Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/21/1995 B (Budget Workshop)BUDGET MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dotrill, County Manager Michael Smykowski, Senior Budget Analyst Jean Gansel, Budget Analyst Edward N. Finn, Budget Analyst CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's call to order the budget workshop for the Board of County Commission, June 21,'95. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the benefit of everyone present, I know there's some confusion due to not completing the agenda on Monday. I'll run through that quickly. We're going to start with the balance of the capital funds, followed by the sheriff's operating budget presentation, and then we'll defer back to our original calendar which called for support services which is the consolidation of emergency services and administrative services, followed by any public input and then wrap-up. The sheriff's office has made a request at the beginning. There was an issue related to the jail video photography, and they also want to -- to discuss the computer-aided dispatch system, and staff would be unavailable this afternoon, so they've made a request to at least discuss that, and they have told us it would be very brief and to the point. With that, I -- I think we're ready to begin. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's finish up the capital then. Is that what we're going to start with? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Followed by the sheriff. MR. DORRILL: Yes. So we'll have 301, and what page under those things were not -- MR. FINN: That would be -- Madam Chairman, Edward Finn, for the record. That would be behind your capital funds tab. On page three is the project number 1600, jail video photography. And on the following page, page four, again under the SO is the computer-aided dispatch system which had a requested budget of 850,000. That was not recommended for inclusion in the budget that we reviewed on Monday. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'll defer to the sheriff's staff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nind. MR. NIND: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, I'm Christopher Nind, the communications director for the Collier County Sheriff's Office. On Monday, Commissioners, I hope you received a copy of the letter from Sheriff Hunter. It also had attached to it some photographs. I have got some spare copies of that if you should require them. The reason that a new computer-aided dispatch system has been requested is primarily for operational and technical reasons. I'd like to cover some of the operational reasons. Damian, the data processing director from the sheriff's office, is here to cover some of the technical aspects. First of all, the computer-aided dispatch system. What is it? It is the computer system that enables us to pass information from the telephone call-taker across to the radio dispatch individual, who then dispatches fire, EHS, or police. That information system obviously contains a lot of information, and it is also used -- passed on to our records side. During the history of the computer-aided dispatch system, we started off with this, the complaint card, and then about 12 years ago we went to our first computer system. We have found that through those 12 years it has required a lot of modifications and improvements, and those have brought about a major increase in the training load for new dispatchers. It now takes us about six months to properly train a dispatcher on a computer-aided dispatch system. We have looked at some newer systems, and they are down to a training time of something like 40 hours. Now, I'm sure some of you are aware that turnover in dispatch is fairly heavy; and, therefore, training is a vital aspect for the new people coming in. And really six months, quite honestly, is -- is too long. It is too long with the turnover that we have. The other aspect I really wanted to -- to cover with you is if you could look at the first photograph which is that one if you have it, which is letter A, you will see that there are four screens. (indicating) We use those four screens with the system. The screen at the bottom center holds one incident. That is all. The dispatcher can only deal with one incident at a time. Newer systems using a windows base, a dispatcher can be dealing with up to three calls at the same time, and obviously this is going to improve the response time for our public safety units to the public. The other aspect, if you could look at the pictures of B and C, will show you what is our only method of tracking vehicles graphically within the county, and that is this picture here, and you will note that it is a piece of metal with some magnets attached to it. That is the only way that we can graphically track vehicles; and obviously we, therefore, must suffer from some elements of human error. This really should be done by computer. So operationally there are some really major concerns that we have. The system has worked well for us over the last 12 years, but it really is a technology now that is -- that is passed. It needs a lot of -- of work on it. And I think if I can hand over to Damian to cover some of the technical aspects prior to your consideration. MR. DEANDRES: Good morning. For the record, Damian Deandres from the sheriff's office, HIS director. Our current system is running on a proprietary operating system, hardware system, and the benders are limited to those that are doing work in that proprietary system. We have modified that system throughout the years. It works, but it has its limitations. Redundancy. This is a business-critical application where we're talking about the lives of citizens and deputies and emergency service personnel. So it requires an extra amount of redundancy, whether it be power supplies, disk in case one disk goes down. We have limited amount with the current system. Newer systems out in the market provide redundancy where critical equipment could be swapped while the system is still running. In that case we do not have to bring the system down for a two- or three-hour period to repair one of the parts and continue providing the service to the dispatch center and to the citizens of the community. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we see in front of us is -- is a line item for $850,000. What I hear is, to serve the public better, to increase safety for both the public and the officers, you know, but a single line item for $850,000 to update that system, I -- I'm not seeing the backup and the explanation for -- for justifying $850,000. We could spend $10 million and make it safer for the public and safer for the officers, but is it a prudent expenditure. And that's -- that's what I'd like you to focus on is, why are we seeing $850,000? What are we getting for it? All I -- What I have for it is we're replacing a magnetic board that we can track things a lot better. I understand that. I understand that that is an archaic system and needs to be replaced, but this is an entire system replacement, and I need justification for $850,000. MR. DEANDRES: The line items there would be -- one critical system will be a GIS system showing the map of the county, where the vehicles are located. That's just one item. The CPU, the main processor, software for dispatching, the interfaces to the state where we have to have connections to the state in order to provide criminal history to the deputy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask how many other counties of our size have a GPS-type locating system? I mean, it's a great idea. We always know where the officer's car is. MR. DEANDRES: Not locator system, but at least a map that could show where that vehicle is at. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the -- the vehicle sends a signal, picked up by -- MR. DEANDRES: No. We're -- We're going there one step beyond what we're asking for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DEANDRES: We're only looking -- depending on the dispatcher's location of that vehicle, it would be reflected on the map, not that the vehicle is providing that signal. That's one step beyond. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The place where your -- the dispatcher wants the vehicle to go is what will show on the map. MR. DEANDRES: Correct. And that is what we're currently doing with that magnetic board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess my -- my question is -- It sounds like a great idea. Is that $850,000 -- is that the best way we can spend that chunk of money to support law enforcement? I don't -- I think if you ask the public and -- and from my ignorant perspective, I'd rather you spend $850,000 on more deputies on the street. I realize that's a large part of your budget already, and I realize that I'm ignorant about law enforcement and that you people are the experts, but it's $850,000 for something that I still don't have a picture of. I can't understand. MR. NIND: The point I made, Commissioners -- Well, it is an operational system we are looking at to ensure that those deputies, first of all, respond in the shortest possible time to that call from the public, and also that they respond to the correct location with the maximum amount of information we can give them. So, really, it is -- it is an operational aspect which allows us to dispatch those public safety respondents in the most appropriate way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we had -- Do we have an existing problem with deputies not going to the right place? I mean, I know we had a couple of silly things, you know, things that were in the newspaper that were a little embarrassing but-- MR. NIND: There -- There are some things -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question -- I'm sorry. My question is, what problem are we solving with this? I'm not able to understand that yet. MR. NIND: One of the major problems that we're going to solve here is the -- is the training of those dispatchers. We are going to, therefore, subsequently cut out a vast amount of human error. For example, in the present system, to dispatch a law enforcement officer, an operator is going to take seven to eight key strokes on that keyboard. With the new system, that is likely to be two or three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the result on the street would be that -- so they're faster, that they're more people there. MR. NIND: They would be able to respond in a faster time because certainly the dispatcher will be able to deal with more than one call. Presently there is one screen for one call. When additional information comes to that dispatcher, that doesn't automatically appear. It has to be pulled up by the dispatcher. With a new system, when he's looking at -- take a windows base, while he's looking at dealing with a call and then also seeing possibly another call coming alongside that which is of a higher priority which the dispatcher can then deal with immediately. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And absent that system, the person who's calling in and is second in line -- I know they're not getting a busy signal so -- MR. NIND: No. No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what's happening to them right now under the present system? MR. NIND: Well, what -- what is happening -- We're not -- We're not saying that we're delaying dealing with the call. That is being dealt with. Where we have a delay is when that call is then passed to the radio dispatch position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I see. The call is coming in to the 911 operator. MR. NIND: Coming in to 911. It is being handled by the 911 intake operator. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question is, how quickly can the 911 operator tell the dispatch officer to send a -- a deputy? MR. NIND: Well, that's -- that's the point I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- That's this -- MR. NIND: That's -- That's one of the keys right now. When we send a request from the intake operator through the CAD system to the radio dispatcher, the radio dispatcher can only deal with one call at a time. She can only actually see one call on the screen. She will have notification that there are other calls waiting either urgent or priority or routine, but she can only -- She has to clear the call she's on before she picks up the second one. Therefore, there is naturally a delay in that, and that is part of the -- the technology of the system we purchased 12 years ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just say it's public perception because I know my perception -- if my alarm's gone off and I'm there with the 911 operator, I think if I'm talking to the 911 operator, somebody is on their way, and what you're telling me is that's likely not the case. MR. NIND: It could be a matter of seconds is what we're talking about, ten, twelve seconds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that could count. MR. NIND: Yes, it -- Yes, it can. Absolutely. Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. MR. DEANDRES: Another statement I could make, let's say the system goes down for any apparent reason, whether it be a disk that went down or something like that, in order for us to repair that, it could take two, three, four hours. During that time, the -- the dispatch center is without any systems. Newer applications provide this hot swapable both disk and other parts. MR. NIND: And that's what we use today. That's what we used before we got a CAD system. We've actually changed it now so that we can put one to the police dispatch position and one to fire and EMS position, but that is what we use and -- and if our system does go down, we are back on that, and it does happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many times has the system gone down for twelve hours at a time? MR. DEANDRES: Twelve hours? We -- No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the example you just made. MR. DEANDRES: No. I said four -- four hours. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I thought you said ten or twelve hours. MR. DEANDRES: No. Four hours, three or four hours. That -- It happens -- It's hard to say, but it has happened three times this year. MR. DORRILL: I have a suggestion here. When I put the capital improvement budgets together and -- we spent one whole afternoon and it's just -- it's a very fast-paced sort of session, and it has been interesting to learn a little more. I didn't really have the benefit of a presentation at all other than just some brief conversation. But in the interest of your time today, we've got a long, long way to go. Let me just tell you what I think your -- your options are. You can either eliminate the warehouse project and plug it in here, or you can raise property taxes which I do not think is something that you want to do because your total ad valorem capital improvement program for next year is about 7.6 million at this point with some of the additional add-ons that you had for the airport authority. The suggestion that I would have would be to keep this in a not-recommended capacity but give us a chance to evaluate it a little further with the sheriff's department. And if we see the merits of it between now and the beginning of the year, we can come back. I think the only way you're going to be able to afford this without raising taxes is to eliminate other projects or consider some type of lease purchase, and I know that you have allowed the constitutional officers to lease purchase data processing equipment in the past. And at that point then, we'd have to take some money out of reserves. If you -- If you're interested in this as a result of further analysis, you can lease purchase, or you're going to have to eliminate other projects or raise property taxes. MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, for the record, Crystal Kinzel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. I've had a question that I've been waiting through four people now, so I'm going to ask my question. A couple of things. First, one of the options you didn't mention was we could eliminate the Building W warehouse and not do this and lower taxes, also an option. The question as far as dispatch, when you're talking about -- do we have more than one person acting in the capacity of dispatch at any time, the radio dispatcher? MR. NIND: Yes. Yes. We have presently four radio dispatcher positions, three for police and one for fire and EMS. When the 800 system comes on, there will be one for fire and one for EMS. There will be those positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So at any given time, if there are more than four calls coming -- MR. NIND: No. We can handle -- We have ten 911 lines that come into the dispatch center, and we have six 911 positions, so we can handle six calls at any one time. Those -- If they all came in at the same time, they all happen to be directed to East Naples, East Naples would have a cue of calls to be dealing with and it really -- If they were all urgent, the dispatcher can only handle one at a time. She wouldn't be able to pull up the others and see if there was one with a slightly higher priority. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- That was going to be my question, and you've partially answered that -- is whether there's a new system or not, you can only make one call at a time. As you're saying by urgent, you can -- you can flag one as urgent and put that ahead of others if you needed. MR. NIND: Correct. And a lot of the new systems basically are color-coded which -- which assists the dispatcher. She could be dealing, let's say, with an urgent call. Another call comes in which is an in-progress call which would have a higher priority. That would actually appear on her screen. She could actually hold the dispatch shews on and get the in-progress call out and then go back to the other one. Exactly the same if she was working on a routine call and suddenly an urgent came in. She could deal with that quickly because she can then see both of them on the screen or certainly up to three. I think I have seen the systems with up to three. There may well be more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Finished? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, when you go through your analysis of this now that youwve heard additional information, I -- Iwd like some sort of a cost benefit on -- on this. And I know wewre talking about human lives, and wewre talking about human problems and so forth but -- but one of the -- one of the complaints thatws come to me fairly consistently over the last three years that Iwve been sitting here is -- is the attempt to protect against the minutest chance of something happening, and itws very, very expensive when you get down to that last 1 or 2 or 3 percent and -- and thatws what I want to be careful that wewre not trying to do with this. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. When we -- or at least I spoke to the sheriffls office sometime back, I told them that we would like for them to bring in a millage rate-neutral budget for this year, and it looks like theylye come pretty close to doing that. And the second point Iid like to make is that itls not really the function of the county commissioners here to be telling the -- the sheriffls office which is the most important piece of equipment for them to have. Thatls their job. And my point is that one option that we havenlt discussed here is that if the sheriffls office feels that this is a very important piece of equipment, what they need to do is go back into their own budget and make the necessary adjustments and do their own prioritizing work and fit this in and not have the Board of County Commissioners be prioritizing the sheriffls department equipment. MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner Norris, we do include in our operating budget a significant amount of the sheriffls equipment, including vehicles, but itls been policy and procedure to include in the 301 fund any of the major capital items that the board would have to either go for financing or make other arrangements. Thatls been historical the entire six years Iive been here and I -- I think thatls fair to say. What we do try to prioritize -- We have many, many, many needs. You know, welve been before you with helicopters. We have a lot of needs. We have prioritized them with what welve submitted to you in this budget package, the first being the jail expansion issue and this being another one of the primary needs that we have. If we try to take 850,000 and go into our operating budget, you would be removing the very road patrol that Commissioner MacIKie has indicated and we know the people want to see on the street. This is a complement to those road patrol positions. We need this to get those people out there and get them in the right places, and thatls why welve asked for it under this fund. Crystal Kinzel, the finance director. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You still missed the point, Ms. Kinzel. Therels really no need to respond. You missed the point. The point is we did not receive -- If we include this, we did not receive anything close to an ad valorem-neutral. Welre going to have to raise taxes to pay for this, and so we need you to tell us what is a priority. What you're telling me is they're all priority and you're not going to differentiate and that's -- that's not the answer I think we want to hear. MS. KINZEL: No. I told you we've submitted what is our priority to you for consideration, and the CAD is one of those. Now, on the -- the amount of 850,000, we can do a lease purchase arrangement so that 850 would not have to impact one year's budget. We could either do the lease purchase or another financing arrangement, or we can split the purchase and get the software imp1 -- I'm sorry -- the hardware installed and implemented in one fiscal year, then implement the software and the training and the other mechanics in the subsequent year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a recommendation and see if the rest of the board agrees and then see if we can move on, that we keep this on not recommended for a couple of reasons. One, and I think perhaps most importantly, is Commissioner Norris' point, that there are a great many things we'd love to have in all the departments; however, we only have so much money to spend, and I don't think we have an extra $850,000, and I don't think any of us are interested in raising ad valorem taxes right now. And I don't like the lease purchase thing because next year we are told we are going to have a bigger budget crunch than we have this year. So if we don't -- With a lease purchase, we're going to have this same problem come back and bite us next year. Secondarily, I don't know whether there's a system that's available for 500,000, 400,000, or 700,000. All we have is one line in front of us and -- and I'm not going to get into that debate as to what systems are out there. I don't need to now. But I'm not going to look at one line of three words and a number and say, yeah, we've got to -- we've got to have this. Maybe we do. And maybe as part of the sheriff's budget, as Commissioner Norris said, that needs to be prioritized above other things, but we simply do not have an extra $850,000. MR. DORRILL: We're -- We're certainly committed, and then my reason for not recommending it was essentially that and in the absence of an opportunity to evaluate it more fully. My colleagues around the state who do have GIS systems say that you need to work and start with your property appraiser and use the tax maps and the folio number IDs as your base system. And -- And this is a type of GIS system and will be to a certain extent proprietary for law enforcement or dispatch purposes, and I'm not opposed to it, but I just think we need a little -- a little more time to evaluate it and evaluate it from a perspective of -- if the county is going to pursue some type of GIS system, we ought to have one that is compatible for everybody's use, whether it's ours or utilities or Mr. Skinner, Mr. Carlton, or Ms. Morgan, because we're all dealing with geographical-based, population-type information, and that's why I think we need a little more time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it's my understanding that -- that Mr. Skinner is working on that -- that very program of GIS, and I've heard development services say they wanted -- want a GIS. The sheriff wants a GIS. I agree. I mean, why should we do this three times? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're -- We're getting -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four times. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting into a discussion again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. NIND: Commissioner, may I just make three very quick points? We are talking about the dispatch system and -- and a part of that is a graphics package, but that is only a part of an improved dispatch system. We are talking about a complete system, software, hardware. We are also suggesting to you that 850 was a figure that we have -- we have only looked at some systems when we have got some idea of the cost. We felt that that was top of the line, that amount of money. The other thing that I would like to do because obviously this is the subject that's isn't very easy to take at nine or ten in the morning -- I would actually invite maybe, all of you, to come over and to look at the dispatch system. I know some of you have seen it before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've been there. MR. NIND: But spend a little bit of time in there so that you actually see the way that that information is passed and also you can see some of the problems that do occur. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I hate to see this go to a not recommended status without us looking into if there is some way to do -- to share a system on the GIS. Maybe that part waits, but that we look at -- that we don't let this go completely away for the entire year. And -- And fundamentally what I wanted to say back a minute ago is -- is on the issue of -- of divisions bringing in tax-neutral budgets or -- or -- bringing in tax-neutral budgets, I think that we have to prioritize for -- for my money, forget that warehouse and let's spend some more money on law enforcement. I mean, maybe some division has to go below tax-neutral because there's a -- a glaring need in another division, and that's where we have the responsibility. It's not -- The needs in the county manager's agency may be less pressing than the needs in the sheriff's agency, so that then we have to -- to balance those items to come out with a tax-neutral budget. But to tell the sheriff to go away and come back with a tax-neutral budget may not be the best choice and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the -- the county manager said, I guess, ten minutes ago when we got into this that he's heard a better presentation now than he originally heard -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and he would like to take a harder look at it and possibly swap out Building W for it. His decision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make a suggestion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like him to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- If we're ready to swap out Building W, we probably don't need it in the first place. So let's cut that, and then if we come back and throw this in there to fill the gap, fine. And if we don't, then we have a decrease. But to say, well, we need it if we don't need this but -- Either we need the warehouse space or we don't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's priorities. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's right -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Priorities. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on the subject of how much money do we have to spend. And -- And I agree that it -- it's the first thing to go if there's a greater need. And, frankly, it may be -- I may be ready to vote with you to cut it anyway. MR. DORRILL: My suggestion is let's -- let's leave this as not recommended. I'm more than happy to work on it between now and -- and the beginning of the year. I'm -- I'm not willing to recommend to you increasing property taxes for it, but I'm more than willing to evaluate it and consider it the following year or to consider some type of interim or compromise proposal. I'm willing personally or otherwise not only to -- to learn more about the system here, but to go somewhere, whether it's Fort Lauderdale or Hiami or Timbuktu, to see the type of system because I do think we've got the ability to at least evaluate that from a business perspective, not a law enforcement perspective, and then make a recommendation to you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll support leaving it in -- in not recommended with the understanding, Chris, that I know some of the operation difficulties you have. MS. KINZEL: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The solution may not be a $850,000 for an interim step and that's -- that's where I'm coming from. So I will support it being not recommended with the expectation the county manager is going to bring this back at some time if we can find a way to make either an interim step happen or the whole thing happen. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can do that. MR. DORRILL: Okay. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman -- MR. DORRILL: Let's -- Let's deal, then, with this video imaging HR. FINN: Yes. HR. DORRILL: -- thing. HS. KINZEL: We had understood that you had eliminated that for wrap-up, and we were to bring you more information for wrap-up. So I apologize. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. MS. KINZEL: We -- We only brought one-half of the presenting group. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. MR. FINN: Very good. That being the case, if we move to page nine. On page nine is the water management budget. The primary source of funding for this budget is a transfer from the general fund. Mr. Boldt is here to -- to attempt to give you some idea of the projects that are involved in this and their relative order of priority. MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, stormwater management director. Before you, you have a list of items we're proposing, one of which is a track excavator. Do you want a detailed explanation of these as we go along or you just want -- MR. DORRILL: We need -- No. We need to give them a little because they haven't seen this, and you've only got a half a dozen items. And the first one is a piece of heavy equipment that is going to be replacing a dragline. So, John, you might as well explain them briefly so they can ask better questions. MR. BOLDT: We presently have a nine-year-old rubber-tired mobile dragline which is a cable-type machine. It has certain benefits, but the type of work we're doing recently -- particularly in some areas where we have soft ground, it doesn't do the job. We're -- We're looking at a piece of equipment. It's -- It's a rather track-hold type excavator with a long arm on it. There are different manufacturers that manufacture this. It will give us greater flexibility, particularly in the urban area, to clean up some smaller secondary ditches where we can work in soft ground without getting bogged down with the rubber tire. We'd also like to keep the rubber tire as a backup to do the emergency-type work, running around, cleaning up culverts, and we can take it from site to site. So that's our first recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John, I -- I just need a fundamental. A 423 percent increase, but you must be -- going to tell me that there's a "but" because it's not just a 423 percent increase over last year. MR. FINN: I -- I -- I think I would like to respond to that if I could. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you help me? MR. FINN: Last year the recommended water management budget contained no -- that is, zero additional funding for general fund projects. Essentially this -- the water management program, if you will, simply functioned on funds that carried forward from prior years' general fund support. So last year, essentially, this -- this whole program was in a holding pattern, and there was very little by way of expenditures and zero by way of additional funding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And had that been historically -- Is there an every other year kind of pattern going on here or -- MR. FINN: That has been the pattern. The funding has been sporadic. It's been up. It's been down. MR. DORRILL: Funding is sporadic and -- and I think you asked a question the other day about why don't we do more water management capital improvements and continue to focus on not only drainage and storm control but -- but water quality, and so this -- this is a year where we -- we feel that we do need to do some very specific projects. And that's why if you look at the middle of the page, there are individual ditches or canals or spreader systems for water quality projects. And, in addition to that, there is this piece of one heavy equipment. And I will say they haven't convinced me yet that we ought to keep the dragline and also get the track excavator. The track excavator is the type of machine, though, that we -- we did use with a great deal of success. We rented one to reopen Clam Pass. And they have done some evaluation. And the track excavator, which is a big backhoe, can work about three times as fast as this dragline because the dragline is cable-driven, and it's like a crane, and so they're looking at it to increase the productivity of the operator because he can do -- and you correct me if I'm wrong -- he can do three times the lineal feet of canal maintenance or canal bottom cleaning than he can with this old dragline and so that's -- This is considered to be a replacement piece of equipment with three times the efficiency of this old crane dragline that we have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And three times the cost or less? MR. DORRILL: That's a good question. If we were to replace the little giant mobile crane, if you can replace them, what -- what's the difference between a crane and this particular -- MR. BOLDT: I think they're down to -- only to one manufacturer that it -- it would be less than this piece of equipment but wouldn't have the advantage of -- This particularly has a long arm on it. It's a special piece of equipment. We can reach way across, get it from one side as opposed to having it working from two sides. So it's much more efficient. MR. DORRILL: But fiscally, though, can -- if we were to replace the dragline, can you buy one for $100,000, or is it $50,000, or do we know? MR. BOLDT: No. My guess would be closer to the 100,000 area. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see anything on here referencing the Davis Road, County Barn project. Are we still -- Where -- Where are we on that? MR. BOLDT: County Barn Road, the relief drain along the east side is going to be done in conjunction with a four-inning project, and that is being done by special assessment districts that you've already set up. So that's not within this fund 325 budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Let me ask, Mr. Finn, in this -- there's nothing additional on this page that we haven't been told about before; right? This -- We were told a few days ago at the first budget hearing that we were going up 1.1 percent. Was that -- MR. DORRILL: No. MR. FINN: No. MR. DORRILL: This is all-inclusive. Everything else that you will see today is inclusive. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. FINN: Yes. When Mr. Smykowski explained to you the fact that we were under the rollback millage rate over all and significantly under, relatively speaking, in the general fund, that millage included all of the funding you're seeing before you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That -- That's my question. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's inclusive of everything the manager has recommended in capital. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. MR. DORRILL: One final comment from me. In addition to the one piece of heavy equipment, and there are six specific projects that have -- predominantly in North Naples and East Naples, and they're identified by the specific capital project that is there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- My question is just this Lely work. Is this -- Is this to do stuff that would have been done by the Colliers for the Sabal Bay work so tied up in litigation? MR. BOLDT: Only in parts. This is the whole system that includes the area west of U.S. 41 and the Sabal Bay area, plus the main up to near Doral Circle, by Rattlesnake Hammock, and then the complete branch from there north to Davis Boulevard, east along Davis Boulevard. This is the whole system. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's all the Collier work plus more? MR. BOLDT: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Ready to move on? Next page. MR. FINN: Are we okay with that page? If we are, on page -- excuse me -- 11 and 12 are the park and rec capital improvement programs. On page 11 is a summary that just shows you the proposed projects and the funding requested. On page 12 is a little more detail that reflects the number of funds we have that fund parks projects. As you know, park projects are funded to a large extent by impact fees and to a lesser extent by a transfer from the general fund. On page 12 the fund 306 budget is the budget that's funded through the transfer from the general fund. The balance of those funds are, in fact, park impact fee funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This "TBD" for project, does that mean to be determined? MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was afraid you were going to tell me that. MR. OLLIFF: That's just number -- That's just a project number that has to be determined for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh. MR. DORRILL: We don't assign -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the project number is not yet assigned? MR. DORRILL: We don't assign project numbers until they're -- MR. OLLIFF: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We don't do that until the board -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought you were determining what the project was going to be. MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am. That's just the number. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That -- That's an accounting function. We do not set them up until we have at least tentative approval that it will be included in the budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the Lake Avalon number right? 500,000? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 500,000. MR. OLLIFF: That's -- That's one of the adjustments that we'll need to make to this capital budget, is based on the Lake Avalon decision that the board made -- What -- What page are you looking at? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 11. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 11. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. If you're looking at page 11, the $500,000 number would actually be spent in this year's budget in order to close on that property. The number just below that, the 222,700, would then become a debt service payment in next year's budget for the commercial paper note on the remainder of that -- that property. