capital budgets was conducted by the Internal Auditor and fiscal staff . Recommendations: The committee endorses a series of comprehensive recommendations recently proposed by the Internal Auditor, to Page Thirteen include implementation of a capital projects tracking system, management of surplus funds, control of staff-generated project scope changes, development of general policies for sweeping accounts, reorganization of OFMB, Board prioritization of projects and some degree of centralization of the finance function. Follow-up action should be closely monitored. REVENUE FORECASTING Findings : During FY 93 budget development, a $15 million gap in projected revenues emerged. Audited fund balance numbers confirmed that economic projections of revenues did not materialize. This contributed to a significant widening of the projected budget shortfall . Recommendation: In addition to developing new forecasting models, there should be a much greater emphasis on accountability. It is important that the Budget Division have responsibility for revenues and expenditures and it is notable that a recent reorganization of OFMB has placed responsibility for non- departmental major revenues in the Budget Office. Formal policies and procedures which will improve forecasting methods should be developed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Findings : The Comprehensive Plan provides a blueprint for the County's future, offering guidelines and objectives to protect our quality of life. The Board is scheduled to review the Comprehensive Plan in December followed by submission to the State Department of Community Affairs in April 1993 . Recommendations: Periodic reviews of the plan, complemented by public input, should provide a forum for reevaluating level of service objectives in the context of current economic conditions, fluctuating resources, the changing role of local government, and community choices . Integration of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the plan with annual spending plans (Capital Improvement Plan/CIP) would allow a more coordinated analysis of projects . The funding requirement for the 6 year CIP (FY 93 - FY 98) is $1, 098, 851, 000 . Realistic assessments of the public 's willingness and ability to support Comprehensive Plan objectives will safeguard the integrity of the plan. CONCLUDING REMARKS Numerous budget and policy reforms are being discussed by other Joint Committee Task Forces, including the exploration of opportunities to privatize County programs which helps to create a competitive and entrepreneurial environment and allows performance and cost to be measured against private sector alternatives . Page Fourteen General countywide observations have been made by many of these committees . One common concern is the lack of structured incentives to improve the quality of government services and reduce costs . Budget reform alternatives are often discussed because there is a growing belief that line item budgets tend to invite wasteful spending. Many feel that spending limitations, perhaps through lump sum budgets, will force departments to conserve and prioritize expenditures . Others support a more exhaustive evaluation of budget components . Still others prefer zero based budgeting. There is certain agreement, however, that dealing with the complex challenges facing Palm Beach County in the 1990s will require a renewed and concerted effort kindled by the Board's ability to make increasingly-difficult choices . Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28 , 1994 20 ATTA.MT I Fire Rescue Subcommittee Recommendations dated September 15 , 1994 a. FIRE RESCUE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS September 15, 1994 Refrigerators Purchased 1 . The Subcommittee reviewed the type of refrigerators purchased and found them to be appropriate. Types of Vehicles Purchased 2. The Subcommittee reviewed the type of rescue vehicles and pumpers recently purchased and found them to be appropriate and cost effective based on life expectancy, maintenance cost and use. Types of Fire Stations Being Built 3. Whenever possible or appropriate, build temporary, modular stations. 4. Regarding annexation, work with municipalities to eliminate service duplication. 5. Recommend the Budget Oversight Task Force investigate the County "bureaucracy" that causes inflated construction costs whenever the County constructs any type building. Cities and private industry can construct the same buildings at lower costs. 6. When appropriate purchase residential or commercial structures for conversion to permanent fire stations. Fire stations located in residential areas are perceived favorably and there is flexibility to reconvert the station back to its original use if the station is no longer needed. 7. Encourage more joint, County-City, fire rescue service where costs, building and equipment are shared. Centralized Motor Pool for the County 8. Fire Rescue should continue to maintain its own emergency vehicles. 9. Consider a common motor pool for non—emergency vehicles if cost effective. Privatization 10. Fire Rescue is currently contracting out for numerous services. The department should continue to look for other areas for privatization. Indirect Charges 1 1 . There are excessive indirect charges that inflate county construction costs and Fire Rescue overhead costs. This Subcommittee will not make recom- mendations concerning Indirect Charges. Budget Oversight Task Force should address indirect charges immediately after the Internal Audit's findings are released. Response Time 12. The Subcommittee strongly recommends Fire Rescue actively pursue nearest response agreements with municipalities. Reallocation of Existing Personnel and Equipment 1 13. Fire Rescue should continue to look at levels of staffing and equipment at all fire stations to assure they are proportionate to call loads according to daily peak periods and annual cycles. Other Revenue Sources 14. Creating other revenue sources should be referred to the Fire Rescue Advisory Committee to more aggressively look into alternative funding sources. Fire Inspections: Use of Equipment and Volunteers 15. The Subcommittee reviewed the new policy of restricted use of aerials when engaged in low-rise, multi-residential fire inspections and found it to be appropriate. 16. Fire Rescue should implement a pilot program whereby volunteers will be used for low rise multi-family residential fire inspections. 17. Fire Rescue should explore the possibility of cross-training firefighters in structural related codes so fire fighters can site code violations. This would augment Planning, Zoning & Building's Code Enforcement. A pilot project approach is recommended. Central Communications System 18. Fire Rescue Staff should be delegated responsibility for considering feasibility of a countywide communication system that can be incrementally imple- mented over the next 5 or 10 years. Common Medical Director 19. The Subcommittee supports the Common Medical Protocols that have been developed. The cities and the County have common medical protocols which have alleviated the problem of having many medical directors. Fire Rescue Station Location and City/County Cooperation 20. The Subcommittee supports continued direction toward establishing joint stations between the County and cities. 21 . The Fire Rescue station location issue should be referred to the Fire Rescue Advisory Board for recommendations. Workers' Compensation - Drug Free Work Place 22. The County currently falls under Federal Guidelines for a Drug Free Work Place. The Subcommittee recommends looking at State Guidelines as it pertains to drug testing for injuries on the job. Common Purchasing (County & Municipalities) 23. Joint purchases are encouraged when they can yield substantial savings. In order to gain agreement on specifications, Fire Rescue should include municipalities in the development of specifications. Contracting & Marketing With Cities 24. The Board of County Commissioners should review the County's MSTU ordinance regarding charges for Fire Rescue services for the purpose of maximizing the Fire Rescue competitiveness. Comp Plan 25. Recommendations related to Comp Plan issues will come from the Fire Rescue Advisory Board. Fringe Benefits 26. The Subcommittee made no recommendations. Fringe benefits are part of union negotiations and their current contract doesn't expire until September 30, 1996. The committee felt nothing could be done right now. Salaries 27. Fire Rescue Department and The Union should consider implementing some kind of incentive system to distinguish between levels of performance. Ratio of Chiefs to Firefighters 28. The Subcommittee reviewed the current ratio of Chiefs to Firefighters as well. as the planned reductions and found it appropriate. Expansion of Wellness Program 29. The committee endorses continued expansion of the Wellness program and annual physical screening. Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28 , 1994 21 ATTIkandENT 3 Privatization Task Force Reports dated 3/30/95 and 4/22/95 Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Ken L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus Carol A.Roberts Department of Public Affairs Warren H.Newell Mary McCarty Maude Ford Lee Y'- '"I aolvqi xt JOINT COMMITTEE TO INCREASE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY Privatization Task Force • To: Andy Carlino, Chairman, and Members, Privatization Task Force From: Jeanne Peterson, Coordinator, Organizational Improvement Re: Executive Summary of Meeting: March 18, 1995 Date: March 30, 1995 Members present: Andy Carlino, Chairman Tom Anderson Ben Bennewitz Members absent: Tom Devlin John Nicewonger Staff present: Chairman Andy Carlino called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. Page 1 of 3 "An Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer" IS • :printed on recycled paper Box 1989 West Palm Beach,Florida 33402-1989 (407)355-2754 FAX:(407)355-3819 Meetings with Commissioners • Each Privatization Task Force (PTF) member was assigned to meet with a Commissioner to seek recommendations for PTF projects. Tom Anderson said he met with Commissioner Roberts who requested that the Committee first draft a list of possible projects and then she will indicate which projects she favors. Andy Carlino was not able to meet with Commissioner Foster because his schedule was booked. He did, however, meet with Commissioner Aaronson on January 6. Commissioner Aaronson stated he likes what the PTF is doing and suggested the committee also look for ways the County can generate more revenues. Also, he would like to see the task force pursue privatization of property management. Commissioner Aaronson said the County has a history of entering into leases for space at a high cost and leasing/selling to others at a low cost. He believes the County doesn't have staff with the expertise to manage property. If you look at private firms with the volume of property we have, they contract out for property management rather than doing it themselves. Commissioner Aaronson said he would also like the task force to look at vehicle maintenance. The County, Fire Rescue, CoTran and the Sheriff's Office each has its own separate operation. Should all vehicle maintenance be consolidated? Commissioner Aaronson likes PTF's idea of giving recognition to departments/divisions who work with the task force to explore privatization of services or other efficiency measures. He cautioned that some agencies may appear to work very cooperatively with the task force in one area but refuse to consider privatization in other areas. If such an agency were recognized by the PTF, the award would lose credibility. Tom Anderson suggested the task force do follow up reviews before making awards — to be sure the agency is doing what it promised to do. New PTF Members Andy Carlino, Chairman, asked Jeanne Peterson to poll Commissioners for possible candidates and Ben Bennewitz will give her the list of School Board Audit Committee candidates. Andy will review resumes of those interested in joining the task force. Next Meeting The next Privatization Task Force will be Saturday, April 22, 1995 at 9:00 in the McEaddy. Please contact me at 355-2852 if you are unable to attend or if you have questions or comments in the interim. PTF members would like Eric Call or another representative to attend the next meeting to discuss what has happened since some parks and beach cleanup has been privatized. Also, Jeanne Peterson will obtain information from Jerry Daigle concerning the satisfaction level of custodial privatization. This will be discussed next meeting. 2 of 3 OTHER ATTACHMENTS ■ Next meeting Agenda ■ Article from Ben Bennewitz: "State Revamps Pharmacy Services" ■ News Clip Enclosures: as noted (or upon request) cc: Burt Aaronson, Chairman, Joint Committee Warren Newell, Vice-Chairman, Joint Committee Ken Foster, Chairman, and Members, Board of County Commissioners Leo Vecellio, Jr., Vice-Chairman, Joint Committee Jane Fetterly, Administrative Assistant - Comm. Lee Bob Weisman, County Administrator Bevin Beaudet, Deputy County Administrator Jean Creamer, Assistant County Administrator Bill Wilkins, Assistant County Administrator Denise Cote, Director, Public Affairs Richard Roberts, Acting Director, OFMB Dennis Eshleman, Director, Parks & Recreation Eric Call, Director, Parks Dale Peterson, Director, General Services Jerry Daigle, Director, Facilities Management 3 of 3 Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Ken L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen T.Marcus Carol A.Roberts Department of Public Affairs Warren H.Newell Mary McCarty Maude Ford Lee (!) JOINT COMMITTEE TO INCREASE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY Privatization Task Force To: Andy Carlino, Chairman, and Members, Privatization Task Force From: Jeanne Peterson, Coordinator, Organizational Improvement Re: Executive Summary of Meeting: April 22, 1995 Date: May 9, 1995 Members present: Andy Carlino, Chairman Tom Anderson Ben Bennewitz Members absent: Tom Devlin John Nicewonger Staff present: Eric Call, Parks Director Craig Murphy, Parks District Supv. Richard Luisi, Parks Contract Manager Chairman Andy Carlino called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. Page 1 of 5 "An Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer" pnnledonrecycled paper Box 1989 West Palm Beach,Florida 33402-1989 (407)355-2754 FAX:(407)355-3819 Parks & Recreation [Note: Service Delivery Comparison: Park Landscape Maintenance] Update - Privatization of Beach Cleaning & Parks Maintenance Now that all beach cleaning has been privatized, savings is expected to reach $60,000 to $70,000 annually. Parks no longer receives complaints about beach cleaning. In the past citizens complained around turtle season when seaweed is not picked up. Parks educated the public concerning turtle season and the complaints ceased. Maintenance of several level II parks have been privatized for an annual savings of $7,000. Years ago the Department of Transportation contracted with Parks to maintain 13 miles of median along Atlantic Avenue in Delray. DOT continues to contract this work with Parks; however, for the last eleven years or more Parks privatized this median maintenance. (Actually, the state could contract this work directly instead of involving Parks.) Parks tried to privatize all trash pick up in the parks but there was a low response from private vendors because of the remote locations of 2,000+ trash cans. Staff empties trash cans into dumpsters and that garbage hauling is privatized. Parks' Philosophy of Privatization Parks intends to privatize the maintenance of other level II parks and also the parks located in remote areas that require significant travel time. At the same time, Parks is concerned about employee morale and will avoid lay-offs through attrition and transferring positions to new regional parks as they are developed. This should happen between October 1995 and March 1996. The cost savings that can be realized through privatizing maintenance at other parks is conservatively estimated at $64,000 to $100,000 annually. Also, the maintenance service level will be higher. In October this work will be bid out in three lots and many area vendors are expected to bid. Another action will include assigning employees to specific parks and making them responsible for the park. This will require employees to become generalists rather than specialists — employees will need multiple skills to perform all duties at their assigned parks. It will result in significant reduction in travel time between parks and reduction in the number of vehicles required. Also, employees will feel pride and "ownership" of their parks. 2 of 5 Recreation will maintain management of the new Okeeheelee golf course to oversee contracts for Pro services and maintenance. Staff is not pleased with the results of privatizing management at the Southwinds golf course. The private sector is producing no more revenue than when the golf course was managed by staff. Eric said a Contract Manager is critical to the success of privatization. Richard Luisi is Contract Manager for Parks. He meets every week with vendors, inspects sites after contractors complete their work and, if necessary, withholds payment until work is satisfactory. He has an very good rapport with the contractors. Another position will be requested to assist the Contract Manager when other park maintenance is privatized, Andy Carlino stated another aspect of privatization is establishing a volunteer program. Eric explained that Parks and Recreation has an excellent program with more than 300 volunteers that have become an integral part of the workforce. Last year alone, total volunteer hours are valued at $700,000. Ben Bennewitz also suggested Parks look at local business sponsorship. Eric said they are looking at it, but want to avoid the huge banners and other advertisement associated with this type sponsorship. Parks also has a catalog of suggested gifts that Parks & Recreation could use. In the past, the department almost missed out on a huge donation because systems were not in place to allow the agency to accept the money. That problem has been resolved. Committee members thanked the Park employees for their exceptional cooperation with the task force and congratulated them for the great job they've done privatizing operations. They also requested another update from Parks in October or later. Meetings with Commissioners Each Privatization Task Force (PTF) member was assigned to meet with a Commissioner to seek recommendations for PTF projects. Ben Bennewitz said he had an excellent meeting with Commissioner McCarty; in fact, they continued talking beyond the scheduled appointment time. She expressed that she has been a supporter of privatization, reinventing government and ways of increasing county productivity. She commented on possible new areas for privatization, possible ways of increasing revenues through enhanced privatization and the need for follow-up on areas where privatization has occurred. Specifically, Commissioner McCarty's comments and recommendations include: 1 . Continue efforts to apply privatization to grass mowing and landscaping, including organizational changes to reduce costs if privatization is not possible. 3of5 2. She believes combining vehicle maintenance currently done by four organizations is not feasible at the present time and raises too many questions of impact on responsiveness. 3. Examine feasibility of privatizing property management— she recognized that this is a proposal of Commissioner Aaronson and agrees it should be explored. 4. The County Home transfer should be made to the Health Care District. And, the County should provide funding for infrastructure improvements to the County Home — possibly $500,000 per year for 3 years. 5. Continue exploring potential revenue enhancement for providing bed space for St. Mary patients transferred to the County Home. 6. Custodial services that were privatized a few years ago should be examined. Some problems have been reported, such as, adequacy of contractor providing necessary supplies. 7. She likes the task force's idea of Privatization Awards and awards should include cash. Commissioner McCarty suggested the awards be based on PTF recommendations and be part of the County Administrator's Golden Palm Award. Mowing Task force members decided to pursue the issue of mowing in the County. They would like Airports, Parks & Recreation and Water Utilities to supply the following information before their next meeting: 1 . Locate on a County map all property including roadsides which the department mows or contracts out for mowing. (Only include areas that are mowed; do not include areas that are both mowed and landscaped) Next Meeting The next Privatization Task Force will be Saturday, June 3, 1995 at 9:00 in the McEaddy. Please contact me at 355-2852 if you are unable to attend or if you have questions or comments in the interim. OTHER ATTACHMENTS ■ Next meeting Agenda 4 of 5 Enclosures: as noted (or upon request) cc: Burt Aaronson, Chairman, Joint Committee Warren Newell, Vice-Chairman, Joint Committee Ken Foster, Chairman, and Members, Board of County Commissioners Leo Vecellio, Jr., Vice-Chairman, Joint Committee Jane Fetterly, Administrative Assistant - Comm. Lee Bob Weisman, County Administrator Bevin Beaudet, Deputy County Administrator Jean Creamer, Assistant County Administrator Bill Wilkins, Assistant County Administrator Denise Cote, Director, Public Affairs Richard Roberts, Acting Director, OFMB Dennis Eshleman, Director, Parks & Recreation Eric Call, Director, Parks Dale Peterson, Director, General Services Jerry Daigle, Director, Facilities Management Irving Cure, Director, CoTran Cecil Bennett, Director, HCD 5 of 5 SERVICE DELIVERY COMPARISON' PARK LANDSCAPE SERVICES ANNUAL ;COST ANNUAL COST CONTRACTUAL PARK/LOCATION IN :;HOUSE (ESTIMATED) tTARIANCE South Inlet Park $ 16 , 248 $ 7, 500 $ 8 , 748 Boca Raton Ocean Inlet Park 15 , 941 9 , 000 6, 941 Ocean Ridge American Homes 12 , 104 9 , 500 2 , 604 Boca Raton Kreusler Park 12 , 006 6 , 500 5, 506 Palm Beach Coral Cove Park 17, 030 9, 000 8 , 030 Jupiter Juno Beach 17 , 459 7, 500 9 , 959 Aquacrest Pool 9 , 257 3 , 500 5 , 757 Delray Beach Gulfstream Park 14 , 740 9, 000 5 , 740 Limestone Creek 7, 704 3 , 200 4 , 504 Jupiter Loggerhead Park 15 , 589 9 , 500 6 , 089 Juno North County Aquatic Complex 5 , 860 4 , 800 1, 060 Jupiter TOTALS $143 , 938 $79, 000 ($64, 938) i NOTE : In-house costs reflect true expenditures for the period April 1, 1994 - March 31, 1995 . Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 22 ATTACIIKENT K County Profiles, Collier and Palm Beach Counties K I Iha C U T U 6 ai U U Poe r, c a 3 L u . G Y . a, orgailki •p1rrjgtoirdWIIIIIIISC 3 F = n T v o H rl, = r ? = O ma _ CA , s " � U �i � ' E. = C% ,..% d U ca g E ,1r U " ^ = = > U ' O , o O C.- N Os — 00 '- y '� r G. U J Y vi J y C'C L O N _�Y Li. N S, C O = _ C .E L L C r ^ J U U ? L ` O �' cJ7 9 ' M • O = y C N C O M cB ^- v1 O c = 6 3 n vi co c. o y ^ m ZFt`1 NLi xcss •CR 0 - ra Nv p L A' = C 3 c n Q ` c ct 3 F. „. 4-c-.. . c 7.15 ni O u > cz >, o c o O Z n 3L 3 a c .E 6 ` o c o o� _ tl• E = 00 H = ., C. U C m O 0 U A M • 41 cL Q a y O .. U ? co O c) U O C C oo O co ..c C4 y y O N y c e - 7 c- vi U L. = 2 C\ O M c Coo = 00 et = C N N = V•1 y ';n c. - O O = vi O >, yUj ao _ m. �O O v1 �' O co "� E OC" U Q' m C 00 o S O I n .- 'C c U O C c* C E m O2 � co wr on O N t- ,C 2 N O` v, ,40• c c 'n ,, 3 = c °-_o Q cs . a. O c. N t2 Q co N t- a E Q vc a c� a I r a. p u C r. ou ',II c M ca a, v c = _ >, i c Y •.• y 00 O = N C ca O Q >, O • .. o ._ .. p C. ."^..1 to N k y C O O > c`a C E ::n c cEi y ca R O O C O\ ^ C 6•d O > o c.� ` C.O o Q -- C ` E '- a :o CG m = v to oo E o .c a> C � i O O = ... U = a. > . 51, U 0 _ E = O O 'C Ch _ ' oo to un U N U C., O :4:.' c _ cocoa C E � 3 c vv e o cs ONN � M oq — m- .o � sROC7c/ CR t.. c °, 6' ¢ ¢`¢ ¢' o ch -)".< '= = _ E -0 = oma. a. 2 a. a Q = ' = = .�f = o = c l�jr = 3 - s r0l ` -• C O � U=� c O 1 C. > T JL //Ir � C v vc NarilrP. > � o c o .c ` dT _ Lt -= - czU 4 ^ � U a a E. = =�r C ) rn �- G > e3 C ,I E T E •'n .p J L 00 O a. O oo Op U O > N Br T c..,.-. •CC• > n p C OA U N N c7 '�' E B�. C n U '� '""' L y C 7 J 3 U L O N .-. C ? D OCA C g Fd- w '� f U O 3 'C v., "1 T 'o " v, Y ^ t U C.Y U. ,D .v a. 00 C C co \ ; o _� O0 C O - 3 e� = O E a O 00 M C ,.. C �p .;-.. _ 7 = ,n = ^ 0 •to >, E U ti ,� Lv o = J C '�U fy Q O .� f`j = .0 C c ,n ZFC:] Nma •fir U = i LTA c o s 0 ' = C4 U .] Ecs .. m = N ?. = v T 3 O ,- U 'C C ao i 2 c o-: U E u c o " c.)i - a > a p C p •; Z .J O !:7 O N ; z - c - .= - c c b 4. C E t.. C 7 t A„ $). 04 Lii O O 73. CY = UC U = = Cc = ° esY C = , y `�-C : a O ^ .L , •- T = c c c - c `. p � ^� X m to in c-• [- _ M O .O - cd z. .c. . 'O 'n „'1 ” C 0, c ;j U ` 'n C ,n Y E '8 co M O C O 'n ry C C CT J — Oo ^ .L.. O TA' U _ , ••p0 ,- - C. N U Q (� l- G1 G °° Q N y '• '• Z 3 ` U = Z = ` ` U C. vi -_ N N OA - C M V1 M M = V1 E C n T J M U C O •O U .. U Z v U O _ _ Q O C. C O C . .. O C U N p C -- --Y C + U U j O >`7 w - G = 7 :. d. = C3S0SO > 3) G O O • y co ,000 � ' • • o i n x ? n. E -o to cN oN � '^ 6.,cc -- or � UE � UcccnF° torn i a s O �> O ` F p 0 = _ O U O N -0 C '.1 J ¢ Q¢ ¢ •� U .0 y U T. U E ,. a. 2 a. a. Q Palm Beach County' s "mini-Grace Committee" , June 28, 1994 23 ATTACHMENT L Collier County Advisory Boards, listing, June 5, 1995 June 5, 1995 ADVISORY BOARDS 91-65 9 Affordable Housing Commission 93-36 7 Airport Authority 91-77 9 Black Affairs Advisory Board 91-102* 5 Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals 90-60 5 Citizens Advisory Task Force 91-6421 5 City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee 88-89* 7 Collier County Code Enforcement Board 91-102 9 Collier County Planning Commission 93-2 7 Collier County Public Health Unit Advisory Committee 90-105* 9 Contractors Licensing Board 94-26 13 Council of Economic Advisors 91-10 13 County Government Productivity Committee 93-76 15 Development Services Advisory Committee 93-20 26 Disaster Recovery Task Force 80-80 11 Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council 91-102 7 Environmental Advisory Board 91-48 9 Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board 92-16 5 Forest Lakes Roadway & Drainage Advisory Committee 75-4 5 Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee 87-98 5 Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee 87-78 5 Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advisory Committee 91-78 9 Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board 91-102 7 Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board 89-22 9 Homeless Advisory Committee 88-65 5 Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee 75-9 5 Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee 87-223 5 Lely Golf Estates Beautification 88-71 5 Library Advisory Board 86-91 9 Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee 88-28 7 Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee 95-1 10 Marco Island Vision Planning Advisory Committee 89-98 5 Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee 93-81 7 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 91-22 15 Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee 91-93* 5 Public Vehicle Advisory Committee 92-18 9 Tourist Development Council 309 total advisory board members 37 total advisory committees *Quasi-Judicial Boards AD HOC COMMITTEES R95-109 25 Citizens Advisory Committee to the CCPC (for Growth Mgmt Plan) R94-151 12 Collier County Privatization Plus Task Force R95- 11 Landfill Ad Hoc Advisory Committee 48 total ad hoc advisory committee members 3 total ad hoc advisory committees