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then two other questions. The skateboard facility, where is that going to be? MR. BRINKMAN: That would probably be located in the Golden Gate area somewhere because it's centrally located. We believe that it may be at the community park. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the East Naples roller rink, what is that? MR. BRINKMAN: That is the skateboard facility that we're now buildinc at East Naples Community Park. MR DORRILL: That's not skateboard. MR OLLIFF: No. Not skateboard. MR BRINKMAN: I'm sorry. MR OLLIFF: It's roller hockey. MR BRINKMAN: The roller hockey. It's a roller hockey rink. MR OLLIFF: That is the remainder of that project. It's called basher boards is what they're called. It's the small waist-high boards along the outside of a roller hockey league rink, and that's what's the remainder of that project. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And where is that? MR. OLLIFF: East Naples. MR. BRINKMAN: East Naples Community Park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that mean, then, that we can reduce this 4.4 million by the 500,000 that's going to be removed from this year's budget? MR. FINN: Actually, ma'am, what would happen is we would expend that this year. It would decrease carrying forward that fund -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Got you. MR. FINN: -- lowering the -- lowering the budget but having no -- no real difference in the overall spending. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 220,000 for the dockmaster building at Caxambas, is that a private operation? In other words, is there someone operating under contract services? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. There is a -- We have a contractor down there that sells gas and also sells fishing supplies and things and it is -- The facility is owned by the county, but we contract with an individual to run that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Revenue producer? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: About how much a year? MR. BRINKMAN: Oh, gee. I think that that facility generates about $300,000 a year in profit, and we get a percentage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it goes into this fund, or does it go into the general fund? MR. BRINKMAN: It goes into the general fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: It's a good concession. It's -- It's the only boat, gas, bait facility between the Marco River Marina and some of the small marinas at Goodland. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just -- I was just asking where the profits went because we're paying for repairs to this facility out of one fund, yet the profits go into another fund, but then I guess it's a wash in the end but -- MR. DORRILL: It's all general fund money. It goes in the operating account, but then the operating account transfers the money to capital improvements. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that projects 80074 and 75 which are both Naples Landing projects -- that's a cooperative effort with the City of Naples. Those have carried forward from this year where they were funded. I have -- Subsequent to putting this together, I had heard from this -- the representatives of the City of Naples, and they've indicated that one of those segments is going to go to contract this year. So in all likelihood I'll bring back an amended budget for you that will show these actually expended in the current year rather than carried forward. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Woodruff has been very good at my request to keep us apprised in writing of both those and their pier project so that we could keep funds available and not re-allocate it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The eighth item down, athletic field development, $565,000, what are -- what athletic fields are those? MR. BRINKMAN: That will be either at East Naples Community Park or at the south -- new South Naples Community Park if we are able to get the land that we're working on right now. MR. DORRILL: Preference is to install a primarily softball, little league baseball type, because the East Naples Community Park in terms of fairness is one athletic field short if you can compare them generally to the other community park sites, and that has been the problem with the Army Corps permit for dredge-and-fill activities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is funded through community park impact fees. MR. OLLIFF: The other note I needed to make in this particular budget is -- is, again, this is the first full year that all new capital construction in parks is impact fee-funded. The only construction you see being proposed out of 306 is either commitments for replacement, playground equipment at some of your existing parks, or in the case of Gulf Coast Little League, those are repair-type commitments that we made when they actually either gave or sold at a very, very discount rate some of those existing fields. And because they are repair and renovation-type projects, they are not eligible for impact fees. So those are the only type of projects you'll see in ad valorem-supported capital from parks. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Those will add to our parks inventory though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion since Mr. Brinkman brought up the South Naples Community Park if we're able to acquire the land similar to Lake Avalon with Florida Communities trust fund. That's a $40 million fund for land purchase. MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. We can certainly look at -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we going to do a grant on that one too? MR. BRINKMAN: We can certainly look into that, sure. MR. OLLIFF: Good idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. BRINKMAN: Steve Brinkman. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it reasonable to assume or is it safe that you guys are looking -- You're diligent. You're pursuing these grants. You know, it's not like if we mention it, you're going to go look out for some grants. You're going to try to get grants at every opportunity; right? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. That's correct. MR. DORRILL: In fact, there was a mandatory preproposal conference in Fort Myers on June the 8th, and we had staff at that prepropose -- They had them all over the state. We were represented, and we do have the forms for those grants. And we are, in fact, applying for those for eligibility. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe to satisfy your concern, when I heard about the Florida Communities trust grant and brought it to the county manager's attention, his staff had already looked into it so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. MR. DORRILL: Are we on to roads? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. On page 12, for presentation purposes, I put the roads together in the same way as I put the parks together. On page 12 is a summary project by project. It's the total amount proposed in the budget. On page 14 are the various funds that support the total road program. As you know, roads are funded through a combination of gas taxes and impact fees. One thing I will point out, on page 12, in order to stay with the proposed cash flow plan for the 951 project, we felt it was necessary to carry forward -- excuse me -- the $2 million in loan proceeds budget that the board had approved as part of financing -- MR. DORRILL: Are you actually on page 137 COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's actually page 13. MR. FINN: I beg your pardon. MR. DORRILL: I bet you never made a mistake before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's human. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We'll allow him one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All I hear is the crushing of his soul. MR. SHYKOWSKI: He's used up his allotment of mistakes for today early on. MR. FINN: For the board's information, I -- I'll point out some of the projects that are being funded in excess of the road plan that we utilized last year. Project 62061 and 62071, those are projects both funded almost -- combining the two of those, there are a million dollars more in funding than in the road plan. The reason for that is to acquire right-of-way prior for development occurring in those areas thereby saving money in the long run on the construction of that -- of that particular segment. Another area of significant change is project 65041 which is the Livingston Road or the North Naples roadway. The funding plan did not call for any funding of that project in this year. There is almost a million dollars budgeted for that. The last thing I will point out is the two C.R. 951 segments, 66061 and 66062. And through prior board action, as I'm sure you're aware, we've advanced that project into the current fiscal year. That project is under contract, and the funding that otherwise would have been shown in '96 has been moved into the year we're in right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I note on page 14 we have a revenue reserve amount of $495,000. MR. FINN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Much more dramatic than -- than -- Is it much more dramatic than previous years, Mr. Finn? MR. FINN: No, sir. That would be in line with 5 percent that we typically reserve of those revenue sources. So that should be consistent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: A statutory requirement. We have to by statute underestimate our reserves. We can only budget 95 percent of reserves in any fund. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And that's consistent with the shift of the gas taxes. There are -- There are actually more gas taxes in the roads construction area in ninety -- FY '96 that were in the second year of the three-year transfer from operating the capital, so correspondingly there's an additional revenue reserve as a result. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question on the Livingston Road projects. I see Livingston Road down here at least five times. The 60061 and 71, what are -- MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What are they for? They're Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway and -- and Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway WA, whatever that is. What is that portion for? MR. FINN: There are four separate segments that we budget in separate -- separate project numbers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just trying to get to what -- the bridge question. We were talking Livingston Road yesterday. MR. FINN: I'm going to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to know what segments are in next year's budget. MR. FINN: I'm going to ask -- MR. ARCHIBALD: Those -- MR. FINN: -- George to respond to that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: -- if that's all right. MR. ARCHIBALD: Those two segments are the segments that will parallel Airport Road and extend as -- as you noted, from Radio up to the parkway and from the parkway up to Pine Ridge. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Is that PD and E, the -- the first two? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. And as Ed outlined, right-of-way. We're attempting to not only prepare a right-of-way map and be able to certify that, but be able to get into the right-of-way acquisition phase while there's some development activity north of the parkway. So we feel that there's something to be gained by having that right-of-way map in place early. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And 62061 and 71 is -- is all right-of-way acquisition? I know you said there's a million dollars more there that -- for right-of-way. MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe that's the -- the segment that -- You might need to help me, Tom. But I believe that's the segment up at Immokalee Road. MR. CONRECODE: Pine Ridge to Immokalee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 862 is -- MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from capital projects. That's PD and E and right-of-way for the segments from Pine Ridge Road to Immokalee Road, and then the fifth segment which was the first one that -- that they had talked about, that Ed had talked about, was the segment that is the HSTU portion of Livingston Road which will go from Immokalee Road north and then cut west over to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As this -- As this bridge discussion goes on, we're going to get questions and I want the -- you know, I want to be able to answer them. MR. CONRECODE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. FINN: I would like to point out -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to ask as a part of that right-of-way acquisition, is there extensive consideration being given to the Livingston Woods neighborhood? I know that there's been talk in there about everything from service roads to moving driveways and so forth, or are we just doing a straightforward right-of-way acquisition of "X" width? What is our approach on that? I know this is a little out of order, but I'm going to get the question if we approve it. MR. CONRECODE: Well, we are -- we are giving complete consideration to that, and we have a couple of options with the way Livingston Road aligns with Pine Ridge Road there. We have an FP and L easement that runs down. And in terms of the acquisition that we do, we can either go right up against the FP and L easement or we can leave a narrow strip which doesn't make a lot of sense -- it's not usable property -- and then move that over to the existing Livingston Road alignment. Right now for the Livingston Wood development, it looks more likely that we'll have limited access to a new road rather than use the existing road, but we haven't finalized those answers with George yet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? MR. FINN: There's -- There's a few things I -- I do want to point out for you. The two segments that are proposed to go under construction contract next fiscal year are projects 65021, Rattlesnake Hammock and project 67021 which is the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project. You'll see those are significantly higher than the other projects. Two other things. The first is that the budget that you're looking at is predicated on a -- on an impact fee budget that is approximately $800,000 higher than the plan called for. That's the good news. The second thing -- or the last thing I wanted to point out was that we are just now undertaking the planning phase of the road program. And much like last year, when we bring -- when we come to you in the first public hearing, it is entirely possible that there will be some changes to this, and I just wanted to make the board aware of that. That would be subsequent to the board approving an updated five-year plan along with -- That's the whole large planning thing. It includes all our planning people, Jeff Perry and George Archibald and typically the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It will be based on the AUIR, the update. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the -- Right. It will be based on the AUIR, and all these transfers are impact fees or gas taxes, and it's not going to affect the ad valorem. MR. FINN: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: That actually concludes looking at the various capital projects individually. Pages 15 through 25 behind the capital tab are informational in nature. It's just to indicate to you that all these funds are balanced and the way we currently have them balanced. At this point, there's really no need to take a look at these individually because we have reviewed each one in looking at the projects. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That concludes our capital discussion. Let's move into the sheriff's operating budget discussion. There is a separate tab in your book labeled sheriff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know how far this is going to run, but we can take a break at 10:30 though. MS. GANSEL: 10:30. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. The sheriff's budget -- I believe Mike told you there's a tab that starts the sheriff's budget. I would like to introduce Crystal Kinzel and Jean Myers from the sheriff's office who would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. Overall the sheriff is requesting a 4.6 percent increase. Included in this increase is 28 additional law enforcement positions which will be phased in throughout the year. He's partially offset some of the increased costs by reducing the costs of health and worker's comp insurance through managed health care plan and reducing overtime budget by $340,000. He also is budgeting -- is budgeting 3 percent attrition for non-emergency employees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's -- He's not budgeting attrition for emergency employees? MS. GANSEL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You typically have no vacancies in emergency employees? MS. KINZEL: No, we don't, Commissioner. But what we did try to do is reduce our overtime budget, and hopefully with the addition of the 28 slots -- we've had a consistent vacancy factor, but we are also -- we've had some intensive recruiting. We, for example, have made 50 conditional offers recently and will be hopefully filling the majority of our slots. Our intent is to fully man those slots all year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Kinzel, just to iljustrate, last fiscal year tell me how many employees you started with, and at the end of the fiscal year how many employees do you have? MS. KINZEL: I can get you that number. I didn't look at last year's number, but I can get you that number. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that's -- We're talking about attrition. It's not a matter of intent to fill slots, but a matter of a natural reduction of work force through the fiscal year that you usually end up with fewer at the end than you had to begin with. MS. KINZEL: No. That's not our case. We've actually added bodies through the year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you would say you have more employees now than you had at the beginning of the fiscal year? MS. KINZEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not just slots but actual employees. MS. KINZEL: Actual employees, yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. As we get to the detailed pages -- for instance, in law enforcement there were 539 slots in the adopted budget. Forecast is 556. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Kinzel, I can't help but ask this question. I've got to ask it in all honesty with this budget. You -- You said you -- you just made 50 conditional offers. MS. KINZEL: For all the positions. That's to get people lined up for not only the drill camp which is not included as a portion of this budget because that's state funded, but we have -- That's just to give you an example of the intensive recruitment effort that we have, and that those positions we fully intend to fill to get the people back out on the street. So we are not looking at a high attrition rate at all for -- for the future years. We can't afford it, and that's why we reduced the overtime budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I guess my -- my -- my question revolves around if you've had 50 vacancies but a portion of those from what you said are for the drill camp which is coming on line -- MS. KINZEL: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I'm -- I'm -- I'm having -- My thought process is toward these 28 people that you want in addition to what you've had but yet it appears you've had difficulty filling the vacancies that you have had, and I'm wondering where are you going to get 28 more bodies -- MS. KINZEL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to make applications. MS. KINZEL: We -- We've had a great difficulty in recruitment process, primarily due with a lot of the academy changes that took place over the last year. Now they've instituted the state test which they said was as bad as the CPA exam. I didn't believe it, but they swore -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not possible. MS. KINZEL: But we did have a lot of adjustment in the recruiting, and our criteria for recruiting is pretty intense. We have worked with the academy, and we are working through our Vo Tech training in-house to better prepare not only the people that we've made these offers to but also future applicants through the student ace program and all of those positions because we were experiencing a higher attrition rate than is acceptable. We can't continue at that high rate of overtime. So while we've experienced probably a number of vacancies, we are working diligently to -- to lower that. Also, out of that -- that 50 conditional offers that I mentioned, that's -- that's your clerical and road patrol, and that's also all of our other grant positions which are going to include the cops program which we funded elsewhere and the drill camp which will be funded elsewhere with the state funding. So it's not 50 out of our operating budget, but that was just to give you an example of our recruitment effort and the increases in that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think part of the reason that you have so much trouble filling the slots and I think an indicator of future attrition is that the pay for road patrol deputies is so low and -- and -- What's the starting salary for a rookie? MS. KINZEL: Twenty thousand five seventy-one. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Fort Myers it's -- MS. KINZEL: It's up to over 21-plus in Fort Myers. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know it's more than that in Lee County. It's more than that in Naples. It's more than that just about everywhere. And I think that part of the result is that we get people who are willing to work for less money, and people come here if they can't get a job somewhere else and -- MS. KINZEL: Can't pass the exams. Then our entrance criteria is still extensive. So you're exactly right. If they can make more in Lee County where the housing costs and -- and all those factors are less, they'll probably go there. But we are currently having a pay plan study done for law enforcement, all the positions at the sheriff's office. That should be returned to us no later than the end of August. We -- We do annual surveys. We compare ourselves to other sheriffs' offices, and we are following behind in the quadrant where we rank in pay levels. So we're having that studied right now and will be done by August 31 because that -- All of the indications are our entry salary's too low right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you also do -- I just wanted to mention, my brother is a detective in Hillsborough, and you also have to remember that there's a reason Dade pays a lot more and so -- so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not comparing to Dade. I'm comparing to Naples and to Lee County. MS. KINZEL: And, for example, we've also heard that Hendry Corrections or some of those facilities pay more than we do too, and to live in Naples is a lot more costly than those areas. So we're -- we're exploring all of the -- the local economy and living costs as well as salary so that you make apples to apples comparisons and not just at random. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And then after that salary survey is done, is it possible to incorporate some of that information in this year's budget? Because I'm concerned that you're not going to be able to fill those 28 slots. MS. KINZEL: Well, quite honestly, that's probably one of our primary reasons for not reducing our budget any further for attrition. We did the attrition on the civilian sides that are non-emergency services. But if this pay plan, for example, comes back and indicates that we need an increase to those pay levels, then we would need some funding for that. If we don't fill the vacancies, it is returned to you in turn-back. So, you know, we didn't want to cut ourselves too short on this budget, particularly in light of the fact I cut the overtime significantly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- My other question -- and I realize I've used up my turn -- is -- is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to start having bells up here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is I'm looking for a comparison of what administrators in the sheriff's office make to what road patrol deputies make, similar to the questions that have been asked about the school system. It's my impression that the sheriff's department is administration-heavy as far as money. MS. KINZEL: No. Well, that -- that is incorrect. For example, we have sergeants that actually make more than our lieutenants. Anything lieutenant and above is exempt in the sheriff's office and exempt from overtime pay. So they work numerous hours without pay. Our exempt hours, as a matter of fact, for the last year are significant. And when you say administrative, that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be primarily civilian administrative. MS. KINZEL: Well, the civilian administrative side, you really only have the records which are operations-related, personnel, finance, and data processing which also includes some of the dispatch. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what do those people make? What's an entry level administrative person make and an upper level administrative? MS. KINZEL: I think -- The entry level for captain is what? 35,000 entry level. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's for captain. Do you know what it takes to make captain? MS. KINZEL: That's entry, and that goes up. I'll double-check that. But there's also compression. When they did the pay plan study in '88, there's a lot of rank compression, and what you find particularly in exempts, when the sergeants work overtime, they're making more than their supervisor. And -- and also you have to realize the -- for example, the lieutenants and the captains, they're not just administrative. They're out there on the street. Whenever there's a call out, whenever there's anything, they're up day and night responding to those also. So they don't sit behind a desk administratively. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie -- Can I interject here? The sheriff is doing a pay plan study, and he's expecting to have that back to us the end of August, and he is taking a look at whether his entry level salaries are too high, too low, whatever, and I would suggest that we wait for the results. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But the only other point that I'm trying to get to is I don't know if that -- if that survey includes civilian employees. MS. KINZEL: It includes everyone in the agency. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Everyone down from the clerical level to captain, director level. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification, when -- We have no shortage of applicants for positions in the sheriff's department, do we? MS. KINZEL: No. Actually, we have a significant number of applications but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize certain ones of those either aren't qualified or disqualified. MS. KINZEL: Actually, we only are able to make conditional offers or -- or eventually hire -- three out of 100 applicants can pass the criteria and testing, and that's comparable to the nationwide stat for hiring of law enforcement because -- particularly when you're dealing with a drug-free work space and no prior drug use or minimal prior drug use policies and also polygraph exams and background checks, extensive background checks. It's more difficult to get those applicants through the process, but we have sufficient numbers of applicants. It's qualified applicants. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And why I asked that is because you had expressed a concern, can we fill that many positions. I don't think that's going to be a problem. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what they are hiring -- Well, I think it has been a problem. I think they will tell you they've had trouble hiring qualified road deputies. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anymore so -- I mean, you just said we're comparable to the national average. I don't think we're having any different situation than other law enforcement agencies. MS. KINZEL: I think if you look at the local academies, where our trouble runs is in -- is in competing with those other law enforcement agencies in the whole east coast -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- west coast of Florida. When you fall below the other hiring entities on the west coast, then everyone going to the academy who qualifies can work for any of those agencies. Naples is more expensive to live, and we pay less. That's a problem. So we're hoping to balance it out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think there's '- MS. KINZEL: So I think we can fill the positions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think there's anything we're reviewing today that this has any bearing on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MS. KINZEL: And, as a matter of fact, I would like -- I jump in and answer the questions that I have been because Jean was out last year, but Jean is going to be answering the questions for the budget, and I'll be quiet for a while, try to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Okay. Commissioners, on page two we have the fiscal information for the law enforcement section which is where we have the 28 additional positions. I want to point out some of the forecasting increases in the operating and capital costs. We had a significant increase in the liability insurance, almost $90,000 within this year, and there was $70,000 that was spent for security improvements in Building A and the six substations. Additionally, we have 285,000 for some space-saving modular furniture. So the personal services for the forecasts are down, but there were some significant increases in the operating and capital costs. Yes? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question. All 28 expanded positions, are those all entry level road deputy? Are any of those going to go for sergeant or experienced positions, or are they all entry level? MS. MYERS: For the record, Jean Myers, budget analyst for the sheriff's office. No. Those are all entry level road deputies. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? I don't see any. You can go ahead. MS. GANSEL: Okay. On page four we have the financial information for detention and corrections. There are no expanded positions in here, but as you might note, there were some additional positions between the adopted budget to the forecasted budget. There also are some operating increases, both in the forecast as well as the current. This is due primarily to the increased jail population, the double-bunking, as well as some of the renovations at the Immokalee jail to accommodate more inmates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These additional five positions in detention and correction, are all those correctional people for the jail? MS. MYERS: Yes, Commissioner. It's a combination. Nine positions originally were from the Department of Corrections' agreement with our former sheriff, Aubrey Rogers, that if we were to open to capacity the Immokalee jail center, that we would have an additional nine positions. The difference then to get to the five positions, we had a transfer of three positions from jail records. We combined them with our law enforcement record section. So that's a minus three. And then we also had a retirement of a maintenance worker in corrections, and that position has been eliminated. So that brings us to the plus five. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plus five. Okay. MS. GANSEL: Page six -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? MS. GANSEL: Page six is the bailiffs, and the number of positions is remaining the same in this budget; however, there is some reduction in the cost. They have experienced some turnover, and the new positions are at entry level, and those were the result in the decrease in salaries. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Next question. Next one. MS. GANSEL: On page seven is the E-911 special revenue fund. It sort of shows some major increases in this budget. One of the reasons for that is -- I believe it was on yesterday's agenda or a couple of weeks ago. You had increased the fee that the residents pay for the E-911. They are attempting to increase their reserve for capital. There's some major capital expenditures that they will be experiencing in the next few years, and they will be phasing that in the capital expenses. There is one additional position of technician they are requesting to be added to this budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is that technician going to be doing? I mean, we heard Mr. Nind this morning saying that there would be a -- a person dedicated to EHS and to fire when the 800 megahertz goes on line, but that's not due until the end of next year. MS. KINZEL: This is a separate function all together. Primarily the dispatch center operates independent of the E-911 services, the E-911 services which are totally fee supported, and in some regards you have approved that budget or the fee increase two weeks ago on the regular commission agenda because it doesn't coincide with the fiscal year here. But these three people work on updating the entire data base so that when a dispatcher keys in a phone number or when the phone number rings into dispatch, the address is correct to send the deputy to. So as our population increases, you have to have more and more people to maintain that data base, and that's their primary function. They also do public education on use of emergency systems throughout the schools and to the elderly and communities to further the community policing concept to actually -- to help them get information in. MS. GANSEL: On page eight is the confiscated property trust fund. The money -- The revenue from here is from confiscated property, and it is used for -- primarily for the Dare Program in the school -- in the schools for drug abuse prevention, and also it's used for matching grants, and we'll see the grants that they're proposing in a couple of pages. Okay. On page nine is the second dollar training trust fund. This is -- In some of the fines, there's an additional $2 that is levied, and this is transferred directly into this trust fund for training of police officers exclusively. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a number of questions back on page two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let's go backwards. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 70,000 for security improvements to Building A and six substations, I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just curious what that entails. MS. MYERS: We are at the current time upgrading all of the security to Building A and all of our substations. It's been determined due to, I guess, community protection -- we had secretaries and people that are accessible to the public just sitting out there in our lobbies, so we are in the process of -- it's lexan (phonetic) I believe is the term, a bullet-proof type glass that they will be sitting behind, and so that's just been some, like, wall modifications for this lexan both in Building A and at all of our six substations to make them more secure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are the -- some of the older substations -- I know in Golden Gate -- unless that glass isn't bullet-proof, I know in Golden Gate we have no access anyway to -- you can't see who's back there either but -- so that's just replacement? MS. KINZEL: Replacement. In the -- In the old substations we replaced it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Space-saving modular furniture, $285,000. MS. MYERS: Yes. We are currently in a critical space problem in Building J, and we are trying to put more and more people into the same amount of space, and it seems like with the old bulky desks and file cabinets that we just don't have enough room. So we are -- It's -- It's -- It's been -- We've been phasing in different areas of the sheriff's office over the last three years, and we're almost to the point right now where we cannot count on 301 funds, so we are absorbing that into our budget and trying to finish up the areas that we have not converted to modular space-saving furniture. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many square feet is it anticipated this 285,000 will save? MS. MYERS: I would have no idea on the square footage. I'd have to get back to you. MS. KINZEL: We can get that for you. MS. MYERS: Some of the areas -- I don't know if you've ever -- if you've toured Building J at all, but the finance area in particular, we -- this year we've done the personnel area, civil. Our records has been -- they've done like a phase two part of that. They had done part of that last year, and some of that was 301 funded. Yeah, records. And then now also in Building A, our vice narcotics unit, our YRD unit which are very large units over 25 to 30 people. Square footage I would have no idea. MR. DORRILL: My office had a concern on this particular item because what the young lady already attributed to. This should have been a major capital improvement request, and the only concern that I have as we look forward to next year, the commissioners directed all agency managers to budget for attrition. And if -- if I misstate this, correct me quickly. Essentially what happened here was they used personnel savings attrition money in the law enforcement division to purchase office furniture totalling almost $300,000 and -- and my only point for bringing it up is that if -- if you -- if you don't ask the sheriff to control his expenses for personnel and salary issues and tell him that your fiscal policy requires him to budget attrition -- and I'm not diminishing the need here. What I'm saying is that this need should have otherwise been identified as part of the budget with all of the other capital improvement projects as we did with the -- the clerk's agency this year, and we did spend -- we've spent 301 money on -- on the sheriff's improvements in the past, but what happened here was exactly what I said. He had attrition money for personnel and salaries that -- that ended up being spent several hundred thousand dollars worth of office furniture. MS. KINZEL: Well, I -- I don't believe it's fair to attribute it strictly to attrition. We had numerous savings in other areas, including our health plan and worker's comp. So the savings came from a number of areas, but that's one argument. The other problem is the -- the reason that we did not extensively budget for space saving is, quite frankly, we've held our hat on the fact that we're going to be expanding Building J, and we've tried to refrain from doing anything beyond the bare necessities in Building J. We are right now -- We've already gone to shifts in civil and records area where it's shift work. We have just now -- Part of this furniture will be going into a safe which we are taking the door off of the safe to add records clerk space. MR. DORRILL: Crystal, I'm not diminishing any of that. I'm just saying '- MS. KINZEL: I know. MR. DORRILL: -- That the -- the board's -- and I'm not trying to go backwards. I'm saying the board's fiscal policy said they wanted everybody to budget 3 percent for attrition, and on the law enforcement side, you've submitted your budget without doing that. That's '- MS. KINZEL: It was my understanding it was without -- For example, EHS did not budget attrition, and they are an emergency response unit, and that was the policy we followed. For the non-emergency, we did budget the attrition. For the emergency responders, we did not budget attrition. MR. SHYKOWSKI: EHS typically spends its -- its entire personal services budget. The budget policy was based on analysis of two years' prior year actual to budget comparison, and the agencies -- For instance, the tax collector typically spends the bulk of his personal services, so he was excluded from the attrition policy in the adopted budget policy as a result of that. The same '- MS. KINZEL: But -- But our budget reduction is also based on an analysis and -- and where I took the dollars out of what the overtime COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I hear the rest of what Mr. Smykowski was going to say? MR. SHYKOWSKI: For instance, on page two you'll note the adopted budget was approximately twenty-five and a half million. The forecast expenditures are 24.9 million, approximately $563,000 of salary savings. In this case, though, it appears that a portion of that was utilized in both additional costs in operating but also for space saving furniture. I guess to round up this discussion, one component is that in my overview of the general fund on Monday, I indicated that on the revenue side in the -- in the general fund we have budgeted $600,000 as a turn-back from the sheriff in both forecast and current, and obviously that is a -- now a revenue component of your general fund. So the -- the general fund is balanced and assumes $600,000 in turn-back from the sheriff's office. Over the past three years, the turn-back has been 1.373 million, 1.116 million, 1.008 million. And as a result, we felt comfortable at the $600,000 level, given that 3 percent of the entire personal services budget within the overall sheriff's budget is approximately $1.1 million. So we at this point have assumed 600,000 as a turn-back, just so that is clear. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, if you've historically been turning back over a million dollars, what's the problem with the $600,000 budget item? MS. KINZEL: We didn't object to that. He -- He was questioning the attrition, and I think what Mike's just answered for you is that the attrition -- basically you're upping our turn-back requirement so you have budgeted the attrition but just through a different source. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Or a component of it, not -- not to the full 3 percent. But obviously I guess the other issue is that we do not control the sheriff's ability in terms of how much he will actually turn back. So that's why I'm pointing out to you that -- you know, we are budgeting that and assuming that on the revenue side, but the sheriff obviously controls his own expenditures, and whether or not he'll actually turn -- turn that amount back or less or more is at issue, and we just wanted to point that out. That is a deviation from what we have done in the past. Typically, you know, it's been budgeted at 200,000 or thereabouts. Typically the turn-back over the last three years has been a million or better. MR. DORRILL: I don't want to beat a dead horse here. I think we can move on. It's -- It's our -- It's my obligation as the budget officer of the county to tell you that if someone hadn't adhered to your policy that you adopted, and it's our position that they have the ability to budget 3 percent for attrition both on the civilian as well as the sworn side and then let you make the decision and we'll move on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But does -- does history dictate that they use for the emergency -- for their sworn work force, do they use the bulk of the -- MR. DORRILL: It -- It appears not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- personal services? MR. DORRILL: It appears not. And once -- once you make the appropriation, I'll be the very first one to say the discretion of how the money is spent is solely the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To the sheriff. MR. DORRILL: -- responsibility of the sheriff. But from our perspective, it appears that the sheriff does, in fact, have the ability to budget 3 percent for attrition in accordance with your policy directive. If you choose to allow him to do something else, that's a decision that you need to make. I'm just trying to say from one agency manager to the other, I need to point out when -- when those occasions occur that -- that are not adherent with your policy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can anyone in this room tell me the dollar value if they did, indeed, budget 3 percent for all personnel? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 1,074,600. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be that much more? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. That is -- That would be a 3 percent total. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And what have they budgeted? MS. GANSEL: 170,000. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me we ought to follow up on our policy a little bit. MR. SMYKOWSKI: However, though, again, on the over side, we have of the turn-back to $600,000. MS. KINZEL: And I've reduced overtime by 350. So we're at 950 reduction in those two components. We're just managing it a little differently because we would like more efficient hours, and I would like to reduce the overtime. That with the additional bodies, we need to fill the road slots. That's our primary concern. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, Crystal. But the idea was that we're all talking the same language so when we look at your budget it's no different than another department's budget, and we're not. MS. KINZEL: Well -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not -- We're not talking the same language here. It's not -- to use your term -- an apples for apples, and so we have to ask these kind of questions, and it's really a waste of time. If -- If -- If the end result is the same, let's just all do it the same way. I mean, that just makes common sense. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So play the game, and put your overtime back in, and put your 600 back in, and do the 3 percent attrition across the board, and you get the same place by playing the game. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe I'm missing something here because everything they have told about equals roughly $950,000. Mr. Smykowski said if we simply budgeted for 3 percent attrition in the sheriff's department, that would be $1.74 million. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Of which they've already done. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 1.007. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 1,074,000. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 1074. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Still there's no difference. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. There's no difference. MS. KINZEL: And we've also reduced 170 for the civilian side. So we've already taken out the civilian side. So it -- it was a management issue on what's overtime, what isn't. We don't want the attrition. We're trying to encourage hiring. We do want to reduce the overtime. That's how we got there. MR. DORRILL: Wait a minute. Wait. It's -- It's a little more complicated than that. That would be like me saying, if you give me 20 new paramedics next year, I'll cut my overtime budget because I'm going to have all these full-time paramedics extra per shift. I won't need any overtime. So it's a little more complicated than just saying, give me 28 new deputies and then we'll cut back on the amount of overtime. MS. KINZEL: Well, I believe the issue was office furniture which we put off significantly in our area, and if you'd come over and look at the comparatives of furniture, I -- I think it's not a good issue to bring up on conditions for staffing. So, you know, we have put off purchasing a lot of things in the hopes of the Building J expansion. We have tried to sit where we sit. The desk I sit in is what I brought from home. Okay? That's -- That's no indication, just because I wanted the desk I had at home. But we're on the old metal wood leg desks, and we've just run out of space. So we're back to the furniture issues. I think we can look at some comparisons there as to how this started -- MR. DORRILL: No. I don't -- I didn't -- MS. KINZEL: -- and where we took the money and put the money so -- MR. DORRILL: I didn't intend to -- I didn't intend to raise a furniture issue -- MS. KINZEL: Okay. MR. DORRILL: -- or who's got the fanciest desk. I said that this commission in -- last January set a fiscal policy that said every agency manager was to budget for attrition at 3 percent, and it is our position based on the historical spending patterns of the sheriff that they have the ability to do that for both sworn and civilian people because unless you -- unless you control the appropriation, we've already said that how he spends the money is going to be up to him. This year is a pretty good example. There's -- There was $600,000 worth of attrition money on the law enforcement side, and they elected and they made their own management decision and they spent 300,000 of that on -- on, admittedly, space-saving office furniture. It's my job as the budget officer of this county to at least raise the issues when someone has not prepared their budget in accordance with the five to nothing policy directive that you gave in January. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which you raised it, Neil, and it's been responded to. I mean, you've done your job and -- and I -- I have heard and I think Commissioner Constantine just heard that the math washes. So, you know, everybody's done what they were told to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They -- They can go back and make the changes, but we're going to be at the same place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is, let's not have this discussion next year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. KINZEL: And I apologize, because our understanding was that the emergency services were not budgeting the attrition and not necessarily tied to the fact they had spent all their dollars previously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, we don't need to elongate this discussion -- MS. KINZEL: Yeah. Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but the direction usually comes from the board, not from EMS and we -- the board -- MS. KINZEL: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as a whole had asked the sheriff's department, and so hopefully in the future when the board asks for a particular policy, he'll respond to that policy instead of what another department is doing. MS. KINZEL: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: End of story. I don't need a debate on it. MS. KINZEL: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item. MS. KINZEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 37,200 for radios. If we're going to be replacing all the radios, I'm just wondering, is there any way we can hang onto whatever we have for another ten, twelve months until the new system is up and running. MS. MYERS: We're anticipating 28 extra road deputies. We need radios for them before they will -- before the 800 megahertz will be on line, plus replacements and -- for those that will not make it to the 800 megahertz. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understanding the timing that it takes from when you start focusing on hiring 28 deputies till the time they actually come on line, is there a possibility to reduce that number of radios or to phase it so that we may not have to expend all those dollars or that you can project obviously expending fewer dollars on that item? MS. MYERS: Yes, Commissioner. Of these 28 deputies, we are -- this -- The $993,000 that you do see in our expanded budget, they are being phased in, 14 at a time. Fourteen will be phased in, and they're based on the academy dates that we can get them through the school and get them trained. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. MYERS: So 14 of them are phased in or would only be on board for nine months, and 14 will be on board for five months. We are actually saving $348,000 by doing it that way as opposed to if we just said we wanted them all on October 1. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't talking about the phasing of the deputies. I was talking about the -- providing them with radios. MS. MYERS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that -- in dovetailing with Commissioner Constantine's question, but it sounded like that. MS. MYERS: They also need radios. That's another $152,000 you'd see in expanded. I believe Commissioner Constantine was referring to the current -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MS. MYERS: -- increase. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MS. MYERS: Which that's the replacements. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Okay. Wait. Now you've -- you've confused me, and it's not hard to do this morning. This -- When I asked what the 37,200 was for, you indicated that that was for new deputies coming on and for replacements. MS. MYERS: Right. The -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now you've said there's an additional 152 for new deputies? MS. MYERS: The 152,000 is for the additional 28 deputies. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The thirty-seven two, then, is simply for replacements? MS. MYERS: That's the in -- That's the increase from our last year's budget to this year's budget. So we actually didn't even -- We didn't increase 152,000. It's kind of the 37,000 for all of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What 152,0007 COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't think that appears on our sheet. I'm guessing you spent 152,000 last year or some burb minus 37 or -- MS. KINZEL: 32,000 is just the difference between the two -- It isn't? MS. GANSEL: No. The thirty-seven two is -- Yeah. I don't do just the increases in capital whenever I do highlights. I always just tell you what the capital is since you have that. The thirty-seven two is for current service for replacement of radios. The -- Any costs associated with the new positions are included in the expanded column, the capital acquisitions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which takes me back to my original question. If the 37,200 is strictly to replace old radios, can't we drag those along for another ten or twelve months? Now, I'm not talking about replace -- about new radios for new deputies. Obviously they need that. MS. KINZEL: Here's our problem. We've been dragging it out for about three years because of the Motorola and 800 megahertz conversion. We have cannibalized everything we can possibly cannibalize. If one dies now, we have no recourse but to get a new radio. I mean, we've got the radio shop because we knew the 800 was coming and we haven't replaced radios. We have radios that are ten, twelve years old out on the street that doesn't meet the guidelines for public safety at all for the radio retention and the age of a radio and our -- our shop has been very efficient in cannibalizing everything we possibly can. This is a minimal replacement because if it dies we have to have another one. But we -- You know, we put in the minimum amount really because we know we're going to be converting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two other items on this. 155,000 for data processing equipment. What -- What is that? MS. MYERS: Those are for new as well as replace -- replacement PCs within the agency. We have over 700 employees and only about 350 people actually have access or terminal or PC access. Even with the ones we have, we have some that are what our data processing people call dinosaurs, and they are not capable of handling the information that they need anymore. This is approximately 35 new PCs for our agency and throughout the various bureaus. If you would like that breakdown, I have it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I would. And finally CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: have thought. That's $4,000 a piece. $4,000 a piece? Yeah. That's about double what I would MS. MYERS: They range anywhere from -- depending on laptops, we -- we are purchasing them for about $2,800. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the math doesn't come out. MS. KINZEL: But you have to factor in all the cabling, the install, the software licensing, everything having to do with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you've got another 20,000 here for software. I'm -- I'm going to assume licensing -- MS. KINZEL: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Is included in software. MS. KINZEL: Right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's 35, the -- the math doesn't work. MS. MYERS: There are -- There are other things. I didn't get to finish that. I'm sorry. We also have -- In that, what we call data processing equipment, we have -- it's called a touter modem multi-plexer. It has to do with the communications between our off-site areas. I don't have the technical description of that. That is also included. Since we do have a lot of remote sites, that is also included in that line item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It still seems awfully expensive. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, offhand, our IT department is buying computers, touter modem multi-plexer finaglers and all that good stuff. What are we paying? MR. DORRILL: I -- I can find out and let you know. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just again looking for that apples to apples. You know, another agency on a large-scale purchase for installation and software and so forth what's the comparison because I agree. I open up the paper and see $1,200 for a -- for a complete 486DX PC unit with everything under the sun including software and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's old now though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's an old one though. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I know. It's not a 586 with a Pentium chip but it works. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Pentium may even be getting old at this point. A question I have on what you said is that you have over 700 employees, and 350 of them have access to PCs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many are road patrol? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many are on the road patrol that don't even use PCs? MS. MYERS: Approximately 200. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 200. MS. MYERS: They -- They may have one at their substation, a terminal or a PC. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. But they don't each have one? MS. MYERS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, they -- they have -- MS. MYERS: No. They have access to one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They come in on shift and they have access to a station to prepare reports and correspondence and that kind of stuff? MS. MYERS: Right. And I'm not -- I wasn't -- I hope I didn't insinuate that they had a need for one, no, but that we do have 700 people, but sometimes there might be a greater need than to have just one available to our road patrol at our substations, but we just currently do have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not comfortable with that. I don't think the numbers add up, first of all. Also, when you say, well, sometimes there's a need to have more than one for a road patrol at our substations but they only have one -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- That doesn't make sense to me -- MS. KINZEL: Why don't we come back and do it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Just one for a shift change at a substation, you know, to get them home to family, you know, if one PC is going to be tied up. MS. KINZEL: Why don't we get you a full list of the equipment detailed and what he pays for the equipment because I'm confident that we price-shopped and bargained. We're below state contract prices on most of what we buy, so I know there are more component pieces, and we'll get you the full analysis per PC. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be helpful. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would be helpful. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final item is 700,000 for vehicles. Where are we? What's going on with the fleet? MS. MYERS: Our fleet -- that seven hundred and -- it's actually $706,000. That has been our budget request for the last three years. That's our -- We are currently still under the five-year, 100,000 miles. We do minimal purchases. We are right now going to a seven-year life of our vehicles and 120,000 miles. The point I'd like to make is we are asking for the 28 expanded road deputies. You do not see any expanded for vehicles because we feel that with going from the five to seven years and the 120,000 miles, we will be able to keep enough cars to have a car for these 28 deputies. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many patrol-type vehicles do we have, including those from Ford that are donated? MS. MYERS: Including the ones from Ford? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The answer from the public would be not enough. MS. KINZEL: Trying to get more from Ford all the time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we get Chrysler to compete with Ford? MS. KINZEL: Actually, a lot of the -- the makers are going away from the high-impact -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: High performance. Yeah. MS. KINZEL: -- road vehicles, and we're even seeing a reduction. They're not going to be making -- I think the Crown Vics next year is the last year and they're -- you know, they're phasing down to the Tautuses, and a lot of them are getting out of the law enforcement business all together because of the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So next would be the Baron convertible police car. MS. KINZEL: Well, our guys would like that, but we don't do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of tough to keep the light bar on top of that. MS. MYERS: Commissioner Constantine, I don't know if you have -- if you're looking at our budget book, but page 46 has -- our marked patrol cars are 270. Our unmarked are 146, and our Ford test cars are 35. That's 451 in our total fleet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there usually 70 cars down at a time? MS. MYERS: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there usually 70 cars in repair at a time? MS. MYERS: Not that I believe. I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I just thought in our discussion a moment ago on a different topic you said there were roughly -- When we were talking about computers and how many road deputies there were, the discussion was that there were about 200. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Unmarked for investigation too. MS. KINZEL: That's a road patrol function. It doesn't include K-9, SRU, and all the specialty units, and they're all in marked cars on patrol. She was just quoting the road patrol in the districts road patrol. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many -- How many K-9 units and -- How -- How many are we looking at all tolled there if we just start adding all that up? MS. MYERS: There again, if you look in our budget book COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page? MS. MYERS: -- page 75 is a breakdown of our positions. We have 396 certified law enforcement officers. There's some -- couple of pie charts on that page. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And all of those have use for their own vehicle, have need for their own vehicle? MS. MYERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we have 60 -- We have 60 cars in repair at any given time? MS. MYERS: No, they are not in repair. We also do have a few civilian positions that do have access to a car as well as a few corrections, and these also do include our unmarked surveillance vans, the -- we have two BAT mobiles. So, I mean, they all aren't cars that somebody's taking home at night or that they're in the shop. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a '72 Firebird used for drug buys that sits most of the time. MS. MYERS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's not -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really -- It's really not a'72 Firebird. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not going to be able to be used anymore, I guess. UNKNOWN VOICE: Formerly used. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yellow license plate XR. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please don't report that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, out of that page -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We probably just gave the sheriff a heart attack. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If only I knew what I was talking about. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. There you go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From that page, I would like to flag the 155,200 for data processing and -- until we have further MR. DORRILL: I -- I've got that. We -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- information. Yeah. Let me just finish. MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Until we have further information on that, I'm not comfortable funding that until we know more details than we have. I also have -- I'd like to see more details on the modular furniture. I'm sure you can save some space over there, but I'd like to have some idea of how many square feet are you saving. What -- What are we achieving by spending close to 300,000 bucks. MS. KINZEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, did you have some information on PCs regarding the county? MR. DORRILL: You had asked what we used for budget purposes. For replacement PCs, we budgeted 3,000, and that includes the going rate plus shared printers. We don't purchase printers for every -- we -- we share, like, one printer for three or four different people. If it is a new -- If it's a new installation, we budget at about 4,000, a little more, because then you do have the wiring. You have first-time software. You've got licensing fees to establish the little lans, what we call servers. You have to purchase servers, and it's between four and 5,000 if they're brand new. But if we're replacing or trading out, we use 3,000 as a plug number, if you will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that for PCs or for dumb terminals? MR. DORRILL: Those were PCs. I'm distinguishing, and that's why our cost to get away from the dumb terminals and go to these new lans with servers is -- is higher than that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Given the transition to IT and looking to a local area network type, we're at this point discouraging the purchases of dumb terminals, knowing what our future direction is at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to interrupt this portion and take a break. It's quarter of, and we could probably rest our brains for ten minutes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have consensus on those two items? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Neil, at this point did you want to get an idea where the board -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. The -- The sheriff's office said that they would get us additional information on the 155. MR. DORRILL: I'll speak to the chairman at the break. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: workshop for June the 21st. MS. KINZEL: Still. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Constantine, you have more. Let's reconvene the budget We're doing the sheriff's budget. Still. Ding. Round two. Ding. Ding. Ding. Mr. Constantine -- Commissioner COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. Just before we broke, I mentioned getting more information on data processing. Could somebody do that today since we need to finish the budgeting process today? MS. KINZEL: Sure. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also, I'm -- I'm still not comfortable with the attrition numbers. I did a little math on the break. I don't think it's actually a wash. I don't -- I don't think we come up the same either way, and I'd be much more comfortable if we looked at cutting some dollars there. I don't know what the rest of the board thinks on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comment? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just -- Could you share the math with us then? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And I -- I have my little yellow sheet back there but it's -- roughly half a million dollars is -- I don't have the math in front of me, but it's roughly half a million dollars. I think Neil did something similar. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think what we're -- what we're talking about here is -- is the -- the 3 percent attrition is a million seventy-six, and they budgeted $170,000. That's roughly 900,000. And last year they budget -- there was a budgeted turn-back of -- what? 200,0007 MR. SMYKOWSKI: 207, but round numbers 200. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 200. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good job, Mike. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And this year we're budgeting 600 for a turn-back? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we've really only got $400,000 there, not $600,000. So we're -- we're kind of a half a million dollars off. And when we throw into that mix, normally, Crystal, you turn back a little over a million dollars and -- and if we budget even 600,000 for a turn-back, we're still $500,000 off. So it -- it seems like there is a half a million dollar number here somewhere. MS. KINZEL: But there was about a $700,000 savings last year in our health and warker's camp premium reductions and -- and part of the turn-back last year was significant savings end up an expenditure and not directly attributable to attrition. So if we're going to go in a pure sense budget to budget, you know, we'll go back and calculate that number exactly. I'll work it out with Mike and do it the same way as the other departments and -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you'd prefer to do it -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we're still under budget for turn-back though. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you'd prefer to do it that way, the turn-back has been 1.3, 1.17, and one point something the last three years. So we can -- let's -- let's -- if you want to just go strictly by that, let's do a million dollar turn-back this year instead of 600,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me ask -- Let me ask, what's your objection to just doing like the rest of us in our request and budgeting 3 percent attrition? MS. KINZEL: I -- I don't have a concern with that. I -- I thought what I was hearing you said would be that we would leave the turn-back number high and budget the additional attrition rate, and I think that's hitting both sides of the angle because the majority of our turn-back previously has been attrition and also expense savings, not attrition, in, for example, health insurance and warker's camp. I have no objection to sitting down with Mike and working it out the same way everyone else has worked it out. That's what I said. We'd like to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe last year was health savings. I don't know what it was the year before or the year before that, but Mike told us the last three years it's been well in excess of a million dollars. And -- And your suggestion just a moment ago is, well, let's look at past budget history. Let's do that, and then if the turn-back has been in excess of a million dollars the last three years, let's simplify this and just say, instead of budgeting for a $600,000 turn-back, we'll look at the past three-year history, and we'll budget for a million dollar turn-back. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about doing both things or -- or one? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying just do that, and we'll leave the other. We'll leave just the -- the clerical side on attrition, and then we'll sort it out and put it all consistent next year, but I think it achieves the same thing. We'll get 400,000 back into the budget that way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you guys care which way we do it? MS. KINZEL: It's going to be the same dollar amount. That's -- No, we don't care. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So whatever is the board's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not sure it's going to be the same -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not either. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Budget amount, Crystal. And -- And the reason I say that is because you -- you say you've reduced your overtime by $350,000, but you -- you've got -- you've got additional positions. You've -- You've just put out 50 offers. Now, I know some of those are drill camp, but let's say you've put out 30 offers to fill positions that you were not paying salaries for and -- and that overtime that you've been paying is a function of those 30 positions not being filled, and then we're giving you 28 more positions on top of that. So your overtime allocation is going to come down anyway merely because you filled the 30 positions that have previously been budgeted for. MS. KINZEL: I wasn't arguing the amount. Whichever way you want us to go back and work it, we'll calculate it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd -- I would like to suggest -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that it's traditional in every department that we budget a turn-back amount but generally less than we expect to get to err on the conservative side. Is that a fair assessment? We don't -- We don't budget, say, the exact average of the last three years on turn-back. We budget generally a little lesser amount so that we don't end up on the short end; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I would suggest is that we -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Turn-back is not guaranteed obviously. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It's not guaranteed, and we don't want to count on something that may not be there. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's a prudent approach. So what I would like to see is, let's do this budget the same as every other. Let's budget for the attrition and -- you know, for -- for all positions, not just non-certified, budget attrition for all positions and leave the turn-back at 600,000 and see where we end up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And keep the overtime low. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, that -- that -- it's already been done. It's just how the numbers are -- are reflected to us, and they just need to be reflected in the same manner that other departments have -- have done it in. So that's all I'm trying to do, is get this on the same format that everything else we've looked at is on. And others have budgeted for attrition; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: None of the constitutional officers have budgeted for attrition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: None of them? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Crystal is going to be a champion, and she's going to go out and do it. MS. KINZEL: Well, I -- I will say that I obviously have to take this back to the sheriff and -- and I'm -- I'm saying we'll calculate it however you want and give you those numbers but the -- the policy is for the sheriff to come back to you. So we'll be glad to do that but come back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The history though -- Just in answer to your question, the history, like in Guy Carlton's, he doesn't have a turnover there. He has not historically had 3 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He does not have the attrition to budget for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we've determined that the sheriff's office has. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we want to see it applied in that instance. Just as we have in all the county departments that have attrition, we've asked that it be applied. MR. SHYKOWSKI: At this point, then, your direction is 3 percent attrition -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Across the board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- in the sheriff's office. Obviously the turn-back I'm assuming would not be at the 600,000 level if you're __ COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- counting on a million dollars in attrition. Just -- I just want to be clear on my direction so that I don't leave the room today with unclear -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're saying budget the full 3 percent for the attrition; lower the overtime because they have filled the positions that created the overtime last year; and the turn-back, whatever I guess it's historically been, a couple hundred thousand dollars. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that -- I think that's the better way to do it and the more appropriate way to do it I should say because we're -- we're sitting here -- we're saying we -- we're giving you line item "X" because we think we're going to do something on "Y" and "Z" over here, but that's not the procedure. You're saying, well, we're going to cut overtime; and, therefore, we don't want to budget attrition. Well, you know, it's not the same thing. It's just not the same thing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they're going to do it now the way that -- I mean, I'm just wondering have we settled this so that we Can '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we've settled it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Three percent attrition -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- on total personal services within the sheriff's budget, turn back at approximately 200,000. That is what my understanding is at this point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the goal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not the goal. That's what we're budgeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Remembering that a budget is a spending plan. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And remembering the sheriff can tell us to go fly a kite, but we hope he won't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we can tell him to go see the governor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, we can't. I mean, we allocate the funds. So he can tell us whatever he wants, but it doesn't mean he's going to get more money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you finished with your -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Those -- That answers mine as long as we have an answer on data processing before we wrap up today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was trying to show constitutional respect there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Gansel, where are we on the other? MS. GANSEL: We've gone through the other cost centers and then the trust fund. The only remaining fund that we had was fund 115 on page ten. This is their grant fund. As I had indicated in their confiscated trust fund, they transfer money to this fund as a match, and three grants that they have made preliminary application for at this time are COPS MORE, domestic violence grant, and criminal -- career criminal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's a domestic violence grant for? I mean, it's $19,000 I understand, but yesterday Judge -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wilson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Wilson was -- was looking for 127,000 for a domestic violence unit as well. I mean, is this a duplication? MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. This is a -- Communities can apply for this grant and different entities did. We were one of, I believe, eight funding agencies that pursued a grant for the domestic violence group, and we were ranked number one out of those eight competitive groups. We're not in competition or in overlap at all with what Judge Wilson is trying to do, and we'll work directly with her. We've had that unit in place, and there's a statutory requirement, for example, that the sheriff's office do mandated notification of victims and that we do provide certain victims services and referrals. So that's what this unit is for. We've also taken an existing investigator to work with Judge Wilson's unit, but none of these will be duplications of services. They're providing a different angle. Her's is through the court system. Ours is for direct referral to project help the abused women shelter and also notification and help with processing injunctions and instruments of that nature in domestic violence situations. It's also not only domestic violence. This particular one that we were grant-funded for will be located in Immokalee which at present has no services directly other than the victim advocates that we ship out there from the Naples area. So this will be for an Immokalee person primarily. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I just wanted to make sure that it's not a duplicated service. MS. KINZEL: And we're working very closely to ensure that that doesn't happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And in addition to that, once the court system -- domestic violence unit is up and running, is there a way that we may be able to get more effort for this $19,000 by coordinating more closely even with the court system to get added effort, economy of scale? MS. KINZEL: Well, I think that's what we're exactly trying to do. We're working with the clerk of courts, the judges, and the sheriff because of all the elements through prosecution, arrest, and, like I said, restraining orders and injunctions, those comprehensive victims services with these positions so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we're coordinating completely with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the career criminal grant is to train more career criminals? MS. KINZEL: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MS. KINZEL: Just the opposite. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought I'd check. MS. KINZEL: We've had great success with that. That -- That program in particular is one of the premier around the state. They bring people here to look at our system. And if you have a particular interest, the state has commended us particularly -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Crystal, I was just kidding. I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She just wanted a chance to brag. MS. KINZEL: That's it. I try to get the positive points out when I can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is a good program for sure. Does that complete the sheriff's budget? MS. GANSEL: That completes the sheriff's office, and we will come back this afternoon with those revised figures. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. For the benefit of -- of the -- our budget staff and the others who are here, we have decided to have a working lunch. We're going to be ordering sandwiches and continue to work through so that we can try to wrap this up early -- early afternoon. Okay? Thank you, Miss Kinzel and MS. KINZEL: Myers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Myers. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's next? MR. FINN: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Edward Finn, budget office. I think at this point in time we are behind the support services tab. And, as you know, from the manager's reorganization, support services is now -- rather, EMS and the previous administrative services department have been integrated into one larger division called support services. Immediately behind the tab on page one, we're going to start with the departments that were previously emergency services, and Mr. Griffin is here to sit in for Mr. Ijams. He's right there in front of you. And if everybody is ready -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're ready. MR. FINN: All right. On page one, this is the budget that -- This is the emergency services division administration budget. You will notice that there is no budget next year for this section. This is one of the administrative sections that was eliminated as a result of that reorganization. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next page. MR. FINN: Next page. Page two is the 800 megahertz administration budget. One position, the 800 megahertz administrator position, has been moved into this -- this particular budget. The forecast operating expenses are for contractual maintenance on the existing 800 megahertz administration budget or administrative radio system. Next year's budget includes operating expenses for the administration and project management of the 800 megahertz. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the salary for that position? MR. FINN: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The salary for that position? I see 46,200. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That includes retirement. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would include benefits. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: salary? MR. FINN: 35. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. FINN: Yeah. 35. anything more? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. FINN: Page four. Yeah. So what's the ballpark 35? Is the board interested in Ready to move. Ready to move on? Next page. This is a dedicated funding source for the 800 megahertz program. The funding source is from a twelve fifty surcharge on moving traffic violations. Operating expenditures for the 800 megahertz system are budgeted here. The balance of funds are placed in reserves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next page. MR. FINN: On page five -- On page five is the emergency management budget. This is Mr. Pineau's budget. This is Mr. Pineau's budget. There is really nothing significant here. This is a pretty significant increase over the prior year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He has a 21 percent decrease -- MR. FINN: Yes. I think that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- in operating costs mostly -- mostly. MR. FINN: Before we pin a medal on Mr. Pineau, that's -- that's largely attributable to moving the 800 -- the existing 800 megahertz radio system contractual maintenance contract into the 800 megahertz administration budget. If you can say that three times twice -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's funny money. Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But his operating expenses did go down more than his personal services went up. MR. FINN: Yes. That's true. Mr. Pineau has done an admirable job in holding the line. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next page. MR. FINN: On page seven -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good job, Ken. MR. FINN: On page seven is a budget for miscellaneous grants. These grants are primarily emergency service-related. There's a forestry grant for the Ochopee fire district, fire equipment, as well as some emergency management grants. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. MR. FINN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No questions? MR. FINN: On page eight is the medical examiner budget, contractual service provided with Dr. -- Provided by Dr. Coburn. There's a 3.1 percent overall increase. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. FINN: Very good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No questions. Are there questions? None. On page -- Well worth the drive here. Thank you for coming. MR. FINN: On page nine is the Immokalee medical assistance program budget. This is a fairly long-running interim program. The board's action at the program budget time was to eliminate the shuttle program from this budget. Last year the shuttle program cost about $24,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next page. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the TD picking that program up essentially? MR. FINN: I do not have any information myself. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that's we thought. That's what we were told and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That it would. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. FINN: It appears that Miss Flagg may have some information. MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, EMS. I spoke to Mr. Larson who is the director for community transportation. He is putting a proposal together to include, incorporate those services of transporting patients from Immokalee to Naples and back to current services. If there is an additional cost, I've asked him to put a proposal together so that we can let you know what that is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because he -- he can -- he can transport those patients and bill Medicaid, Medicare, whoever for it. MS. FLAGG: Yes. We talked about that, and I said the goal is to just incorporate it and there would no cost, and he said, well, certainly he would look at it and let y'all know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We agree with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Page ten. MR. FINN: On page ten is a division of forestry budget. This is a payment Collier County makes to the division of forestry for -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is going away, isn't it? MR. FINN: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no, no, no. That's the Irving forestry. I'm sorry. MR. FINN: There is a decrease here. This is based on per acre assessment of the woodland areas in the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: Take it out of the unincorporated area general funds. On page 11 is the Isles of Capri fire and rescue budget. You may recall during the program budget review there was a proposal to add some full-time firefighters to this department. That proposal subsequently has been revised. The proposal you see before you proposes to add enough funding to hire a part-time firefighter 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. I think their intent is to get a fully trained volunteer-type person in there to provide that coverage. That coverage would continue to be supplemented with the volunteer effort that -- that has been ongoing down there for many years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question here. The last proposal I heard from the advisory board was that they wanted to -- I see we're going to have some help answering this question. Why don't you tell us what -- what your latest proposal to do is then? MR. GRIFFIN: The latest proposal is to use the existing fire -- volunteer firefighters and dedicate -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, would you identify your name? MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry. I'm Bill Griffin, administrative manager for the no longer emergency services division. Their most recent proposal and the proposal you have before you is to use the existing volunteer firefighters but to assign them a 12-hour shift per day and then to pay them $8 per hour while they're on duty at the station. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you'll have one -- one person in the station for 12 hours a day every day? MR. GRIFFIN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to have a little help here. My definition of volunteer -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Free. MR. GRIFFIN: That's why they become a part-time paid department, but they're going to use the existing volunteers to do that, and the existing volunteers will supplement the part-time paid staff when they're on duty. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What will this do to the existing millage rate? MR. GRIFFIN: It will increase it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I couldn't find it here. MR. GRIFFIN: -- by -- MR. FINN: It will increase from approximately .25 to approximately .7. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It will double the millage. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More than double it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Almost triple it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Almost triple it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is this the thing that we had a groundswell of support for, if I'm remembering right -- MR. GRIFFIN: The existing millage -- Our cap for operating is one mill. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we also had a groundswell of opposition. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. For -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We were told we had a groundswell of support and we found a groundswell of opposition. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait. Wait. Wait. I think we're confusing two different proposals. There was one proposal that was to hire three full-time firefighters. That one gamered a lot of opposition. And this latest proposal, as I understand it, is the sort of gelling out of everybody's proposals and -- and finally has the community to a large degree in support of this proposal. Is that a pretty accurate statement? MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. And that was mainly to keep the millage cap below one mill because if they went full-time paid, they would exceed that which would require us amending the ordinance and those sort of things. That's what they elected not to do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And there was some side proposals that they may want to merge into one of the other fire districts and that sort of thing, but this is what they finally sort of agreed to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're comfortable that the majority of Isles of Capri is okay with this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I hear. I have not heard any violent opposition to this latest proposal. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Violent being the key word. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is our deputy today? MR. FINN: Commissioner Norris is correct. I think it's important to note that the proposal that originally came to the board was for three paid full-time firefighters. It was going to necessitate a significant -- a more significant than the millage increase you're looking at now. It was going to necessitate amending the ordinance and having -- having the full public hearings, and what you see before you is perhaps a reduced version of that, that the representatives from the Isles of Capri feel that the residents down there are willing to accept. It's a reasonable alternative, given the even larger millage increase that might be required. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize we're not doing public comment until we're done and everything, but is there anybody here from Isles of Capri that is in opposition to this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't look like it. UNKNOWN VOICE: They're all up north. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're all up north? MR. FINN: In this budget -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's nobody on Isles of Capri. MR. FINN: Excuse me, Madam Chairman. In this budget, you also note there's funding for the acquisition of a front-line -- a pump vehicle. The estimated cost of that vehicle is $100,000. The proposal you see before you is to use funds that have been put in capital reserve for the acquisition of that pumper to use those funds for a down payment and to enter into a five-year lease purchase arrangement. The estimated payments down the road will be $15,000 a year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For five years? MR. FINN: For five years, yes, ma'am. And that -- And I'm also going to point out that that's estimated to have about a .11 mill increase impact when those payments come due. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a new pumper? MR. FINN: I believe it would be a replacement for the existing piece of equipment. MR. GRIFFIN: That would be for a new pumper to re -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For a brand -- For a brand new pumper? MR. GRIFFIN: To -- To replace the existing one. That's what I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the existing piece of equipment? MR. GRIFFIN: It's a 1979 Ford that has become -- from a mechanical standpoint, often breaks down and is very expensive to maintain. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much maintenance have you put into it this year dollar-wise? MR. GRIFFIN: Dollar-wise there's about $5,000, I believe, this year in maintenance so far where in past years they haven't had that kind of a problem as far as ongoing expense. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's an awful lot of $5,000 to pay for a new pump. MR. FINN: Chief, can you identify yourself for the record, and perhaps you could shed some light on the frequency of breakdowns? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: I'm the new chief of the Isles of Capri. My name is Emilio Rodriguez. And I feel that we compromised from the proposal, the first proposal, that we submitted a mail-out to all the residents, approximately 600 of them, asking them exactly what they wanted for their fire department and we've -- could put in there the three options. The first option was either stay all volunteer but we need more volunteers or -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay with the personnel. I thought we got past that. My question is on this pumper. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: On the pumper. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, our pumper now is in very bad shape as far as it's unreliable. There's been several times where we've responded to emergency calls and we've lost all the power of the truck where we've had to run off the road several times, and that's scared all the volunteers to operate the pumper because it's a big truck, it carries a lot of water, and you just don't stop on a dime, and we've haven't had the problem -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there -- I've got to imagine out there in the vast world of fire protection that as people -- as different departments trade out old, used equipment, that there is still some good used equipment out there, and I'm wondering if there's a happy medium. If this one is a danger, we don't want to keep it, but at the same time, do we need a brand new piece of equipment as opposed to perhaps a quality -- MR. GRIFFIN: We did look at one other alternative, and that was to refurbish what we would call refurbishing the existing vehicle, and estimates we had on that was anywhere from 70 to $80,000 just to bring it up to current standards and make it reliable, and that's why we felt it would be better just to go ahead and do a new One. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question, though, is there a used market out there? When East Naples Fire Department purchases a new pumper, I assume there's somewhere they trade in their old one and __ MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. I believe they do, but it's also my understanding that when a department gets rid of an old pumper, that's the reason why they're getting rid of it, because it's in a similar condition of what this one is, and that's why they're getting rid of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So those trucks just go away to a junk yard, and nobody ever does anything with them? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We've had East Naples where if they have a spare pumper and we've asked them if they would like to sell us that pumper and from -- to their chief, of course, it's -- it's not worth it because that's why we want to get rid of it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me oversimplify the question. Is there a used vehicle market anywhere in the universe? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Yes, there is. MR. DORRILL: Specifically I'm sure that if we went out to try and find a late 1980s Class A pumper that you can do that, if -- if -- I'm sure if we solicited bids for a 1988 to 1990, you know, Class A pumper with certain vehicle gross weights and that type of thing, the answer is yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I'm suggesting, is this is a pretty healthy hit on the residents of Isles of Capri, and I'm wondering if perhaps we could still achieve the objective of getting a better piece of equipment but doing it at a little bit lower cost than what we have. MR. GRIFFIN: That's certainly something we could do. We just haven't pursued that avenue yet, and I'm sure they're available. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. FINN: As this particular expenditure relates to the millage, the proposed down payment in this year's budget is coming from reserves. They've built up over time which means acquiring a truck in this year is going to be millage-neutral. If the board's direction is to -- as they go forward with this proposed expenditure, if the board direction is to simply include as an alternative to a new truck, also looking at the used truck market, I think we can -- we can -- you could give that direction and we can move on because at this point it's not having a millage impact. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to give that direction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll give that direction too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to -- In that case, the direction is to look at the used market. MR. FINN: And there's -- there's one additional thing I'd like to point out here. This budget also includes $15,000 for the acquisition of new 800 megahertz radio systems and that's -- that's in conjunction with the board's -- board's direction to have the independent and the dependent fire districts fund their own radios rather than the general funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that 15,000 won't be there next year? It's a one-time capital expense? MR. FINN: Yes. MR. GRIFFIN: One-time capital expense for the Isles of Capri's participation. MR. FINN: And 83 percent of that is coming from reserves they've built up over the last several years for capital acquisitions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. FINN: Very good. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Are we okay? On page 14 is the Ochopee fire budget, and the Ochopee chief is here. The Ochopee's current service budget is -- is fairly neutral in terms of its millage impact. There is an expanded service request, and that is for an additional supervisory position to enhance community fire awareness and prevention, and I think the chief will -- would like to elaborate on that for you. CHIEF DOERR: All right. Well -- Chief Vince Doerr, Ochopee Fire Control, for the record. We're trying to apply for this additional help or however you want to call it, we're referring to as capital or whatever, to help in inspections and everything. As we mentioned in the last meeting, we have to have prefire plans and training and other things that are coming aboard like development of Port of Isles where we've got to get better -- tighter on our inspections yearly on our commercial, stuff like that for better ISO ratings. We're waiting right now for Chokoloskee to finish up on their hydrants. We're hoping to call the man down from the state and get a new ISO rating which has been over ten years. We're at eight, slash, nine. We're going to try for better than that. So this man will help put together this and I think help justify his position. Also -- which means a lot to me as he's a man or woman aboard that will also be available day and night off duty 8 to 5 for calls. And that -- that means a lot to me in running this thing for 20 years. The inspection part and all this will help justify it but also the manpower we also need. Do y'all have any questions so far? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so yet. Oh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One. Total calls have actually gone down each year that you responded to, about 12 percent from what's forecast this year since two years ago, and I'm wondering, as it goes down why we need the extra body there to respond. CHIEF DOERR: Well, that's -- that's hard to explain. I mean, that's due mainly to brush fires. You know, it's been wet the last few years. I mean, our day is coming. I would say most of that is due to the brush fire parts. I don't think our auto wrecks and everything are that far down or, you know, our medical and heart attacks and all that which are ongoing all the time. But with the last seasons we had and being wet, that is true. I would agree there. But, like I said, besides the regular on-call situation, you know, the part of the inspections and training and all that, it would help in there. We do not have anybody -- Right now we have a problem -- When I leave and go to the Harry King conference or if I go to vacation to Georgia for nine days, right now we have to finagle around and use lieutenants and this, that, and the other. It would be nice to have a next man in line in charge. I mean, if I end up in the hospital, we just would have to pick one of the lieutenants, and we could make due. But most all departments have, you know, somebody next in line. Right now I just have to exist with the three lieutenants. We have one in each crew. So there's more, Mr. Constantine, than -- you know, than just to cultivate my interest. And we haven't hired anybody -- I don't know -- eight, ten years or something, unless they refill, we have somebody and refill. MR. DORRILL: I think the focus here was not so much on the operating side but on the fire prevention side to do more post-CO annual fire inspections and to create an inter-departmental training program for the operating side as opposed to just adding another firefighter because their -- their call volume is sort of a function of automobile accidents on the Alley and on east 41 and essentially what the brush fire season is. The -- The only question that I had was, did specifically your fire board review this request; and if so, what -- what was their position on it? CHIEF DOERR: Yeah. We brought it up in a board meeting at the point when I was making the budget, and we mentioned that. I think at the last meeting we had a letter or in the minutes where our board, you know, approved it at their level and for the advisory board level as a necessity and need, yes. MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, they did. And they submitted a letter, and we have it here somewhere. We can get you copies of it if you've never seen it, but they did endorse this additional position for the Ochopee Fire Department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, aren't we putting an EHS unit in Everglades City? MR. DORRILL: We already have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's already there. Is it housed in the same building that the -- CHIEF DOERR: Yes. MR. DORRILL: At Everglades City, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Everglades City. That's the -- the building behind the city hall there. I see that on this listing here, that more than half of their calls are either rescue medical calls or automobile wrecks which could also be medical calls. Are you continuing to run jointly with the EHS on a medical call even though it's housed in the same building you are? CHIEF DOERR: Yes. We have a man -- when available, we put one on board on the ambulance; as you know, the three-man -- or three-person concept. If he's not on the ambulance, then he's the only one on fire if he's needed to respond. So either our man is on the ambulance with them, or if he's not, we're going to have one man from that day, well, then that man will respond if needed, you know, if needed. In other words, like the person is 400 pounds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- But you're not taking a brush truck or -- or -- or a pumper along with the EHS unit? CHIEF DOERR: Only -- Only if a fireman's on the ambulance for that day, the two EHS people and our man goes only, sprained ankle, broken leg, whatever. If needed, he will still go. The paramedic would justify or call for that, meaning that he's over 400 pounds and it takes four people to get him out. Okay? Kind of the same thing I'm pretty sure they're doing in town so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. In town they're just sending pumpers whenever. CHIEF DOERR: Well -- But if there's nobody on the ambulance, one of our personnel and the two EHS leave, then they would as -- he would go, you know, as required unless they know it's a little cut hand or something like that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I just want to -- want to verify that your -- your -- your operating expenses for the fire trucks and brush trucks and so forth is -- is -- is going down because the EHS unit is there and you're not having to run dual units so to speak. CHIEF DOERR: Some. Yeah. I would say some. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are still running some? CHIEF DOERR: Yeah. Oh, yeah. We're still running medical calls. All -- All other regs we both run. Okay? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I can see that you may have to because you've got the equipment on there. CHIEF DOERR: Just -- Just -- Let's take a heart attack. Okay? If their third man's on the ambulance, three of them go. If they see needed, then we tail along with one from the firetruck if needed, but we try to let the EHS part handle with the three people, meaning our man on the truck or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it's not automatic? You don't automatically run a -- CHIEF DOERR: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- fire -- a piece of fire equipment with the EHS? CHIEF DOERR: No, unless as specified by the paramedic CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. CHIEF DOERR: -- as needed help. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: The other expanded request here, Madam Chairman, is partial funding for the acquisition of 800 megahertz radios for this department. They're not in the financial position in order to be able to afford them all at once, and we're proposing a two-year -- a two-year acquisition plan. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there other questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're -- We're all comfortable with the expanded service? I don't have any problem with it. MR. FINN: Very good. On page 16 is the Collier County Fire Control district. And, as you may know, this is a district that incorporates areas of the county that aren't otherwise in a district. The county levies two mills for this and distributes the proceeds from that to the five fire districts that are under contract. The specific amounts are shown on page 17. I'll go over those if you would like me to. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. FINN: Very good. operations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next. Next page. On page 18 is helicopter Thank you, Chief Doeft. HR. FINN: I will just make note real quick about the performance measures. There has been an increase in all areas in terms of response time, and that's associated with the movement to the new hangar. The budget itself is on page 19. You'll also notice there's a decrease there in the operating expense area. That's attributable to the new fuel facility that is adjacent to the hangar and the fuel savings that result from that facility. I also make note to the capital expense reserve category which continues to include $35,000 as a capital recovery amount for the eventual overhaul of the -- the helicopter's engine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that fuel tank in place yet? MR. BOLTON: It was installed two days ago. Peter Bolton, chief pilot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last time I was out there they were still digging. So that's why I asked. MR. BOLTON: It was installed two days ago, and we filled the tank yesterday. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I noticed that -- that the personal services have gone up 5 1/2 percent. What's driving that one? MR. FINN: Allow me to respond to that. This -- This is unusual in that this one has gone up a fairly significant amount while most are neutral or 2 or 3 percent increase. In reviewing last year's budget and how that was developed, it appears that I made an error in not including certain adjustments to the salaries last year. I take full responsibility for not budgeting properly this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second error today? MR. FINN: Well, this got -- this is from a year ago so COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is coming out of your check, Ed. MR. FINN: It's just being reported today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He gets three, Mike, three strikes. That's two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Ed. MR. FINN: So that -- that's the sole reason. This year's budget is not correct; therefore, the percentage increase is larger than it otherwise would be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It seems that our budget department is fiddled with errors. MR. FINN: There's also an increase in the overtime budget. So while I'm taking responsibility for the math error, I can't take responsibility for the need to increase overtime. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't try to cover up, Mr. Finn. We know where the problem is. MR. FINN: There is another savings in the operating expense category. It's also associated with moving to the new hangar. And, as a result of that movement, they are able to eliminate their need for a fleet -- fleet vehicle because they're all on site at this point in time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you haven't been out there, that's a great facility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume the overtime increase is -- the overtime is not to the point yet that it's warranting another operator? MR. BOLTON: No, it's not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? MR. FINN: On page 20 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. FINN: -- is the emergency medical service budget. That actually runs through page 22. And Ms. Flagg is here, and she's going to assist me in going through this budget. There were some discretionary services that were approved by the board. Those discretionary services include dedicated EHS paramedic units at special events. It includes the addition of a Corkscrew area ALS unit which at this point in time is also proposed to include a station construction, and there is also the discretionary program of an S.R. 951, slash, Isles of Capri area ALS ambulance addition. The budgets which you'll see on page 21 are at the top -- Excuse me. Performance measures are shown at the top. These are on every department budget. If you look at the total number of calls for EHS service -- I'm sure Ms. Flagg is going to bring your attention to this -- there's a sizable increase between '93 and the '94 actual amounts that jump from 18,000 to 23,000. The '95 budget was predicated on a planned response level of nineteen five. The forecast at this point is for 24,000 calls. Towards the bottom of this group of measurements, you will receive four that are associated with the two -- two areas that are proposed to be added. There's some Corkscrew area response numbers. The estimated responses next year in that area is 375. With the addition of that unit, the response time is estimated to be within six minutes 90 percent of the time. The C.R. 951 Capri area, there was an estimated three -- there will be an estimated 325 responses. And, again, with the addition of that unit, the response time 90 percent of the time will be six minutes or less. The budget itself, the current service portion is actually revenue-neutral. I -- I believe there's actually a rollback in the amount of ad valorem support when you just look at the current service for this budget. The expanded request that I mentioned do generate a 5.7 percent increase in the ad valorem portion. This budget does not propose any changes to the EHS rate structure. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to entertain them. If Ms. Flagg has a brief presentation, perhaps the board would entertain that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had a question. A couple of years ago we were talking about an assessment instead of ad valorem support for the EHS and -- How -- How much further down the road are we on that? Because I was under the impression that we were going in that direction but were not yet ready to get there. Mr. Dotrill, can you help me with that? The -- The -- Dr. Woodruff's proposal for an assessment for EHS support as opposed to ad valorem? Because, again, with ad valorem support for EHS, we -- we have the -- the same problem where our -- our very low assessed dwelling units are also using EHS services, but they're not providing their support toward the ad valorem support of it. MR. DORRILL: We had done -- Mr. Ijams had done an analysis of that with the City of Naples approximately two years ago, and at that time we -- we reached sort of a different compromise, if you will, in terms of the location of units within the city. So I remember us discussing it, and I remember there being a presentation and a joint meeting, but we haven't done anything this year concerning that. The board sort of tabled any further action on that. It's been about two years ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I -- I remember it when it was and we -- I was under the impression a couple of years ago that we -- we were contemplating moving toward this in order to get 100 percent of the residents of the county supporting the service as MR. DORRILL: Not as I recall. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- as opposed to strictly ad valorem. MR. DORRILL: But there's -- there's nothing to prevent us from reconsidering that as a part of our -- our work plan next year or as part of the consideration for some type of consolidated district because I think that may come up in conjunction with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How -- How many households are -- I mean, if -- I mean, what are we talking about? How many households are there in the county roughly? I mean, I don't need an exact number. MR. DORRILL: I'll say 60,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 60,000? MR. DORRILL: I -- I could -- On a -- On a permanent basis, there could certainly be more than that. You know, taking into account hotel, motel, seasonal rental-type facilities it could be as high as 80,000 if you take all those into account. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. It might be something that, you know, we should have another discussion in a Tuesday meeting or in a workshop though. MR. DORRILL: I'll make a note of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Hiss Flagg. If I understand correctly, among other things, you're talking about adding two services areas, a total of 14 paramedics, and you're doing that with only 5.7 percent additional from the general fund? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Where's the rabbit? MS. FLAGG: There's no rabbit. In the -- In the FY '93, '94 budget year, we had the opportunity to instill a lot of measures, more cost-efficiency measures, and the paramedics were successful in achieving that; and, hence, we had about a half a million dollar savings in total, and so that reduction in the overall millage rate and the reduction for current service for ad valorem is a result of that savings. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're using a good portion of those savings this year. Are we going to see a hit to the general fund -- general revenue fund next year if nothing is cut from this budget? MS. FLAGG: Those savings were able to make a significant difference in lowering the millage rate, and next year you will see a millage consistent with the current years with an obvious increase if the medical needs continue to increase. MR. FINN: Commissioner, if I -- if I may respond to that, it is entirely possible that using one-time revenue source generated from actual activities in '94 to offset ad valorem this year, in all likelihood in FY '97 we would need to replace that with ad valorem funding. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Ms. Flagg of the 951 Capri service ALS, where would that be based? MS. FLAGG: Right now there's three public safety facilities that potentially it could be based. One is county owned or county controlled, and the other two are controlled by independent fire departments. But it is -- After looking at the call volume there, one of those locations -- there's no need to further impact the taxpayers by building another public safety facility, and so we are in the process of working with the various departments to see where the unit could be placed. One, the Isles of Capri unit is county controlled. The other two would either be East Naples or Marco Island. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And the new facility on Isles of Capri, does it have sufficient space available? MS. FLAGG: My understanding -- I worked with the previous chief who was very supportive of the idea, and, yes, he took me through it, and it has -- it's a facility consistent with 24-hour facilities. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? I think we're done. MR. FINN: Very good. Ms. Flagg, if you wouldn't mind staying there for one minute. On page 23 is the EHS impact fee fund. This is actually capital funds, but because it's so closely in line with the EHS operation, we're -- we're seeing it here. You will notice that the projects included here include two ambulances to support the personnel in the fund 490 budget. Those will be medium-duty ambulances. Estimated cost per unit is $100,000. This also includes the construction of a station in the Corkscrew area for the Corkscrew area unit. It includes equipment, $55,000 per unit to equip those units adequately. It also includes funding for helicopter repair maintenance parts which is part of the EHS impact fee ordinance. All of these expenditures are fully funded by the impact fee. All of these expenditures are justified according to growth; and, therefore, they apply in this fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mentioning helicopter repair maintenance takes me back to another question. By increasing these two service areas, is there a likelihood of reducing the flights from Marco to Naples Community on the helicopter side, or do you think that demand will stay the same or even increase? MS. FLAGG: I wish I could say that the medical calls would stop increasing, but I perceive based upon our numbers that the calls are going to remain pretty consistent -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But these two stations -- MS. FLAGG: -- the demand on the helicopter. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. These two stations aren't going to change the demand on the helicopter from Marco? MS. FLAGG: They -- They may slightly, but I don't expect it to have a significant impact. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, the -- the -- I hear -- I have heard discussion for several years now of the sheriff wanting a substation out in the Corkscrew area as well or in northern Golden Gate Estates. Is this going to be a -- this -- MS. FLAGG: Joint. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- building a joint effort -- MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- so that we get economies of scale and -- MS. FLAGG: We have met with the sheriff's office and their capital projects personnel, and they are not interested. They said right now their needs are not out in that area this year but probably next year. So we are working on a design that will accommodate an addition so that our whole facility is going to be designed to be a joint facility from the initial planning stages. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Similar to North Naples. MR. DORRILL: Without -- Without the architectural review controls that were imposed on us there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gottcha. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I could tell you a story on that one . COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: You mean all the EMS facilities aren't built with tennis courts in the back yard? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not all. MR. FINN: If the board pleases, we can move on to page 24 which is the -- which is the EMS trust fund. There are several expenditures forecast this year. They're all items that the board has seen and seen fit to support through a transfer from fund 490. They include pediatric child restraining seats, EKGs, and other medical equipment. The FY '96 proposed budget is -- represents 100 percent grant from the state for EMS expenditures and they're budgeted for -- for the purchase of additional medical equipment. I think we're done with the emergency services -- MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. FINN: -- portion of support services. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. On page 25 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Flagg. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On pages 25 and 26 is the support services administration, Mr. Ochs' budget. The spreadsheet of the proposed budget FY '96 is on page 26, overall a 2.3 percent increase in appropriations, just two positions, no expanded services proposed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? I don't think anybody has any questions. Thank you, Mr. Ochs. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 27 and 28 are the budgets for the public affairs office. Of note in the forecast is the planned -- at this point, planned replacement of its postage equipment for the mail room. Overall appropriations in FY '96 increased one-tenth of 1 percent. Operating expenses were reduced $3,100 for repairs. The existing equipment is very old and is expensive to repair at this point based on the planned replacement postage equipment as a result of the operating budget is reduced for repairs of said equipment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think there's any questions. MS. BRUBAKER: No questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No questions. Thank you, Hiss Brubaker. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 29, 30, and 31 looks like the proposed budget for the human resources department in FY'96. Page 31 is the budget spreadsheet. Overall a 1.4 percent decrease in total appropriations. You will note an increase in operating expenses, and that's associated with additional funds required for physicals and drug testing which was implemented this year due to a change in -- change in law in that regard. Additional funds for employment advertising and data processing development charges for improvements to what is the -- the human resources module of our integrated financial and budget system. If there are no -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, are there any changes to this subject to recent county manager action such as Mr. Day being moved and those kind of things? MR. DORRILL: None that are immediately necessary. I haven't seen the final PARs and salary changes and whatnot, but if -- if and when we process that paperwork that we need to come back and advise you of any changes, I -- I'll do it. I just have not needed to do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This increased drug testing, is that increases in -- are we doing random tests? MR. DORRILL: No. I'll -- I'll let -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- after employment or only pre-employment? MR. DORRILL: I'll let Mr. Whitecotton give you the current status of random testing under some federal case law that -- that is there, but we do require -- require prescreening of any prospective employee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I knew we did that. MR. WHITECOTTON: Tom Whitecotton. Yeah. Really what we're doing is pre-employment drug testing for all applicants before they're considered for employment. As the manager mentioned, under the new employee testing act, those individuals whose positions require a CDL, there is a random both alcohol and drug testing component which requires us to test 50 percent of all eligible positions over a year. We've implemented that several months ago, and that will continue, you know, throughout the next fiscal year. We did not budget or anticipate that last year when we put this together, and that's why we're indicating additional monies in that pre-employment exams category which really covers that drug testing provision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's a CDL? MR. WHITECOTTON: Commercial driver's license. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: It has to do with operating certain types of heavy equipment. Those are the only instances where you can -- can do random testing; however, we reserve the right to do testing for any individual that we have reason to believe or suspect substance abuse, and we do that at our discretion and have done it -- we -- we probably do it half a dozen times a year. MR. OCHS: Again, but that is a federal mandate that we do at least 50 percent of the employees that fall into those driving categories, so it's not a discretionary random testing in that regard. We must do at least 50 percent of the eligible drivers. MR. DORRILL: And it's my understanding we are precluded under federal law from just taking amongst normal office workers and do spot, random checks. You have to have a suspicion of substance abuse in order to test someone post-hiring. You cannot just do random testing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is it Mr. Carlton does his program? MR. DORRILL: He does not. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a volunteer, though, isn't it? I mean, it's a drug-free workplace, and they have to sign a consent when they -- I mean, I know a little bit about how drug-free workplaces work. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He does do some because during Red Ribbon Week this -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, he does. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- year he gathered a group of public and private employers together to try to come up with some sort of system to encourage countywide. MR. DORRILL: I -- I know that he has -- has been required to change his former program. And, again, Mr. Whitecotton, if you can shed some light on that. But he may have even had some action against him that has resulted in a change. I don't -- I don't have the details on how he may be doing voluntary testing. MR. WHITECOTTON: I believe he has made it mandatory, but in the public sector you really cannot require individuals to go through random testing, again aside from this recent legislation. I know that he has sought legal advice in terms of retooling the program. I really don't know the status of the program at this point, but, yes, there is another look at it. MR. DORRILL: When you say "mandatory," is he testing annually everyone that works for him? MR. OCHS: I believe Commissioner Hac'Kie was correct when she said what -- what he's got over there is voluntary compliance by all of his people to go ahead and -- and be tested. But if -- if one of those were to object on a legal basis, my understanding from the County Attorney's Office is that there's been an Attorney General's opinion that said mand -- random testing for that category of employee without reasonable suspicion is not legal. MR. DORRILL: So he -- he has voluntary compliance as opposed to random spot-checking unannounced of employees? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think so. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we ought to inquire of our employees if they'd be willing to volunteer on a similar program. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think I would like to see the results of what is going on over there and -- and what legally can or can't be done because I -- I would encourage pursuing that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's probably a policy discussion for another day, but it's something -- MR. DORRILL: Voluntary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we may want to pursue. MR. DORRILL: Some type of voluntary -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds that involuntary is not an option and -- you know, so it leaves voluntary. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in looking at the drug-free workplace program and that includes -- necessitates volunteers. MR. OCHS: We are pursuing that through the state worker's compensation act, and when Mr. Walker comes up a little bit later, we can talk a little bit more about that if you'd like. MR. DORRILL: There are really no other issues, but this is where I told you the other day I wanted to -- to at least make you aware of some good news on the employee pay and benefits side. This year, as you're aware, we budgeted a 3 1/2 percent cost of living adjustment that will be effective on October the 1st. Also this year the board's premium for the group health insurance has decreased approximately $700,000. And if you can hold or write down two numbers in your heads, under -- under this year, the board is currently paying for about $6,200 worth of the total cost of insurance for the employee and their dependents, and the employee is currently paying about $1,100. That's what was budgeted. Because of the reduction in our total premium, because of our managed health care agreement with Naples Community Hospital and the physicians and, frankly, a little better utilization, the amount's next year being decreased by about $900 for the premium. The tentative budget has been prepared with all of that benefit accruing to the employer in this case. When I told you I was going to ask you to at least consider it, I think it would certainly help. I'm not talking about adding a new benefit, but I'm talking about trying to prorate the savings that are accruing this year. And, for example, the tentative budget has been put together with the board paying next year approximately $5,320 of the cost of the insurance and the employee paying 1,080. An alternative that I would like for you to consider -- it would at least send a -- I think a strong morale increase to the staff, would be to prorate the savings and to consider $5,600 for the county commission and $800. Again, those are significant decreases over -- over this year's premium rate, but because there are some one-time savings of about $700,000, you could at least share that with the employees, and I think that's something that needs to be considered. Otherwise, the budget has been tentatively prepared the way that I stated it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the surface I'm supportive of that for the simple reason that the employee becomes a part of whether they -- of the rate they pay. In other words, if they manage their own health insurance requests and approach -- in other words, they don't abuse the system, particularly since we're partially self-insured -- I think they need to see a reward for that, see a reduction in their rate. It would encourage them to continue managing themselves. So I would like to see us pursue that in some form to -- to give the employee something back for not abusing the insurance program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see something a little bit different because if we're talking about -- I don't know -- $90, how -- how much is it we deduct from the employee's pay for health insurance? I know it varies with the program. MR. DORRILL: On the average the $300 deductible which is the average program, my understanding is it's about an $1,100-a-year premium for the employee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the employee. What -- I think what I would like to see is a -- is a mix between the $1,100 deduction on the employee's health insurance and the 3 1/2 percent salary increase because if -- if we increase their salary 3 1/2 percent but at the same time reduce their -- their reductions or deductions for health insurance, the difference in that is going to be increased taxes for all of us, and I think I'd like to see some sort of a mix of decreasing their contribution to their health insurance even more but reducing the salary increase to compensate for it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a discussion that we need to be engaging in today? MR. DORRILL: I need to make you aware of it today, and if you want to see some -- some options concerning the way that we're going to budget the $700,000 savings, we -- we sort of need some instruction there before you go off on vacation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with both of you. I think we need to try to take care of the employee. One concern I have -- Mr. Dotrill, the one concern I have is my understanding is this is the first year where we've seen a decrease in costs, in several years anyway. We've seen a stepped increase each year. And I'd hate to have this be an aberration and have next year bumped back up and all of a sudden we -- we are penalizing those employees. We won't be, but that's how it will be perceived. If there's a cut this year, next year if all of a sudden we need to have their burden go back up, I don't want the perception to be that we're hitting them hard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. The step may not need to be 100 percent of the savings. It may need to be a part of that but I think the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I agree with the concept. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The self-insured portion, the idea is individual responsibility results in individual lower rates, and that's an attractive part. MR. DORRILL: I don't disagree, but they will perceive it as a one-year morale boost. And what I'm saying is, if you want us to consider it, your premium next year, budgeted premium would decrease by $600. Their budgeted premium would decrease by approximately $200 and it's -- it's admitted -- the way -- Since we're self-funded for insurance, we -- you know, it is a direct reflection of our loss experience and our ability to control our costs, and if it goes up next year, then the employees are going to have to see that big swing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much does all that equal when you add that up? That's the $700,000 -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is the 800 per -- Okay. MR. DORRILL: I'm using some averages here because based on family size and the deduction level that they -- they choose, you get three different plans, and I'm using the average plan to try and keep the discussion simple. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the worst thing we could do is not to reward them for managing the system. We have to do just what Commissioner Hancock said. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I'd still like to introduce the idea and maybe -- maybe Mr. Dorrill needs to do some more work on this. But -- But the average payroll benefits tax-wise, worker's comp, unemployment, the whole bit, is about 15 percent, and if we take that $700,000 and -- and work some balance between the salary increase and the -- and the hospitalization deduction, there's a potential there to save $105,000 in just simply payroll taxes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For God's sake, I mean -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I don't know what that balance should be. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the problem with that is that everybody gets a 3 1/2 percent salary increase but not everybody uses medical services and you're -- now -- now you start picking and choosing who's going to get benefits, and that's the problem with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this an item that we can have a discussion on at a later date? MR. DORRILL: I think what I need to know today -- The tentative budget was prepared because we had not had a chance to talk about this with you as the employer getting all of the benefit of the one-year savings, and I'm saying from a morale perspective, I would like for us to consider some type of shared one-year savings and what is that windfall of $700,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The share then being the equivalent of roughly $175,000 difference? MR. DORRILL: Approximately. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be one-fourth of the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of the 700. I -- I think the direction I'm hearing from the board is we want to -- to share it with the employees, and if Commissioner Matthews is right that there's a way to do that and pay the feds less money, then please also do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure the employee realizes some gains in self-managing a system. That's my goal. MR. DORRILL: So that -- So that I understand, I think what Ms. Matthews is saying is that perhaps we should award a 3 percent cost of living adjustment but reduce the employee premium for insurance -- this is just a hypothetical -- to $200. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. MR. OCHS: I should point out, though, that under the scenario that we're talking about, right now the board funds the employee health insurance at 100 percent. So all of these deductions or these savings in employee contributions are only for those employees that have dependent coverage. So, you know, in fairness to the single employees, we need to point out that -- that they're not getting any benefit potentially -- MR. DORRILL: To be fair, then we -- we would have to have a -- sort of a tiered system. If you only have single coverage, then maybe you would get 3 1/2 percent. But if you -- if you had dependent health insurance and withholding to pay your portion of the premium for that, then we'd -- I agree. We need to have a fair system. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you comfortable with the direction then? MR. DORRILL: I think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears the majority of the board wants to -- MR. DORRILL: And you will need to adopt that by resolution in advance of October the 1st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got no problem with the tiered system. I -- I -- I want it to be fair, but we have a potential to save some tax money, and I just as soon keep it here than spend it there. MR. DORRILL: I understand. My rationale being if we can help share this with the employees in some way, that -- that would be a good morale booster for them. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item. MR. SMYKOWSKI: At this point, obviously with the bulk of the budget set, I would prefer not to have to change personal services on a global scale. MR. DORRILL: My -- My suggestion would be for us to -- to do an adjustment to reserves rather than try and go back and change every single budget -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah. MR. DORRILL: -- by some teeny little fractional amount based on changes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Whatever -- Whatever we work out as being a fair method, let's -- let's run it through reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, of course, the most difficult way for Mr. Smykowski to adopt that would be the route we want to take. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever is keeping him here working the longest. MR. DORRILL: Are we on to real property now? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're on to real property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Real property. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Real property is on page 32 and 33. The spreadsheet is on 33. Overall there's a four-tenths of 1 percent decrease. Obviously here this is one place you'll note in -- in the forecast area with the actual cost of health insurance savings of $12,300, personal services FY '96 reflects a two-tenths of 1 percent decrease. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: to see. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. Good job. Next page. That's the kind of budget we like Yep. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 34 is the GAC land trust fund. Overall appropriations here are down 13.1 percent. That is due to a decrease in anticipated land sales and available carry-forward -- a reduction of available carry-forward revenue. We're assuming $90,000 in land sales. There's only small tracts of land in more remote areas. I believe we are land-banking the larger parcels in anticipation of future appreciation. Correct me if I'm wrong. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many parcels of land do we still have south of 75? MS. TAYLOR: Sandra Taylor, for the record. We don't have any property south of 75. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's all been turned over to the state? MS. TAYLOR: It's all been turned over this past year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is this sixty-seven four for architectural -- architectural fees for the Golden Gate Estates? MS. TAYLOR: That was for the park design, Golden Gate Estates Park. The GAC trust contributed money for that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Each of the items is approved by separate board action in terms of under the forecast area. They bring forth a proposal through the advisory committee and to the board. MS. TAYLOR: Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 35 and 36 is the purchasing department. Overall here there is a 17 percent increase. Your net cost to general fund revenue though decreases 3.4 percent. The large increase in operating is a function of changing and how disbursements to the auctioneers are handled. We now budget the auctioneer commissions as an expense and the full net revenues received from surplus sales. This allows greater control over cash. We had a problem, obviously, with the disbursement to the auctioneer previously. As a result of this change, we feel we'll have better control over cash disbursements. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So your -- your overall operating expenses, then, have gone down? MR. CARNELL: Correct. Well, I'm sorry. No. The -- the CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you identify yourself? MR. CARNELL: -- percentage of general -- I'm sorry. For the record, Steve Camell, purchasing director. The percentage of general revenues has been reduced because we're introducing a new revenue source for the vendor subscription service. So that's going to reduce the amount of general revenue. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Steve, the auctioneer commission is offset by budgeting surplus sale revenues, and that in addition there is a part-time purchasing technician proposed to initiate the vendor subscription service. They provide a range of information regarding conducting business with the county. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mike. That will more than pay for itself, Steve? MR. CARNELL: Yes. That's what we're showing. If you look at the net cost general revenues line, you see that deficit. That's the reduction in impact on ad valorem. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A 6,000 percent increase in revenues is -- is positive. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next. MR. DORRILL: Facilities. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Facilities is page 37 through 39. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we should skip facilities. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two questions on it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's early but it's late. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's get it moving. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 38 is the facilities management proposed budget. Overall appropriations are up 14.1 percent. That -- That includes a number of expanded services. I will note on the permanent position count there are 26 in the adopted budget. Under current service 1996, there are only 24. That is based on two community telephone technician positions which will be included as part of the information technology department effective October 1st. In terms of highlights in terms of increased operating expenses, there's an additional $16,600 for new facilities being added to the custodial contract as well as a cost-of-living adjustment in that contract, an additional $9,800 in the grounds maintenance contract for a cost-of-living adjustment there, an additional 44,300 for new properties being added to the contract. Under maintenance services, there's additional contracted services such as coil cleaning, UPS service contracts, et cetera, that add $57,300. Under expanded services there is up -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Skip, could you explain these first two under expanded services, the project manager and the craftsman? MR. CAMP: Yes. For the record, Skip Camp. The project manager is to manage the 35 -- actually, it's 40 contractors now. Our -- Our direction was to start contracting out as many things over the last three years. We -- We have 40 contractors now, and he will rider over those contractors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody currently doing that? MR. CAMP: No. Well, we do it but not very much. We're really tight with the personnel. And the other one is the two craftsmen position, and that is right now -- As you know, we have one trades worker for every 45,000 square feet of space. We're trying to get that down. That's one thing. The other thing is a response time to both routine work orders and emergency work orders. The two -- These two positions will be used to reduce the response time which is just under a day for emergencies. If -- If you had a mobile trailer and the air-conditioner went out, a typical response is -- is eight hours to get there. We want to bring that down to a four-hour response time for emergencies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to bring that down to four hours -- MR. CAMP: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- response? MR. CAMP: What we plan to do is to cross-train these two positions in air-conditioning and plumbing because those things have to be done acutely. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just asked if a firetruck responds with you each time. MR. CAMP: No. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition to that, there's also $58,400 for inspection and certification of the water-based fire protection systems; $28,000 in contract building maintenance services due to the additional facilities being on line; $29,000 for a base station and 20 hand-held 800 megahertz radios; and $10,000 for the purchase of a compactor-dumpster. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are these 800 megahertz -- are these our old administrative 800 system? This will be the new sheriff's system? MR. CAMP: Yes. MR. DORRILL: These will be deferred in part of the new purchase. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So are we sure we need to budget them -- Do we need to budget these this fiscal year? Because we're looking at almost a full fiscal year before this thing comes on line. MR. CAMP: My understanding is that by November these things could come on line -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Really? MR. CAMP: -- according to John Daly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This November? MR. CAMP: We're hoping. That's my understanding. MR. DORRILL: I believe that -- it's sort of a two-phase. The first phase of 800 -- of 800 to replace our administrative system, you know, the facility. The second phase of that is the emergency service aspect of the system but we'll -- we'll verify that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under -- On the previous page, you mentioned the cost of living adjustment for grounds maintenance, and I'm just curious. On grounds maintenance, I was thinking -- out here a good example of the entryway and exit onto 41 where we beautify that general area there -- MR. CAMP: By the signs? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand there are certain seasonal flowers and plants and such. It appears and -- and I don't know much about horticulture or agriculture or -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Flower culture. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Floraculture. But it seems we lose some things in there that are not just the seasonal flowers. When I drive by and they're in there doing their work every three months or however often we change that out, when they pull the flowers or pull the whatever is going -- it appears they pull things that are green year-round. MR. CAMP: In the flower beds, we try to have the annuals for about eight months if we can. And sometimes because we try to expand that as long as we can, they'll take out the ones that are kind of -- that are -- that are pretty torn up, and typically we should probably only go about six months with those. We try to just go a little longer, and so you'll see them take out some -- what appear to be annuals, but they're on their last leg. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't as a -- as a rule then just pull everything that's there? MR. CAMP: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question then -- we talked about the sundanians. (phonetic) You know, I think the campus here looks better than it ever has, and I commend you for that. But just as when I was doing my yard, annuals would have been nice, but the maintenance on them is a pain, so I went to an annual flowering plant like a pinto or -- you know, there are other things out there that flower year-round that are less maintenance, less costly, that kind of thing. To maybe offset a cost of living increase, you know, maybe we need to look at replacing annuals with -- with flowers that -- that, you know, that bloom year-round. MR. DORRILL: We can do that. The current bid requires him to put like I'll say impatiens in the fall and marigolds or some other type of annual, but pintos -- and I know that Pelican Bay service district has gone to pintos and more permanent-type flowering plants. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think there's less costly attractive plants out there that we need to invest in. MR. CAMP: We actually at one time went to a Mexican heather, and then there was some criticism that it was not enough color because we use them pretty sparsely. At the two entrances and a couple of the high-profile areas -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. CAMP: -- we do use them but not like some of these major developments like Pelican Bay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know what the extent we're doing it -- MR. CAMP: We can look at that. Absolutely. MR. DORRILL: We can look at that. I don't know whether the -- the contractor has a different line item in there but that's -- that would be a negotiated item, and if we can do it a little cheaper, We Ca~. MR. CAMP: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any other questions? Sounds like we're done, Skip. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Fleet. MR. FINN: Edward Finn, budget office. On page 40 you'll see the beginning of the fleet management budget. The fleet operations run through page 42. On page 40 you'll see a significant number of workload and performance indicators. These -- These would assist the board in kind of making some kind of judgment or having some impression of the workload and some of the performance that's being provided in fleet management. On page 41 there's some more direct ratio-type performance measures and the actual operating budget. In general, this budget is down significantly. Without going through every plus and minus, the reason this budget is down is because of the privatization of the landfill and the fleet management no longer being responsible for the feeding and -- feeding and repairing of that equipment. So that is basically the thrust of why this budget is reduced. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We all have our mouths full. MR. DORRILL: Do we have the answer to the probation pickup truck caper from the other afternoon? The annual problem with the state's annual contracts, can we shed any light on that? MR. PUCHER: For the record, Dan Pucher, fleet management director. There's a product shortage with General Motors. When we ordered new vehicles from Chevrolet, the cut-off date for 1995 model year was January 25. We ordered that S-10 for probation on January 6. Subsequently they have told us that there's a severe shortage, and automatic transmissions is the major component. At this point, I can't order any more '95s and I -- I can't order any '96s as of yet either. So I'm waiting for them to catch up. General Motors has had an outstanding year, but they have a tremendous shortage of product. MR. OCHS: We've got about 13 vehicles that are in this type of situation on back-order so to speak. This is the only one where there's a -- there's a driver kind of waiting. The rest of them are replacing older equipment that's just remaining in service until the back-order production period is met. We've looked at alternative vendors. We've even called other dealers off of lots to see if they have vehicles on the lots and they don't. We looked at other manufacturers. They're a little more expensive, some as much as two to $3,000 more, and we've made the judgment in conjunction with the operating department as long as they've got a vehicle that's still running, it's not worth spending that extra money. We'll wait until the backlog order comes in. Unfortunately, in the case of probation, that's a new -- that's a new vehicle request, and apparently an employee had been using their private vehicle and getting reimbursement, and now they have changed to a request for a county vehicle. So that person is still waiting for the initial vehicle to come in. It sounds a little crazy but that -- that is the situation right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could -- Could this person that's waiting for this truck be using a pool vehicle? MR. DORRILL: We don't really have any pool vehicles anymore. We did that a number of years ago to eliminate the un -- what they call the unassigned pool, and while there -- there may be -- What's -- What is the unassigned pool at this point? I'll say it's maybe two or three vehicles. MR. PUCHER: Well, we have about seven, but they're out. MR. OCHS: Checked out almost every day. What we might do, though, Commissioners, when -- if we have a vehicle that comes out of service, we might be able -- or if we have one that's been out of service now waiting for the next auction, we might be able to get one in shape enough to run on an interim basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Waiting for the auction? MR. OCHS: Right. Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Big black spray paint blotches on the side? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume -- I assume if they have been using their own vehicle being reimbursed prior to that, that's probably still the case now. As long as they're being reimbursed -- MR. OCHS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it should be all right. MR. OCHS: I would suspect that's the case. MR. DORRILL: Is -- I wanted you to have an answer to your question about where the pickup truck is, and it's a function of us only buying off the state contract and a particular problem in back-orders with the manufacturer who has that class of vehicle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we were to vary from the state contract, you're saying it's two to $3,000 additional per vehicle? MR. PUCHER: It's not -- I'm sorry. It's not state contract. We're getting bids. We get a bid each time, and we have an agreement with all the person -- all the vendors. It's -- It's the same case if I were to buy a state contract or not. I -- We can't get those vehicles. MR. OCHS: But when we called other -- other dealers or other manufacturers on average for comparable vehicle, in this case anyhow was two to 2,500 more than this one. So we decided to wait as long as they -- Host of them already had a vehicle that they were using or being reimbursed for their private vehicle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any other questions? MR. FINN: On page 41 is the -- I'm sorry. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that three, Ed? MR. FINN: 43, motor pool capital recovery fund. You'll also notice here that -- Commissioner Norris had -- had some good questions about the average life of the vehicles being replaced, and the fleet management staff has added significantly to the number of performance measures in an effort to answer -- answer that question. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Overall here appropriations are up 55.8 percent. This year we are edging up -- we are anticipating a total of 49 vehicles scheduled to be replaced. Included is the purchase of four medium-duty ambulances at an estimated cost of $400,000. Obviously you'll note on the expense side, our capital outlay has gone up significantly this year, a component of which is a transition to these medium-duty ambulance types which while -- with a higher initial cost but with a longer life in terms of chassis and engine, et cetera. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? I guess not. Next one. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 45 and 46 is the beginning of our risk management funds. On page 46 is the proposed budget for FY '96 for our property and casualty insurance. Overall there's an 8.2 percent increase in appropriations. Mr. Walker is in operating expenses. The bulk of the increase is there, and that is reflective of anticipated increases in budgeted insurance premiums and which are 10.8 percent above FY '95 forecast levels. In addition, one change that Mr. Walker has made, in prior years we've utilized outside attorneys to -- to pursue claims here. We're using the County Attorney's Office as a result here, and proposed payments to the County Attorney's Office is $114,600. However, that is offset by a corresponding reduction in the property and casualty claims of which a significant component in prior years was actually payments to the attorneys in pursuing those and resolving those claims. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Next page. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 47 and 48 is the group health and life insurance self-insurance fund. There's a 13.5 percent increase in appropriations. There's a -- This fund is particularly strong in terms of where its proposed reserves are at, et cetera, in terms of actuarial funding. Conversely, though, in the work comp fund, Mr. Walker, there are some issues there in terms of adequate reserves per the actuarial studies. So what is proposed in FY '96 is a transfer from the group health fund to the work comp fund of $1.7 million and that -- that basically gets reserves much closer to where -- to actuarial studies reflect that they should be and that -- that is not really a function of current claim expenses but actually what the actual anticipated cost of offsetting claims that have been incurred from prior years is now estimated to be. Is that -- MR. WALKER: That's correct. Jeff Walker, risk management director. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill -- Mr. Dorrill, under health claims -- MR. DORRILL: Page 48? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. You were just telling us it was a $700,000 savings of which were budgeted to the county's budget for these and I only see -- the only difference I see between '94 and '95 budget is $100,000. MR. WALKER: What we are reducing is actually an amount that is budgeted within every departmental budget for health insurance. That is not the amount that I have been charging. I'm been charging about 14 percent less than that in terms of actual rates. And so what we had proposed to do this year was to reduce the amount that's actually budgeted down to what I actually charge because basically it doesn't need to be there. And so that's where the $700,000 figure is -- MR. DORRILL: Simply put, rather -- he journal-entries the money out of every individual departmental budget, and so they're being invoiced on a monthly basis for their premium. And in recognizing that he had savings, he has reduced the amount that he has journal-entried. That may be too simplified a statement but my -- MR. OCHS: That's basically it. As the experience improved, we decided not to keep going at the budgeted rate if we didn't need that amount of money. So we would go at the appropriate rate instead of building up an even larger budget reserve in the group health fund. That way the operating departments wouldn't see a larger unnecessary monthly budget or -- excuse me -- monthly invoice for their health insurance clause. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm thoroughly confused because this is only showing a $100,000 budgeted difference. I mean, if I've -- if I've misunderstood, somebody tell me. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Those revenues include the employee contribution. That is why you do not see a more significant decrease from the budgeted billings. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if we reduce those employee contributions, are we going to be able to meet the $5.4 million in health claims? Is that it in a nutshell? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I mean, we're -- we were just being told a half hour ago that there was $700,000 worth of savings and that under the -- under the budget we have in front of us, all $700,000 of it was allocated to the county's share, to the employer's share. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I only see $100,000 here. MR. OCHS: Well, where you're seeing that reduction is in all the operating budgets. Instead of the operating departments budgeting annual premiums at -- at a $6,200-per-year level, they've been instructed in their budget instructions to budget at a lower level. That's why you're seeing the small increments in personal services increases by and large in all the operating budgets. So, again, this is an internal service fund. All the money that you see in this fund comes from charge-backs to all of the -- the client operating departments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But wouldn't -- I'm -- I'm sorry. But money in and money out -- if it's an internal fund and it's money that's circulating through all these different budgets, the money coming in should be seven hundred thou -- The budgeted money coming in should be $700,000 less than the budget last year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe Mr. Walker can respond to this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, this is the in, and the other budgets have been the out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the in doesn't match. MR. WALKER: In essence, what's occurred is the amount that's actually budgeted in the various departmental budgets is $700,000 higher than what I actually charge. This is what I actually charge, and what we did in this year's budget is reduce what we budgeted individual departments down to what I actually charge. That's where you get the $700,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Show me a line item where that appears. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's not -- It's not a real savings. MR. WALKER: It wouldn't even show up in my budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's not real money. MR. WALKER: It would show up in the other departmental budgets. That's why you're seeing -- MR. FINN: What -- What -- What Mr. Walker is saying is, while he has adjusted his revenue budget for the savings that have occurred this year, the individual department budgets were not adjusted in the same manner. MR. WALKER: Right. MR. DORRILL: This year's budgets. They were -- They were approved at the forecast premium rates, and as we realized that our -- our actual experience was going to be less than that, he reduced the invoicing, if you will. MR. WALKER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that and -- and -- and -- and I understand that you've charged the individual departments $700,000 less than what they budgeted for. MR. DORRILL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that this year they have adjusted their budgets downward. MR. WALKER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, does that -- does -- Does that mean then that we have actually increased -- we're rolling that money through the reserves for the individual departments? Is that what we're doing? MR. FINN: No. It will show up at the fund level as an additional carry-forward because the money was saved this year, but we can demonstrate by looking at the expenditure side only how much was budgeted total, how much is forecast, and how much is projected for next year, and the savings that Mr. Dotrill is referring to is the savings on the expense side, what was budgeted on the expense side to pay these premiums versus what was forecast -- that is, the actual expenditures to pay these premiums versus what's proposed for next year to actually pay those premiums. That is where we can demonstrate the savings and can demonstrate the savings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, now, wait a minute now. If the -- If the forecasted expenditure in the risk management is only $100,000 less than last year -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: I think I can -- I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- but -- but last year we budgeted -- you know, somewhere there's money sitting here somewhere, and I just want to know where it is. We've got a difference of $600,000, and last year we charged the department $700,000 more than we budgeted. That tells me -- MR. DORRILL: It would be in the reserve account for the various funds. The EHS reserve is going to be that much higher because we do not allow people to spend money for insurance. They can't move it out of the insurance that he would otherwise journal-entry and move it down into furniture or subscription in dues. We restrict the movement of that type of money. So when EHS got to the end of the year, their carry-forward would have been higher because their actual billings for insurance were reduced. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think all I'm trying to say is that last year we budgeted -- we budgeted $700,000 more than we needed to budget for the various departments, and we knew it at the time that we did it; is that not right? MR. WALKER: Well, I don't -- I don't necessarily say I would agree with that. I mean, you know, hindsight is always better than foresight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you -- Did you charge the department $700,000 more than you budgeted you were going to have to spend? MR. FINN: No. They were not charged -- They budgeted more than ultimately was required to pay these premiums. The departments have not been charged. All of those savings -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We're talking pure budgets. Okay. What I'm saying is that last year we budgeted in the various departments $700,000 more than Mr. Walker knew he was going to have to bill them for because he budgeted $700,000 less. MR. FINN: At this point in time we can say that. When we did all those budgets, I'm not sure Mr. Walker had the benefit of that knowledge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At what point in time did Mr. Walker realize that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last year. MR. DORRILL: What did Mr. Walker know and when did he know it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. What did he have and when? MR. DORRILL: You would have to go back and you would have to determine when was the date that we executed our agreement with Naples Community Hospital, and then subsequent to that, when was the date that we executed an agreement for the Sunhealth Cooperative of Physicians, and at that point we were dealing with projections of anticipated savings because we didn't have managed care agreements in place at that time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those agreements happened between this time a year ago and October of when we actually -- MR. WALKER: They happened Hay 1st of '94. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So when you were doing your budgets over the summertime, you -- MR. WALKER: We had no idea how that was going to work. MR. OCHS: They actually -- We submit our budgets in February and March that have to be good for the following -- MR. WALKER: So, I mean, I didn't knowingly -- MR. OCHS: -- 20 months. MR. WALKER: -- put money in there that I didn't think I would need. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just -- I'm just asking did -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we're going to have to drug-test him. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just asking last year did we budget $700,000 in excess budget funds to our various departments that -- MR. WALKER: We know that today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that you knew that you were not going to need because you only budgeted -- MR. WALKER: We know that today. We didnwt know that then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Iwm not going to argue the point because itws history, and hopefully the reserves picked it up, but youwre only $100,000 lower this year, not 700. MR. DORRILL: I can guarantee you that reserves picked it up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah. I'm -- I'm confident the reserves picked it up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There have been highlights throughout on most of these pages. Personal service savings reflect actual cost charged for health insurance as well as in current service. That is why most budgets have not gone up 3 1/2 percent or greater even though we've budgeted a 3 1/2 percent COLA because health insurance rates are down. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm not going to argue this point because I could argue this for the rest of the day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's some kind of accounting language that I don't understand. So if it's -- if it's okay -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what scares me, if our CPA doesn't understand it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I understand. MR. DORRILL: She -- She understands. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. MR. DORRILL: I guess from my perspective as your manager, a more accurate but risky assessment would have been for me to come back at this point last year because I would have had my agreements in hand and I may have known what the projected savings were going to be and asked you to reduce across the board all of the insurance premium line items in all of the various departments. It would have been a calculated risk at that point not knowing until we then begin to receive our billings from Naples Community Hospital and all of the attendant physicians who belong to the co-op what our actual monthly billings were going to be. And in fairness when he began to see evidence of that, then he reduced his invoicing of the user department so as to not overcharge them. Consequently, then their reserves and carry-forwards were all higher as a result of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me say this though. We've been going through this budget process for the last week, and we've been hearing our budget department say, and correctly say, that, gee, our personal services -- you know, we're giving people 3 1/2 percent increases, plus we're budgeting a 1 percent merit increase, and they're rightfully saying, ah, but our personal services are only going up something less than -- than that, and they're going up less than that because there's $600,000 in that personal services that you're not budgeting this year that you did budget last year. MR. DORRILL: That's absolutely correct. MR. WALKER: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay? MR. OCHS: That's absolutely correct. No argument. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. MR. OCHS: No argument. No argument at all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I'm saying. But you knew you were doing it when you did it. Okay. MR. DORRILL: This year. I don't know that we've been willing to take the risk on that last year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the part I have to disagree with. I don't think Mr. Walker sat here and intentionally put it in his budget not expecting to spend it based on what Mr. Dotrill has told us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I think we've only got five pages left here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's finish up. I mean, it's history but -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 50 is the worker's comp fund. As of 9-30-94, recommended reserves at a 75 percent confidence interval for the worker's comp fund recommended reserves at $3.5 million to pay off the estimated cost of current claims as well as claims incurred in prior years and what it would cost to close out those claims from prior years with the addition of the $1.7 million transfer from the health fund, insurance reserves are approximately $3.3 million or fairly close to that recommended by the -- by our audit. And, as a result of increasing the reserves, appropriations are up as a whole 27.6 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Mr. Walker, I -- my comments are not directed directly at you. It's -- and I hope that you don't take them that way. It's a -- The "you" is an empirical you all. Okay? MR. WALKER: That's fine. I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 51 through -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now, take your bruises and get out of here. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 51 through 53 is the information of technology department budgets. In terms of permanent positions, the adopted budget FY '95 was the AIS fund. There were two and a half permanent positions. In the transition to the information technology department, the board agreed this year add one additional FTE, Mr. Coakley, to lead up the efforts and the formation of the information technology department. Mr. Coakley has a brief overview of the proposed department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a couple of questions then -- maybe then you can incorporate into your overview. MR. COAKLEY: I'll try. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At our workshop a month or so ago, you did the analysis and did a comparison to Sarasota and how much they were spending on their information and so on. MR. COAKLEY: Yes. For the record, I'm Bill Coakley, the information technology director. Yes, Commissioner, I did do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Correct me if I'm wrong but in -- in -- or let me just ask a couple of yes, no questions. In the -- In Sarasota does the sheriff have his own information technology department, or is that in some way under the regular -- MR. COAKLEY: In -- In Sarasota, Commissioner, each of the elected officials has a small information technology or data processing group ranging from one person to -- I think the largest is three persons. In the case of the support that I was providing as central HIS director, I did provide support to the sheriff's department in addition to the work that his own staff did in more specialized areas, and that was true of other elected officials too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Central HIS, in fact, did with all the constitutional officers with the exception of one, I believe, up there? MR. COAKLEY: We provided support to all -- to one degree or another, I think it -- with the exception of the tax collector. I don't believe we did anything significant with the tax collector. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point just being, the comparison was a little unfair in that each of those has their own independent -- Obviously we would like to get to the point where we're all doing things together here, but they have their own independent projects. So when we say how much we're spending system-wide here versus how much was spent or is being spent system-wide in Sarasota, that system was set up a little differently in Sarasota. MR. COAKLEY: It was set up a little differently, Commissioner, but I factored that into the numbers that I prepared. I adjusted them for that. For example, if I recall the chart, I -- I did not show the mainframe computers nor the expenses associated with them which is some of the significant support that was being provided to the sheriff's department up there and to the clerk and to the supervisor of the elections and to the property appraiser. Tax collector being excepted. We did very little for them. I did -- I did adjust them, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My two direct questions were that dollar-wise if it's a direct comparison and also number -- number of employees if it's a direct comparison. MR. COAKLEY: I adjusted those too, Commissioner. They're on the same basis. What I did effectively was adjust the head counts, the FTEs, to match the support that was provided to Board of County Commissioner departments in Sarasota because that's the scope of my job here. Hy job here right now is not to support the elected officials. So I adjusted the head counts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the numbers you gave us for central HIS in Sarasota were only for people that -- That was not a total count? MR. COAKLEY: That is correct, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thanks. MR. COAKLEY: Yes, I did adjust that. MR. OCHS: And part of that number, I believe there were several IT support personnel and individual operating departments up in Sarasota County so those -- those were counted in, Commissioner, if they were in BCC operating departments. MR. COAKLEY: That's correct. Yes, I did that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- We just had an update on this department a couple of weeks ago and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was going to say the same thing. Turn the page. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. And these numbers look similar to what we saw a couple of weeks ago. And, quite frankly, you've got to bring it on line to let us see what you're doing. MR. COAKLEY: Looking forward to it. MR. OCHS: The only comment I'll make is that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do too. MR. OCHS: -- all -- again, this is an internal service fund that is totally funded by charge-backs to user clients. So all of the operating budgets that you've already seen already contain the appropriations that are going to be required to fund this one. you've already reviewed that in some way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? I don't see any. Thank you, Mr. Coakley. MR. COAKLEY: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: I believe, then, that has us through your entire phase of reviews, and what you had said -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Ochs. MR. DORRILL: -- was that you would then go to public comment, and then we will deal with a list of probably 15 hopefully quick wrap-up items one way or another. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many public comments do we have? MR. DORRILL: Well, some folks had sign-up slips. Some have not turned them in, but if you're interested in speaking under public comment, would you mind raising your hand. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's another one out there. MR. DORRILL: I'll say half a dozen. And I only have one slip, so if you have a slip, if you could bring them to me. If not, we'll begin with Miss Varner, or as long as you state your name for the record I think that's fine. Miss Varner, you'll go first. MS. VARNER: Good afternoon. I'm Jane Varner, and I'm representing the Taxpayer Action Group. The executive board of the Taxpayer Action Group endorses the proposal that non-county residents pay parking fees at beach parking facilities. It is reasonable and fair that the costs incurred providing and maintaining these facilities should be shared by users outside of the county with the county residents who aren't present providing the revenue because of the commission's previous stance favoring tourist shares in the cost of other items for which they benefit, most recently noted in the one cent sales tax for a new bridge. We urge the commission to remain so disposed and apply this concept to beach parking fees as well. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next. MR. DORRILL: Miss Byles. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Byles. MS. BYLES: My name is Faye Byles, president of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association. I'll make my comments very short because we have some other people that would like to speak. I would just like to remind you that the people at Marco Island -- and I don't know about the other beaches, but we certainly can speak for our beach and the parking lot at Marco Island. Our people were absolutely thrilled when the commissioners came out last time to look at the beach condition, and I mean they were thrilled because you saw the turn-out. They all wanted to shake hands with you. They were absolutely thrilled that you took the time to come out. Commissioner Constantine, you were not able to come that day, and I think you would have seen the interest that the people had in that beach and in the parking lot. We just can't -- There's no way that we can tell you how much that beach means, not only to Marco Island residents, but the whole -- the county. There was so much trash left two weeks ago at that parking lot that we had to call for help. We had to get some attendant in there to remove the trash. In fact, some of the -- even some of the people on the island were calling other people on the island to say that -- that beach parking lot is a mess, and the beach is a mess, and I must tell you that the condition of that beach has deteriorated since you have been there. It's obvious that there's not enough money, evidently, to address the conditions that are there. So I think we need to have the parking lot -- the parking fees raised and supported so that we can address the condition of not only the beach, but the park, the parking lot itself. This is one thing that all the groups on Marco Island have supported, believe it or not. I think it's the first for Marco Island, and I mean that MICA, MITA, MAC, (phonetic) the realtors, the chamber of commerce as well as TAG and the Greater Naples Civic Association. So I think we have a lot of support for this fees to be restored to where they were several years back and perhaps even more. To me, it's like Avalen Lake. It's one time where we can all enjoy -- as well as the tourists coming in, to enjoy something that the tourists helped pay for. I just finished a long study of Sanibel Island's long-range plan. They did an in-depth -- in-depth study about day-trippers who come onto the island, and they have found out that the day-trippers spend very little money when they come onto the island. They live behind the trash, the garbage, and so forth that the taxpayers have to pick up and pay for. So we think it's time that we put this parking fee back into position and let's all enjoy the beaches and the parking lots. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Miss Maggie. Would the next person who wants to speak, why don't you come up and sit in this corner seat up here and we'll get you on deck. Miss Maggie. MS. MAGGIO: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Emily Maggie. I live in Little Hickory Shores. I'm here today as a private citizen. I'm representing the Benita Shores and Little Hickory Shores Improvement Association. I'm also representing the property owners of Naples Park and the Naples Park Area Association. I've seen what's been proposed. I've seen the figures, and I have to say they certainly grab your eye. The problem is they do not and are not supported by the report that was produced by the parks department. This is the history of the past performance of the beach parking fees, and what they're promising here is not justified here; however, it is reminiscent of what has been promised in the past in these executive summaries when we were always going to make a whole lot of money. The problem is, it never happened. We'd like to offer to the board some old but good advice. If somebody is offering you a deal that sounds too good to be true -- and a million dollars profit -- watch out. You're about to be had perhaps. Tourists are very important, not only to our economy because of the jobs -- Let's face it. We've targeted them to pay for beach reneurishment even though they didn't cause it. We certainly don't want to make this an unfriendly place for them to come. We have a low tourist tax. It certainly gives us an edge. If we could offer fee-free access to our beaches, as we do to our all park and library, it certainly would give us a little competitive edge as far as vying for that business. I think if we need more revenue from the tourists, if we feel they're not paying their share for these facilities, then a small percent of the tourist tax should go to maintaining the parks and the beach, and I think you have less administrative costs. You're already collecting it. It's a simple matter to write a check to the parks department. We would also like to say if -- if the board decides to go with parking fees for outsiders, that Collier people don't pay. We would like to raise the following issues and please respectfully have them addressed. There should be no charge to Collier residents to receive these stickers. They should come to us free, and we would like to know how that will be done, what the administration will be, and what -- the costs involved with that because that takes off from your expected revenue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In our discussion the other day, the stickers would come to county residents free of charge. MS. MAGGIO: Okay. Second of all, we would like to raise the issue how these discriminatory fees would affect the county's ability to secure grants and the amount of grants you would be able to secure because of the -- the tiered -- because of the fact that you're letting Collier residents go free and charging others. We don't want to do something where we're going to cut off our nose to spite our face because that diminishes whatever profit you think you might be making. Third, what assurance. We want some assurance and not just a promise. We want some assurance that if these revenues don't come in, that we won't end up in a situation where everybody is going to end up paying this because then we're right back to where we were before when we were collecting a fee and it was losing money. We want a provision that if it doesn't work out, it goes away. I agree with Commissioner MAtthews' comment that if there is a profit from these fees, that the money should only go back into beach parks and maintenance of beach parks or acquiring access. As far as the city program, of paying the city, I was always opposed to that, but that was because the county's charging us to park at our own beach parks. We've gotten rid of that. I can now look at that program with a different light, and I feel this way. There's 900 parking places available to the county at the city accesses. I don't know where the county would find the property to put 900 parking places and -- either in one or many locations; therefore, the 900 parking places at whatever the fee is -- I think it was 200,000. It may be less now. I don't know -- seems to me an economical way of providing free beach access to county residents because you couldn't do it in your own park. I don't know how you could ever do that. So I changed my position on that. I think we ought to keep it. But, again, to recap what I said at the beginning, we're opposed to them, and that's all three associations. We're opposed to the fees. If you do it, we would like, please, consider the comments that we've made. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Emily can vouch for this. I've always said that I'm opposed to county residents paying to park at beaches that they paid for. We've -- We've talked about it several times. But I will tell you, many of the phone calls I got supporting beach parking fees came out of Naples Park and I -- I was surprised you said you were representing them, but it was just -- it's surprising to me because I have heard a lot of phone calls out of Naples Park supporting beach parking fees so -- MS. MAGGIO: Okay. And just to make the record absolutely clear, I would never stand here and claim to represent someone that I didn't have the permission to, and I spoke with MAria Sourbeer yesterday and that's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But that's not Property Owners of Naples Park. MS. MAGGIO: And -- And Property Owners of Naples Park. I spoke to Doug McGilvra so -- and he polls his board and so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Their boards. Okay. MS. HAGGIO: So I had their permission. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next. MR. BAKER: Next? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. BAKER: I am Richard Baker, and I'm now representing the Greater Naples Civic Association. We sat through these sessions, and they're always educational. I'm going to have to be careful what I say because you all have eaten and you have an energy level that I don't have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sorry. MR. BAKER: But we do applaud the efforts that you're making to try and hold the millage at what it was last year, and there have even been some hints or suggestions from some of the commissioners that maybe some cuts can be make that would reduce the millage below what it was last year, and I am glad to hear that because I think we're all aware of the -- the mood in this country now as far as government is concerned. We see it on the national level, and I don't think we're any different down here. But people want less government and less costly government. So I hope you'll hold the line, please, and maybe do a little better than that. I think you'll be applauded by all of your constituents. I certainly will applaud. We -- and somebody else has already commented that we are supporting the beach parking, so you'll hear it from me. We have discussed this thing, and we have talked about it in months past but we -- we feel that this user fee, as we are calling it, should be put in place. We don't think that the residents should pay for it, and I think the board has -- in their comments are agreeing to that, but we hope you will go ahead and put this through. If it doesn't pay off, you can always do away with it as the previous speaker brought up in her comments. But I think it is a good thing, and I think we ought to give it a shot and see if it will -- if it will carry. One other thing that we have -- We heard the comments on the health benefits and the comments that were brought up and especially those of Commissioner Matthews. We would like to see something like that happen, the combination thing. I think -- I think we all agree, as you do from your comments, that the employee should share in the savings, and it will give them an initiative to perhaps further curtail the amount of medical services that are used that are not necessary perhaps. We certainly don't want to deny them from having the medical attention that they do actually need, but we have seen what's happened. I happen to be a Hedicare recipient, and I see how much abuse really goes on in the Hedicare system, and a lot of money is wasted by people seeking unnecessary medical treatment. So I think some of that -- if you can encourage the employees to cut back on what they really don't need and thereby save some from it, then I think that's the proper incentive for them to do that, and I hope you can see your way clear to push that through. Also from the standpoint of the COL, cost-of-living increase, we have opposed the 3 1/2 percent increase from the time it was first suggested for a number of reasons. The main reason it's above the cost of living. It's anticipated -- I think the cost of living for the year is going to be about 2.8. So why should the cost of living for county employees be 3.5? So I think that gives you some negotiating room in there to cut some of that and also to give them some share of the savings in the health benefits. One last point I have here. By scheduling the public comments that you have for the March session and for this session, the board is showing that you're trying to be citizen-friendly, and we appreciate that. But one other step we would like you to take if you can and further being citizen-friendly is that -- that is a preparation of the material for the budget hearings. We've gotten them from anywhere from one day ahead of the hearings to three days ahead of the hearings and I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the way we get them. MR. BAKER: That's what I was going to -- I -- I -- I think that's the case too and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're hoping to make it commissioner-friendly too. MR. BAKER: But what you get is about an inch thick, and it's filled with lots of numbers, and most of us are not CPAs, and even the CPA who's on the board I suspect has a little difficulty going through that wealth of material in that short period of time. Why can't you direct the staff to have these prepared at least ten days ahead of the meeting that they apply to and hopefully two weeks ahead? And not only will it help you, but it will help us poor people too so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It may just be a function of that much work to do. MR. BAKER: Well, the way -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't we start it two weeks sooner? I mean, Neil, that -- that is really a valid point. MR. BAKER: That's the point I make because in business we do the same thing in preparing budgets. We -- The material that you have to prepare the budgets is certainly available to you two weeks earlier than -- than you've been starting on it. So it -- it might take a little different approach to the scheduling of it, but I don't see why it can't be done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We moved the whole budget -- this portion of the hearings up a week this year as well because we -- yesterday was the last hearing -- MR. BAKER: Yeah. But this is -- But this is a follow-up on what was done in March. I mean, it's the next step after what was done in March, and now you're going to have the next step in September. And why can't all this as far as the preparation of it be moved two weeks ahead, and we'll have it and you'll have it too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another thought is that we made this a priority, didn't we, for the -- what is the committee you used to chair? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Productivity committee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- productivity to talk about the whole budget process and how to do it -- how to do it better, but I could sure do a better job if I had a little bit of time to look over this stuff before we get here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we could all use more time to look over it. MR. BAKER: I think so, yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's true. MR. BAKER: I think it would be a benefit to the -- I think it would be a benefit to the whole process. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- Just one thought. You had mentioned the 2.8 percent. We had mention -- We had come up with a 3 1/2 percent. You asked how. Because in March it was anticipated that the CPI would be 3 1/2 percent, and I think we had based ours on the consumer price index. MR. OCHS: Excuse me. For the record, Leo Ochs. That's correct, Commissioner. In fact, I just checked with the HR before I came downstairs, and we had a monthly report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Fort Lauderdale standard metropolitan statistical area, and it was running 3.7 for the -- for the month last month. So we'll have to get together, maybe compare some notes with Mr. Baker and see where that number is, but we'll be happy to -- MR. BAKER: Well, the number I'm using is a national figure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We have to use the correct number for the area though. MR. OCHS: Yeah. You may be using the calendar year when we are on a fiscal-year basis. Again, we're projecting always the cost of living from October -- this coming October through the following September of '96. MR. DORRILL: But that -- That's consistent with what we've done every year. We've used the same standard indices, and we require the Department of Labor to project the Miami, Fort Lauderdale as the closest individual index that they do. They have another composite index for the southeast, and then have a national adjusted cost of living. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we're using southeast -- South Florida; right? MR. DORRILL: Which is the closest and we think the best one that pertains. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can't get much closer. MR. BAKER: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. PARAY: Good morning, Madam Chairman. For the record, my name is Ray Paray (phonetic), and I'm here representing both MICA and MITA. Samuel Goldman, a Hollywood mogul, once said, if I want a second opinion, I'll give it to you. Well, Mr. Olliff did not give us a second opinion when we met with him many, many times in discussing the free installation of beach parking fees, something I've been working on for three years. They were not removed because they were not paying their way. They were removed because the previous commission was stampeded into it. With the many high-dollar ticket items that parks and rec is facing, to not take advantage of passive income would border on fiscal irresponsibility. The only area of disagreement we had with Mr. Olliff from the parks and rec program was that the real numbers we have are low on the cost side and high on the income side, and I think you all will be pleasantly surprised when they're put into effect. You all know that beach parking fees are charged north of here, south of here, east and west, and everywhere else. The minimum projected income that is going to be derived from the parking fees in Collier County comprises an integral part of the proposed balanced budget from what I read in the paper. To vote against it will require replacing these funds or cutting services to the citizens of this community. Does any commissioner really want to go back to his constituents and say he would rather tax them than to receive passive income from our visitors? I think not. I too feel I should be able to freely use the waters that adjoin these beaches, but that privilege costs me $98 to float my boat in state waters. I hope you paid for your own lunches. I expect you did because there is no free lunch. Our amenities -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We did. MR. PARAY: -- are what Collier County has to offer. We have all paid to offer these amenities, and it's time again to ask our day-trippers and our visitors to help defray the costs of it. Let's do it like he says. Let's just go for it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. MILLER: I want to pass this out before I make a very brief, a very brief -- emphasis on very brief presentation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ah, it is brief. MR. MILLER: For the record, my name is Gil Miller. I serve on the Collier County park and recreation advisory board, and I'm also a member of HITA. You may recall that you received an executive summary from the park and recreation board urging you to reinstate beach fees. You may recall also that the Vanderbilt Beach Association sent Kim Kobza, I believe is the president, and he signed a letter -- sent you a letter also recommending the reinstatement of beach fees. From a personal standpoint, the bottom line, I suppose, is the fact that to me it just seems wrong to continue to expect the taxpayers of Collier County to pay for beach enjoyment from -- for example, at Tigertail, so many people from the east coast and Bonita Beach, people from Lee County that come across the road to enjoy our beaches because they have to pay for the beaches in Lee County. Somehow that just doesn't seem right. That's about all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mrs. Ward. MS. WARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am not going to repeat what I have already sent to you people on this subject by letter, but I do have three new items that I'd like to bring up. First of all, we have read that one of the commissioners on the Collier County -- as someone just a few moments ago said, it's the only place in Florida without fees for parking and/or admission to the beach. Wrong. Several places on the southeast coast do not charge. One place is Boyington Inlet. Another is Lake Worth Inlet. A third spot is known as Gulf Stream. There are a lot of others, but we don't have time to go over there and drive out to every beach to check it. On the Gulf Coast, there are accesses in Lee County where there is parking but there are no fees. In Sarasota County, at one time there were no fees at any beach locations, and we believe that that is still correct. Just recently we rechecked, and we found that with boardwalks, showers, rest rooms, and in one case even a child's playground, there are still no fees at Casey Key, Siesta Key, Venice and Nokomis. Other places also don't charge. But, as I say, we have more things to do than just drive up and down the whole coast of Florida and check it. This is a snapshot. It was taken from Sarasota where there is the entrance to one of the beaches where it is free. Number two, I would like to present you with 5,340 signatures which are opposed to any -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Harge. How many was that? MS. WARD: 5,340 signatures opposed to any form of fees in unincorporated Collier County beaches, and many of these sheets were collected by the various Collier County associations who you have already heard either now or at previous times have been opposed to beach fees of any sort. Some were collected on Collier beaches, and some of the addresses may be elsewhere because your TDC spends a lot of money advertising for tourists who provide the economy of Southwest Florida. Barefoot Beach abuts Lee County, and this is one spot where beachgoers don't give one iota what county the beach happens to be in. For many years the only parking lot at the county line was in Lee County, and it was used by everyone. Then and even now, there is only one rest room which is in Lee County, and it's used by everyone. The beachgoers look at it as just their sovereign lands. And, incidentally, with these petition forms, I just want to show you that we tried to be very fair when these were collected. This is the sheet which requested fees. Note it's blank. No one wanted to sign it. Immediately following Monday's hearing that you had and the discussion wherein you, Commissioner Constantine, questioned the statement that the proposed profit on the fees was based on all the parking lots being full all year round, well, on route home we checked Barefoot Beach Park and Barefoot Beach Reserve. This was at approximately 2 p.m. In the afternoon, a hot, beautiful, sunny Florida day. Now, as I understand it, there's approximately at the present time 254 parking spaces between those two particular areas. Only 54 spots were occupied. We did an actual count on them. Your percentages of 20 percent of the people being at the park happened to be from Collier County, and 80 percent are from other places. Well, let me tell you. There were a lot of -- Sure, there were out-of-state licenses, but many of them had Naples parking stickers on their car; so, therefore, they must have some relationship to Collier County. Plus it was just a couple of years ago when Bonita Springs got a tax office locally. Previous to that time, our own household bought licenses for four vehicles, one trailer, one motor home, four boats with three boat trailers and all driving licenses in Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Marge, in -- MS. WARD: Now -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Marge, we -- we didn't particularly limit the time that you could have input but -- MS. WARD: If you would just let me -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Try to wrap up. MS. WARD: -- finish this one because I wanted to point these things out and then get to point number three because that's the most important one. There are a lot of people that live in Bonita Shores. There are a lot of people that live in other places in Collier County that work in Bonita Springs, and they buy their licenses in Lee County. Why? Because of convenience. So this is why a lot of this summary as to how many people are from where is just a little bit off kilter. Number three, many of the past speakers -- and I'm not talking about just today. I'm talking about when this subject's come up before, including yours truly, have made reference on many occasions relative to discrimination of fees when it comes to Collier residents or beachgoers from elsewhere. We've pointed out that Florida does not look favorably on different fees or fees versus no fees with regard to Florida's sovereign beaches and especially so where state funds have been involved as grants or owner -- or outright ownership by the state. I'd like to point out to you that was a March 18, 1975, decision that was passed down to Miami Beach from the Attorney General of Florida. The question was, quote, may a municipality charge a fee for admission to a municipal beach, unquote. And I have been advised a municipality is not just a city but any governmental entity such as a county. The response was, and I quote, a municipality may charge a fee for admission to and use of its municipally owned beach provided that no such fee is reasonably related to the expenses incurred in operating the beach and is non-discriminatory, unquote. Another such case was between Fort Lauderdale and the state where the question was -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Miss Ward, please -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Ward -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We take our legal advice from our county attorney. He doesnwt agree with you, and we donwt need your legal advice. MS. WARD: This is -- This is in the records up in Tallahassee and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We donwt need your legal advice. MS. WARD: -- I would like to -- if I could just finish this other case to point it out to you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Marge. Marge, we donwt need your legal advice. Our county attorney has -- MS. WARD: Iwm not giving you my legal advice, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, you are. MS. WARD: Iwm giving you from the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Marge. Marge. MS. WARD: -- from which is being read -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Marge. Marge. MS. WARD: -- or written and from the records. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Marge, wewve been through this with our county legal department. They disagree with you totally in whole. We donwt need your legal advice. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wewve been a year getting this opinion from our attorney, and he has spent a year researching whether we could do this or not, and he has come back and said, yes, we can. MS. WARD: Well, all Iwm referring to is that these are record cases between the Attorney General and two cities in particular, and it has a lot of other reference backup, and I think it is something -- just as a matter of caution to you, I would not want to see the Collier County get into any trouble because they were doing something that could not be backed up and these -- these I have gotten from a very high source and a reliable lawyer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Iwm sure that if our attorney has made an error he will let us know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Marge -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Marge, of those 5,000 signatures, how many were county residents? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: County taxpayers. MS. WARD: Pardon? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many were county taxpayers of those 5,300 signatures? Do you know just offhand? MS. WARD: How many were for which? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Full-time residents, county taxpayers. Of those 5,000 signatures, how many were actual Collier County taxpayers? MS. WARD: I have never made any attempt to check that at all. You have them as they are. Some sheets are completely all Collier. Some are a little of each, and some with Bonita Springs addresses are Collier people. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That answers my question. Did those sheets state that county residents would park for free? MR. DORRILL: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They do not state '- MS. WARD: Well, whoever -- Whoever signed it wanted the parks free, the parks and parking lots free. MR. DORRILL: The question reads -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What does it read? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What does the petition question read? MR. DORRILL: It said, the following residents, visitors, tourists hereby express opposition to parking fees and/or parking meters at any public beach in Collier County. Fees are discriminatory, have the greatest impact on those who can least afford it. This results in less, not more, public access to our beautiful beaches and natural resources. And then in glancing at this, I'd say half of them are Collier County residents who would be exempt under the proposal. I'd say the other half are clearly Bonita Springs or Lee County. There are some individuals who signed this who were from out of state. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because, again, this isn't an example of something that's been presented to the electorate fairly or evenly because if they didn't know that they wouldn't be paying for it, they may have been signing under different circumstances, and that's the reason for the question, Harge. MS. WARD: Excuse me. At the -- At the time most of these have been collected, there was no proposal that people from Collier County were going to be get -- able to get in free, but some of them did express to me or to others who collected these -- because I didn't collect the whole 5,000 signatures, I guarantee you -- that some people said that even if they could get in free, they didn't want the hassle that there was with passes and parking meters and so on and so forth -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But we just '- MS. WARD: -- because they like the system as it was. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is -- The point is we don't know that from those 5,000 signatures. We don't know how many people. So, you know, I think this has to stand on its own merits, but I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I've got to respond to that. The point is that you can't simply negate 5,340 signatures either. I realize there is a percentage of that from elsewhere, but we can't take that number down to zero either. I think the point with all those signatures, whether they're here, there, whether they understood the exact nature of how we were going to do this, is that there is some concern out there about this particular issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure, there is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure, there is, but you could hardly count that as a -- as a fair circuit question either. I mean, you heard the language. I mean, it's extremely biased. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure there are people that are directly opposed to any type of beach parking whatsoever, whether they're free or not, and I've talked to some of those people, but my phone calls are two to one -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Talking to one now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: one the other way. So I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: information we were given. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My phone calls are about two to At least. I'm just trying to gauge with the Mr. Pointer, did you have comments? Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to have comment in the public? Okay. MR. POINTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Jack Pointer, and I'm here representing Willoughby Acres Property Owners Association. As we have said many times before and we continue to say, we are opposed to any beach parking fees at any of the Collier County beaches. We will continue along that particular line. And one of the things that if you do put in this beach parking fee and that you do exempt Collier County residents, in the case of Barefoot Beach on the north, there are parts of that that have some investment by the state, and the state may well say that the state people too may not be charged to park at that particular beach. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That seems to conclude the public comment on the budget process. We're into wrap-up. MR. DORRILL: Our reporter may need to take a brief break, and then I count 17 wrap-up items and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll take a ten-minute break. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the budget hearing, budget workshop of June 21, 1995. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I provided you with a budget wrap-up item list. What we propose to do is just kind of work our way right down the list from top to bottom starting with community development. I believe Mr. Cautero is prepared to discuss the issue related to the additional building inspector requests. There were three, and that was an issue raised at the community development budget workshop. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. This was related around, and when we were doing the priority budgeting, we had approved additional inspectors, but after that period of time we discovered that there was a deliberate slow-down. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. I've talked to the people on my staff in the building review and permitting department and went over some of the numbers so we could give you some information back as to what they were looking at for the number of inspections that they were doing per day and what the load was on the building inspectors and whether or not it would be justified to come back to this commission and ask for an increase in the number of inspectors. And what we've done is also make some comparisons to other counties on the Gulf in South Florida to determine what is an optimal number that you want to look at for the number of inspectors. Let me first say that you may be familiar with some of the documentation that came out of the State Attorney's Office in light of Hurricane Andrew. As you probably know, there were a lot of allegations about building inspections not done properly in South Florida, and when the State Attorney's Office started to -- Attorney General, excuse me, started to look at some of those, they made some statements that 15 was the best number of inspections that building inspectors should do per day, but that's not reality, especially in high-growth areas. You're looking at 20 or more, but they said 20 is your optimum number in order to do a good job on the inspections because when you take travel time into account and when you take the average half-hour lunch hour into account, you're looking at about 15, perhaps 20, minutes per inspection, and you want to do the best possible job you can. Right now we're averaging about 23 inspections per inspector per day in Collier County. We're looking at about 75,000. Numbers through the last few years have been consistent with that. There was a slight dip in 1993. There was approximately 700 -- 74,277 inspections in that year, down about 500 from the previous year, but over 76,100 in '94, and we're on track for approximately 76,000 again this year. But to be conservative, I'd like to go with the lower number now, 75,000, and there's 14 inspectors in the county. So if you look at the average number of workdays that people are off, considering sick days, vacation, and holidays, you're a little over 210, 212 workdays per year. So by dividing that number, that's how I come up with the average number that they're looking at. Now, the average number of inspections that they're performing isn't the total number that they're actually getting, that they're assigned. They're actually getting more, but they're doing a little bit less, and this is an actual workday regardless of whether they will go overtime or not, and we are looking at some overtime hours averaging between two and five per inspector per week. And we also have two inspector vacancies right now that interviews are taking place for to make up for that load. Two of the chief inspectors and two of the plans examiners are going out. So, in my opinion, and what I would recommend to you is that the optimum situation is to have the inspectors go out, and very rarely would you have your chief inspectors go out which is consistent with their position descriptions to work on the more complex type investigations of inspections and those sorts of things. And your plans examiner shouldn't be out except in very rare circumstances because they need to be in the office and they need to answer questions for people when they come in or when they call. Another problem that we're experiencing is that the building inspectors are going out now doing some investigation work with code enforcement for unsafe building. So it takes a little bit more time there. And having the plans examiners go out has slowed down the development review process somewhat. In January we were looking at a six-day turnaround time for development review, and that slowly has increased the number of days. In May we were looking at double that, 12 working days. In February, seven and a half; March, seven and a half; and in April, ten. A way to get that back is -- again, with filling these vacancies, I expect to see some improvement there. And I also think that there's a better way that we can use our time. I'm not convinced that they're using time in the most efficient manner. But, nonetheless, the numbers are showing approximately 23 average per inspector per day. So I think the numbers are there. To try to bring that number back down to around the 20 range which is optimal, I think, and probably expected -- to reach the goal of the 24-hour turnaround time in the building community. I think that would be another thing to keep in mind. I think the numbers can justify the three, but I don't want to propose to the board that's an all or nothing type thing. I would like to think that we could possibly talk about an increase of one, two, or three, but two of the three are structural. Those are the most important. The third one is for electrical, but I believe that the two structural are the most important. But, again, I have some numbers here I think can justify adding three, but I have to tell you that I think that there's some ways we can save some time and work a little bit smarter so that we can probably tighten up a little bit so that you're not looking at an increase of 23, 25, maybe more than that, per day. So I would just like to throw that out for you and then perhaps any questions that the commission might have. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have -- I just have a statement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, Commissioner Norris, and then Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- First of all, I appreciate the work you've done on this, Mr. Cautero, and I guess I want to ask a very blunt question. In your opinion, to give the community and the building community the minimum service or the service that you think is appropriate, of the three positions, you're -- if I understand you correctly, you're saying two you would consider very important, and the third would be possibly needed, but you think you could get the job done with two and some efficiency measures? Is that a fair summary? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I was just going to make the statement that I think originally the reason for putting this on the bring-back list is because we had some question of whether this was an artificially induced shortage or not, and I think you've answered my question very well. So, you know, I have no objection to okaying the item myself. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only other question -- and I realize you may only partially be able to answer this, but do you believe we've been operating at a dangerous or deficient level? Because it was only a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, that we cut some of these positions. I don't want three or four years from now when buildings that have been inspected in the past year, to find that we've been in a dangerous situation. MR. CAUTERO: If I understand your question correctly, Commissioner, in terms of not having enough staff to do the job adequately? Is that -- I don't think so because of the number of inspections that are being done and the amount of time that the chief inspectors are putting in the field, and the plans examiners are doing, of course, the best job they can because they have to stay in the office to complete their other tasks. But you're looking at some communities that are in that balipark between 18 and 20. The county I came from is looking at 18 per day. Sarasota is approximately now at 16. Lee County is 16, but they have a lot more inspectors and a lot more inspections. So you lose some of the -- It's skewed a little bit when you look at that. Charlotte and Sarasota are a lot more closely aligned than what are in terms of the number of people, but there's 20,000 inspections less. So I don't think it's a dangerous situation, but I think when you start hovering around the 23 to 25 -- which means they're getting more cards than that per day. They may not be finishing them all -- then you're getting pretty dangerous because you're under 15 minutes per inspection. But I think with the addition of two and some efficiency measures, we can do a good job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: General consensus to add two of the three? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question before we do that. You've got two vacancies now? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In what areas? MR. CAUTERO: In structural, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Both of them -- MR. CAUTERO: One might be electrical. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Both in structural or one structural, one electrical? MR. CAUTERO: I believe they're both in structural. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the 23 inspections per day that are being done now are without -- what's currently being achieved with those vacancies? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. But there's four people making up the difference for those two. I have two chief inspectors going out and two plans examiners going out that have expertise in those areas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Gottcha. Okay. Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to see the addition of two based on Mr. Cautero's information. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two. You get two of the three. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. Vince Cautero, community development administrator. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item on the wrap-up list is under pollution control. I would ask Mr. Yilmaz to perhaps bring back an item related to funding pollution -- actually doing cleanup work as opposed to monitoring, and I believe he is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think -- I think we were talking about having a -- less of a Cadillac monitoring system and spend -- taking some of that money and put it to actual cleaner. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe Mr. Yilmaz has prioritized a cleanup effort, and it would require half a million dollars per year for ten years. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That involves just a shifting of money from what's presently being proposed for monitoring into cleanup. That's what we asked for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that what your program does, Mr. Yilmaz? Does it shift or does it add on? MR. YILMAZ: Add on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's add on. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we wanted a shift. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what we asked for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I remember Commissioner Hac'Kie broaching the subject that if we have a full tenth mill available, perhaps we ought to be using it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I think he's reacted to that and brought forth a plan using the full tenth mill. So we may not want to do all of that. We may want to take some of the monitoring and move it into cleanup. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Obviously if you added a half million dollars in aggregate, we would again be -- we're basically at a no tax increase in aggregate at this point. Obviously if you add a half million dollars, we would be advertising a tax increase in aggregate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we took $266,000 out of the budget just yesterday. I'm sure that's going to go into reserves and be carried forward, and we could use that for some of this stuff. So, I mean, it -- it -- We have lots of money out there. The interior redesign for this building, you know, this is the one we said we weren't going to do it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was not in the budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not in this budget, but it's in the current year's budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That has no impact on ad valorem for next year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It doesn't increase the reserves? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's an increase in reserves so -- MR. FINN: Let's try to clarify this. What project are we talking about, MAdam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The communications. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Audio visual. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The audio visual stuff in this room. MR. FINN: The audio visual proposal that was brought to you Tuesday is not and never was included in any budget. That was a request to take money from reserves and do that project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me if we're looking at an add-on of $500,000 a year for ten years or $5 million, that's going to take more than a few minutes. Obviously it's going to have budget impacts if we decide to go with it, but that seems like it's going to be a policy decision, not simply a budget decision. So I don't know if this is the appropriate forum to be diving into that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Mr. Dorrill has perhaps suggested either in a future workshop date or under a separate executive summary to bring forth a proposed program and let you all review it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wasn't that long ago that we discussed a cleanup program, and there was a general feeling there that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With the chlordane thing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, not just chlordane, but we had a broader scope of discussion on this particular item, and what I remember is a lot of these sites that we're -- Mr. Yilmaz has put on his list, many of them fall under the jurisdiction of another agency's responsibility it is to do that, and if I remember correctly, this thing more or less died with that being a significant element. So I don't want to sit here today and revisit that entire discussion. My only reason for going along with some idea of the cleanup fund is if there are sites out there that no one has jurisdiction over, that the county has had a significant role in the degradation of that need to be cleaned up, then we need to take a look at those. But, you know, I'm just not sure today we can adequately, you know, address that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could I suggest, then, that we leave the monitoring budget for pollution control alone for the time being and ask Mr. Yilmaz to come back with us -- to us at a later date with a shift of some of that money into cleanup for projects as you've stated that the county has had a hand in the degradation and no one else in this world is even looking at cleaning them up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whether they have jurisdiction over them or not, nobody's doing it. Maybe as a service to the county, to citizens we should be. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if someone else has jurisdiction and is ignoring it, we need to make an effort to bring it to their attention and try to get them to enforce it. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Certainly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That may be what we need to know, is who's got jurisdiction, who's not doing what they ought to be doing. If we need to do it, let us know, rather than just leave it out there and nobody's doing it. Okay? MR. YILMAZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do that? MR. YILMAZ: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that make sense? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you for the presentation. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just to be clear, we typically adopt the proposed millage rates used in the trim notices when you get back from vacation, typically your first or second meeting back in July, just so you're clear of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think that what Commissioner Hac'Kie was first talking about was a shift -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Was a switch from -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to shift some of that Cadillac monitoring money into cleanup, but we don't know what the cleanup is, and we don't know who's got jurisdiction. We want -- That's what we want to know, who should be cleaning it up. If they're not doing it, let's get some letters off and remind them that they ought to be doing it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're saying keep the dollar amount the same, and if we need to shift how it's used later on, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you can use this in that workshop, Mr. Yilmaz. It's probably not time wasted here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I don't think it's time wasted. We'll see it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please don't let it die. I mean, please try to get it back on an agenda so that -- if it's a workshop or otherwise, that we make some decisions about how that money gets spent, whether it's in monitoring or in cleanup. I'd like very much for it not to just go away today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we okay with that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yep. MR. FINN: Very good. MR. YILMAZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we'll do. So I guess executive summary and one Tuesday, not in the too distant future. Okay? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The key today, as just mentioned, it's a half million new additional monies, and you can leave very quickly. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That moves us into public works. There's a few items under utilities related to the -- some sort of payment from community development for the utility reviews performed by utilities' engineering staff, recommended enhancements to the water and sewer maintenance programs that were discussed in their line item budget review, and also duties and responsibilities and/or additional justification for that additional finance supervisor position. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McNees, I think our question was, are -- is the -- are the utilities being adequately funded from community development for the work you do in their behalf. MR. MCNEES: Mike McNees, for the record, utilities division. The answer is we are not funded in any way by development services. I've handed -- handed you a short memo from our engineering supervisor. He estimates the time of the two employees in his department, how much of it is directly development-related. That's 22,000 for the technician, 16,000 for the engineering director, and add to that the full-time position that we pay for that is a development services employee that deals with line acceptances and that sort of thing. The total is $83,452, our estimate of just that part of the utilities effort that is directly development-related. Obviously there's effort across the board on pretty much everyone's part in some way or another, but this is directly attributable and accountable. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike, I'm -- I'm surprised that they didn't count more than just the time of the employees. MR. MCNEES: We didn't attempt to recover overhead or any of those issues. We were just trying to get to something that we could readily account for and the employees' time is -- You know, obviously the pieces become a part of the utilities system so we're -- you know, they are our expenses too but directly development-related costs. We would have the overhead anyway. It's not like this is a 20-person department that two of them do something and we would lose their overhead. There's only two people in this department just allocating out these -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're already in development services physically, aren't they -- MR. MCNEES: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in that building? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Not these. MR. MCNEES: Two of these people are -- are utilities employees. One of them -- The last one that's listed is a development services employee located at 2800 Horseshoe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the $44,000 number you're talking about? MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- And right now development services is not refunding you this money at all? MR. MCNEES: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're actually paying them 44,0007 MR. MCNEES: We are paying them the 44,000, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So at least this 83 -- and I would say that's too low. But at least that much should be paid by developers instead of by utility rate payers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I would be comfortable to say there's some sort of overhead -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Me too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- allocated to this. I don't know what that number is. Our budget -- Our budget people knows -- know that. MR. FINN: Which number? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What the overhead allocated to these people would be. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would have to be figured, I would guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. FINN: Yes. We would know that number. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd agree with you also. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I would agree. I think we should reimburse utilities from development services. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: So rather than utilities paying community development, instead you would have community development pay utilities 83,500 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, no. I think what we're talking about doing is development services picking up the $44,000 salary that really belongs to them and then developing -- taking these two pieces of salaries, developing some overhead that's applicable to the work that they're doing, and billing development services for that portion. So we're talking about 30 -- 38, $39,000 plus a piece of overhead. MR. FINN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- MR. FINN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, I know we've got two enterprise funds that are paying each other, but we need to properly allocate it to where it belongs. MR. FINN: That's fine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The funding mechanism for this would be an increase in application fees for things such as plat acceptance and so forth of utility lines. MR. FINN: I would suspect that their current structure, even after being revised, would be adequate to cover the 38, 42, 45,000 that they would have to reimburse utilities division. So I don't envision any trouble there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that can absorb this, and you still have the 15 percent cut. MR. FINN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we're all in agreement that we'd rather see a redistribution of it rather than to decrease the permit fees that don't need to be decreased. There are expenses there. MR. FINN: Very good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on you guys's recommended enhancements to the maintenance program. MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. The two department heads, water and wastewater, have put together quite a volume of information for you, and I've asked them to capsulize it for themselves. The one -- I'll let Tim Clemons from wastewater go ahead and go first. Then Mike from water. MR. CLEMONS: Good afternoon. For the record, Tim Clemons, wastewater director. I gave you just a moment ago a little handout you can look at. And what I have done is gone back to the staff in each of the segments in the wastewater department, asked them to pull their manufacturer's recommendations, the specifications for maintaining the equipment in their facilities and in their lift stations, and from that have tried to compile a list of tools and materials that they say they're deficient in having to meet the manufacturer's recommendations. You'll notice in both of the plants, they've broken that into two categories. One is the first priority and the second being the second priority, and collections is done there into three priorities -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm having trouble finding -- following. MR. CLEHONS: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So take us -- The first page is sort of a summary. MR. CLEHONS: The first page is just a summary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then enhanced maintenance for north facility. MR. CLEHONS: For the north county regional wastewater treatment facility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then I see second priority total at the bottom, but what's first? MR. CLEHONS: Okay. You'll see the bulleted item. The bulleted items going down are considered first priority items. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the total there is -- MR. CLEHONS: The total for that is $107,400 as put together by the senior maintenance technician for that facility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this represents parts of things that they need according to manufacturer's regulations that they don't have? MR. CLEHONS: Parts and tools or equipment that they don't have to maintain what's on hand. Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CLEHONS: And the second priority total is $20,100 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 20,000. HR. CLEHONS: -- for that facility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then we skip a page and then there's south county. MR. CLEHONS: The second is the south county, and it's relatively the same as the north county. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they have 150 -- MR. CLEHONS: They have 150,000. In looking through this just before we came up here, there's perhaps $36,000 that I would recommend pulling out of that, that may be able to be put off for another year or so or borrowed as far as -- They have a portable generator, for instance, listed. It may be that we can borrow that item rather than purchase it this next year. They've got scales for a Hack truck listed. The reason for that is one of our drivers the other day was stopped by FDOT and was 1,100 pounds overweight. We don't have scales for the vehicles. They were kind of gauging it on load by visual, and we don't have a set of scales for that vehicle. However, I think that, you know, we may be able to come up with something used. We may be able to come up with another method of making sure we're not overloaded on the vehicle rather than the $20,000. The third item I'd recommend that we pull out of that is the refurbishing of the Hack trailers. I think we can go another year, perhaps two, before we spend that money. So the 150,400 can be decreased by another $36,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've pulled out just about all the things I saw that were not what I would call machine maintenance. MR. CLEHONS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, that was my focus -- MR. CLEHONS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- was that we don't have pumps and equipment going down because we didn't maintain them. MR. CLEHONS: Right. What you do see on there are the tools and the valves, the impellets, the refurbishing of the waste-activated pumps in the plant that run almost all the time, those type of things that that maintenance gentleman is telling me he's not able to keep up with. So I can reduce that 150 -- 150,400 by an additional 36,000 on that first priority. The second priority again is 28,600. On both of those I don't recommend that we go after that this year. That's something we can stretch out over the next couple of years or pick up as budget constraints permit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask on some of those, especially the second priority items. I see a recipro saw in there and a target saw and various pieces of equipment like that. Correct me if my assumption is not accurate, but I would assume that those don't get daily use and I -- MR. CLEHONS: Exactly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and I wonder if there might not be an opportunity to, number one, perhaps share north and south and -- MR. CLEHONS: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- number two, maybe these would be used on such sparse occasions that rental might be the more appropriate way to go on these tools and equipment. MR. CLEHONS: Rental on that is something we should look and will look at. If not, then -- You're right. It's not used daily, and between the two facilities, they may be able to buy one and share it. You know, there's no reason they can't share them. So that's why that's not shown as a big priority and is not recommended that we go after right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, Mr. Clemons, I want to thank you for not popping in here with just a wish list because the truth is you know what needs to be done over there better than we do, and if you wanted to smokescreen us, you probably could. But since you've taken a very logical approach on a lot of these things, my question is, would we be able to make these improvements you've recommended, one, without raising rates; and, two, without sacrificing the future reserves to a point in which we are uncomfortable? MR. CLEHONS: Yes on both of those, Commissioner. We would not -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My next question is -- is -- is why -- not directed at you intentionally, but why hasn't that been done? Was it -- Did you need the board to authorize those expenditures? MR. HCNEES: I'll field that one. I've been sitting in budget reviews now for many years, and these crews and tools and equipment come to budget meetings as expanded services and they get cut. As simple as that. These guys have been making these types of cases now repeatedly for years, and the crunch comes on, and they get cut. So it's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But this is an enterprise fund and we can fund it without raising rates. MR. MCNEES: You are preaching to the choir. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MCNEES: We've been saying that for years. I understand that with the large growth -- In every part of their budgets, there's growth even without some of these things, and so, you know, it gets difficult to justify the percentages in this form. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Many things on this list are what I would consider -- we don't because of the dollar value, but I would consider them capital items. I mean, they're not -- it's not $150,000 each and every year. MR. MCNEES: No. No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Much of it's a one-time expense MR. CLEMONS: Much of it is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and then it's labor. MR. CLEHONS: And then it's going to be labor and parts, and the parts would be, you know, on a continuing basis, but much of it is just a one-time purchase. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the changes Mr. Clemons has recommended, I'm very comfortable with these, and I'd be willing to give direction to pursue Mr. Clemons' recommendations in the wastewater department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Remove the 36,000? MR. CLEHONS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Removing the 36,00. MR. HCNEES: That's only the first priority items. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. Do not include the second priority items. I'm going to trust your judgment on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, is this more than your current labor force can accomplish in one year? Are you going to have to spread it out over a couple of years to get it caught up? MR. CLEHONS: The gentlemen that are doing this for us today tell me that it would take them anywhere from 12 to 18 months to catch up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're going to spread the labor effect of it over a couple of years. MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CLEHONS: And the same with collection. They're your last two pages. They broke theirs for me down into three priorities, and I would recommend their just priority one for the first year or two which is basically pump parts, inventory materials for pump maintenance that they need. That would be what I would recommend to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One more question also, Mr. Clemons. If we increase the maintenance and the maintenance scheduling on this and acquire these parts or rent them or whatever it is that we need to do to perform the maintenance on the recommended level, are you going to have to enhance your maintenance labor force? MR. CLEMONS: In collections, no, ma'am. The existing work force would be able to pick up the work there. Based on the work in the plants, both of those gentlemen have told me they need to add one technician to their work force. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, if we take the whole picture, increased an FTE and increased parts and increased all this other stuff, you still don't need to raise your rates in order -- MR. CLEHONS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to accomplish that? MR. CLEHONS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're still not sacrificing your reserves to a point that you are uncomfortable with as far as the overall operation? MR. CLEHONS: No, we're not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't see any reason not to go forward with this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consider that sufficient direction. MR. HCNEES: On the collection site, just for your information, Commissioner Norris, some of the savings that you saw the other day were due to the merging of what used to be a north collections and a south collections section into one large section, and Mr. Clemons has done that as a means for better sharing and better cooperation of equipment and all those items. MR. FINN: Excuse me. Just so that I have some idea of the magnitude we're talking about, the first priority items for wastewater amount to in round numbers? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One was 107, and the other was -- came to 114. MR. FINN: I have a piece -- the top priority and what I'm seeing in total here. MR. CLEHONS: The priority ones amongst all the segments come to a little over $400,000. MR. FINN: So we'll add $400,000 to the utilities budget MR. CLEHONS: I'll give you -- I'll give you a breakdown. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: $461,000. MR. FINN: I just want to get that out to make sure that everyone understands the scope of the dollars that we're talking about here. MR. CLEHONS: Right. MR. FINN: Very good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where did we get the 400,000? I only see -- MR. FINN: We'll reduce the reserves and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: wastewater collection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 107,000 on the front -- Right. -- 114 for the second -- Right. -- and then 240,000 under Oh, I didn't see that. I'm Yeah. That was the last one we talked about that we asked a question again when you said if we include all of these. MR. CLEMONS: That's why I wanted to make sure you saw that back package for collections which included the pump inventory parts. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this one of the parts that concerned me the most, was that we were talking about a capital expenditure of replacing a ton of pumps at the same time if we don't do this maintenance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I understand that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's going to far exceed $240,000. MR. CLEMONS: Actually, on -- in talking with Mike just now, the pump parts, I would actually recommend based on us having to get up and run in for this, that we phase that over a two-year period. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Cut it in half? HR. CLEHONS: Cut it in half. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're down to 541,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. CLEMONS: No. Going the other way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. CLEMONS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: at this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. CLEMONS: -- 800. 341,000. 341,800, I believe. I understand the concept. I'm new 341,000 -- MR. MCNEES: We'll take that as a maximum. If there are other areas here where we feel like practically we can't inventory all of this or do all this in the first year, we'll -- we'll -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The idea though behind this -- I mean, I know this sounds like it's moving real fast for you people that don't know what we're doing, but proper maintenance according to our list has not been carried on in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and -- but our rates are set as if it did supposedly since we're not going to have to increase rates or -- MR. CLEHONS: So much of it's brand new, and the maintenance is just now catching up, and if we don't stay on top of it now '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we don't do it now, we're going to be in trouble. MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. MR. HCNEES: We have enough capacity under our rate structure given the additional customers to cover it is more accurate than really that they were budgeted for this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I mean, we don't have to raise rates in order to do the proper maintenance, and we're not going to -- we're not going to adversely impact any reserves for future expansions. MR. HCNEES: Correct. MR. CLEHONS: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. I guess we're at water. Are you going to give us as good a news? MR. NEWMAN: I hope so. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Hike Newman, the water director. What you have before you is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've never seen budget people smile. MR. FINN: Why don't we just start with the number, Hike? What's the number? MR. NEWMAN: You ruined my lead-in. MR. HCNEES: Your budget people can't believe this is really happening. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're giving them things? MR. NEWMAN: It's a new experience for us too. I'd like to walk you through this thing. We start off with the south county regional water treatment plant, and the first area you look at is facilities maintenance. This would deal primarily with the building and the pipes and everything that's exposed to maintain that properly. At the bottom of that page, you'll see a total, 32,600. That's material, rental equipment, parts, other materials that would be involved in that. We have two options by which to accomplish this. One would be to do it in-house with two people at an estimated cost of 74,600 a year or to contract that out at a cost of $84,815 per year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What were those two numbers again? MR. NEWMAN: 74,600. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I found it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Versus 84. MR. NEWMAN: And then the initial cost to contract it out at 84,815. Now, those costs drop down after the first year. In these cases, there's a higher initial implementation cost. That would drop down to 54,200 in-house for the next two years and then jump back up to 74 due to the timing and how some of these phase in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gottcha. MR. NEWMAN: The next section for the south county regional water plant would be the equipment for preventive maintenance. The same thing at the bottom. You have the materials that will be necessary to accomplish the list of duties that are listed on that page at 34,155. And on the next page, again you have a breakdown of either doing that work in-house at 63,405 with the addition of one personnel and the equipment necessary for that personnel to conduct those activities or contract that out at 74,865. The next section at the bottom of that page is the north county regional water treatment plant. Being that that's a new facility, we were very fortunate. We have the engineering -- the engineers add into that contract a very advanced preventative maintenance program, and it is tied into all the equipment. So it spits out work orders on a daily basis and keeps track of all the equipment run times, and so it allows those people to stay on top of it. Also, that's a new facility, so we're not going to see a big facilities cost here. It's merely going to be in the annual preventative maintenance. What you're going to see here is some infrared testing of the electrical systems, vibration analysis of the pumps and other associated equipment; electrical maintenance and testing; and then a small amount for building maintenance that will basically encompass the remote facilities which that facility is responsible for the well fields -- the 26 wells that the county has and also the Carica raw water -- or Carica booster station and pump station, and then the Vanderbilt and Barefoot Beach stations. That brings us to their grand total. For all the electrical maintenance testing, you're looking at $130,422, and then for the personnel and equipment to go with that for a grand total of $199,422. Moving on next to the water distribution section, we have several options there out in the field. The first would be the meter installs. When we brought you the first report, we indicated we were following slightly below the average install rate we find that after surveying some of the other municipalities. To bring that up to a ten-day, 100 percent, basically you get your meter in ten days. You're looking at one additional crew to accomplish that at an initial cost of 120,413 a year and then an analyzed cost after that of 65,613. We move on to the meter change-out crew. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long is it currently taking? MR. NEWMAN: Pardon? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long is it currently taking? MR. NEWMAN: I have that for you. I'll have to wing that one. It was -- It was something -- may have been 70 percent of them were being done within ten days. The remainder were falling in the 15-day range or something of that nature. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. NEWMAN: That's just an option. Next you can go to the meter change-outs. This is the crew that is responsible for changing out. The old aged meters in the system basically are cash registers out there. Currently we're only getting to 67 percent of those, and to bring that up to be able to get to all the meters that are being -- that were being issued to be changed out by the computer system would require one additional person at an annual -- at an initial cost of 52,182 for the truck and things and then an analyzed cost after that of 37,682. After that we move on to fire hydrant maintenance and inspections. Currently the county has 130 hydrants in the system. We would propose to contract this out to a contract agency. There's a good company. They have come down and did an initial audit for us about five years ago, and we are still waiting for -- There's been some rumor that we may take on the responsibility for all the hydrants in the county from all the fire districts. I know they're interested in giving up that responsibility. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may interrupt, is this something that might be more appropriate for the Pelican Bay services division? MR. NEWMAN: Fire hydrants? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if we're not -- if we're not currently doing them all over the county for all county residents MR. NEWMAN: We're doing them every place other than where the fire districts are maintained. Basically the way it's set up, if a fire district wants them, they take them at the time that the project is turned over. If they don't want them, the county is stuck with them, and it becomes our obligation then to own and maintain those. MR. HCNEES: There's 130 Pelican Bay hydrants. I think that's the item he's talking about. MR. NEWMAN: Right. Well, they're owned by the county. They became part of the county water sewer when they took over the Pelican Bay services division. And that would be-- We're estimating that at an annual cost of $33,000, and that would be an initial cost -- which would also include to bring those hydrants up to specifications. We have no idea at this point what condition those hydrants are in. We assume they have not been maintained properly. North Naples has undoubtedly the best record maintained hydrants in the county. MR. MCNEES: Commissioner Hancock, to get to your question, I think the equity transfer from the Pelican Bay utility that went into fund 408 which is the county utility district is more than adequate to deal with whatever left-over -- at least this item and to appropriately pay for that with what is now fund 408 money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NEWMAN: The next item on the list is main line valve replacements. We have currently, although with limited resources, identified 87 valves that would need to be repaired or replaced in the system. We don't know exactly how many of that is at this time because we do not have the personnel to go through the system and identify them all. And right now we are recommending that that be contracted out through an annual service contract, and that would cost approximately $86,100 to accomplish that. After that we get into a service line replacement. The county has acquired a number of service areas in building its utility service area. Many of those were required for private utilities. They used substandard materials in the construction of those services. It causes us a lot of customer complaints, and we only get to them when the service line breaks and basically inconveniences the customer. We would propose that if you wish, you could go into a service line replacement, also through an outside contract service, and that would cost you approximately $235,100 based on the number of service lines we have currently identified in the system needing replacement. After that you have a flushing/repair blow-off. We are required to maintain a minimum chlorine residual that dead-ends in the Collier County system according to DEP regulations. Currently we have identified a large number of those that either do not have blow-offs or have blow-offs that do not operate properly. As a result of that, your initial fund -- and this is also -- it would be proposed to be contracted out for repairs. The initial funds required to initiate that type of program would be $196,175, and the annual cost after that is estimated at $180,000. The next item on your list would be the valve maintenance program. The board approved several years ago a crew to start undertaking that process; however, they in all that time have only located 43 percent of the valves in the system. They get approximately 15 percent of the valves annually, and we are required or recommended by the manufacturer to exercise every one of these valves on an annual basis, and we're only getting 15 percent of those done. We can't get the standard without adding an excessive amount of people. We could improve the service we're currently providing now by adding one two-person crew, and that would be at an estimated cost or initial cost of 84,913, and then an annualized cost after that is 65,513. After that we get into the last category here, and that's the actual maintenance or flushing of the water system. As referred to earlier, the county has a large number of dead-end lines in their system. Due to the nature of our population, very transient, during the summer months -- and including the depth of the lines, during the summer months we have basically no ability to maintain the legal residuals at the end of these systems. If you would like to, you know, pursue closer compliance with the regulations, we would be looking at two additional flushing crews dedicated solely to that purpose to go around the county and flush these dead-ends. You would be looking at an initial set-up cost of 171,626 and an annualized cost after that of 130,626. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Newman, I guess the questions after your having gone through this are the same for the water system. Are there rates -- Are the current rates sufficient to handle this maintenance program and will you not have reserves to the point that we -- that we get into a dangerous reserve situation for enhancements later? MR. NEWMAN: I believe that is the case. Hike. MR. HCNEES: Well, I haven't heard a total. MR. FINN: Nor have I. MR. HCNEES: I guess my answer to that -- I'm not going -- When you add the total of all those items with the wastewater items, I'm not going to be quite so quick to say, sure, we can absorb it. We had time since last week to essentially count everything. I would prefer to take a little bit more time and analyze the impact. I believe we're over a million dollars on the water side. You add that to 400 grand and I'm sitting here telling you we can eat that without some sort of an impact -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's what we want to make sure of. MR. HCNEES: Given that this is an enterprise budget that has no trim impact -- in other words, if there is no trim notice deadline for us to meet, I think what I'd prefer to do is look at the phasing of this and the total impact of what Hike's put together and come back with a first-year recommendation what we can do without an impact on the operation or the rates because, you know, they've counted everything, and they've shown you here's what they believe to be done but in the water it's a little more extensive in terms of crews and all of that, and I'd rather get a little bit better handle on it than ask you to give us that additional 1.6 or whatever million, the total that it is today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I would like to see that happen, and I'd like to ask two elements when it comes back. And one is, as Mr. Clemons did, if you could go through and look at maybe a prioritization within what you proposed. If this is the minimum, absolute minimum, that's one thing. But if you feel there are things that could either be phased or delayed to reduce the annualized costs over a longer period, I'd like to see that, just kind of a prioritization within it if you can make that happen. And the second thing is just -- as Hike had mentioned, is those things that you'd have to get a big startup and run all at the same time. You may not get them all done. Let's look at a phasing to see if we can reduce it. But, yeah, I'd like to see those come back before I'm really ready to say go ahead and do it all. MR. NEWMAN: And, again, we're just responding to your request for the information. We're trying to give you an overview of what is necessary, and we would agree with you that this should be phased out over a number of years, obviously starting with the most essential components first, mechanical components moving in the system, and then building maintenance. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think we're able to grasp what Mr. Clemons brought forth and look at it, but we're probably not able to grasp as much information as you brought and make a solid decision today. MR. NEWMAN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: His is a little more nebulous. Why don't we -- Why don't we look at getting a maintenance schedule that will put us onto a schedule closer to the recommended maintenance from the manufacturer. MR. HCNEES: We'll bring this back to you, if it meets everybody's approval, on a regular agenda item during I guess either late July or early August prior to your public hearing so that we can have all the numbers finalized well in advance of the hearing. The budget people can deal with whatever the changes are. And, as I said, there's no trim impact, no ad valorem impact. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It looks like a lot of this stuff just can't be done in one year anyway. MR. NEWMAN: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if you would do that, we'd appreciate it. MR. HCNEES: We appreciate it. MR. NEWMAN: Thank you. MR. FINN: Last item under public is a discussion of the duties and responsibilities of the finance supervisor position. MR. DORRILL: Let's try and combine the next two. If we have Mr. Newman and Clemons step to the back. Mr. HcNees, you want to stay there. Mr. Yonkosky, if you'll come up and take the other staff seat. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have some specific items on this list of 22 that maybe I can at least take you in the right direction. Some of these are very clear and I understand. Some of them I don't get. Number four, five, and six, payment processing, payment approval, and miscellaneous invoice billing; number ten, alternative impact fee study evaluation; number 21, OCPH coordination of projects; and number 22, inventory and billing system. All of those I'm trying to -- Either I see being done somewhere else or I'm wondering what the connection is or I need a little help. MR. HCNEES: Four, five, and six, if you see the note at the bottom, there are a couple of clerical employees, and what's -- The list that you see here is a list that the finance department put together near the beginning of this DOR discussion with all the things they could think of that would be left behind in the finance department when DOR folks moved out. Those that are clerical, payment processing, payment approval, are still being done by clerical people who were left behind. So those duties are not -- we're not trying to hire somebody to do that. That's being done, and that's taken care of. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hike, pause for a second for me. Those -- So the billing for utilities, bill processing is going to remain in utilities? MR. HCNEES: What we're talking about are paying for electric bills, that sort of thing, that processing today is -- takes place within the utilities division. Now, we are the only division that currently we do that for yourselves, and we have been talking to the clerk's office about taking that load over, and they are interested in doing that. What we're talking about is -- call it sort of a reorganization where some of that what I'll call the lowest level of clerical work will shift over to the clerk's and will be able to allow those clerical people without any significant additional cost or without any additional cost to do a little bit higher level of work dealing with purchasing and taking some of the load off some of our field supervisors which is how we got to some of the savings that we talked to you about last week. So these were duties that were originally left behind. The payment processing, those types of duties are not a factor in what we're talking about in this finance supervisor position. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But payment processing is number four on utilities finance supervisor. MR. HCNEES: Okay. That's the title of this page. What this is a list of are all of the finance department items -- this was prepared by those folks -- that were going to be left behind in the utilities division when the move was made. There are clerical employees remaining to accomplish many of these, and then perhaps I didn't do a good enough job of identifying which are which. That would be my fault. The clerical and those that -- As you read this, I think it's fairly evident which are clerical-type tasks and which are a higher level, higher responsibility tasks. The clerical tasks are covered, and it's the other tasks that we're talking about needing someone to be responsible for. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? This -- Items four and five, then, are in my purlins, Mr. Yonkosky, essentially counts payable functions. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, they are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: There is one portion of that payment processing that was included before. It was refunds of deposits, and that is in the department of revenue and is going to be automated. that process will be enhanced. MR. HCNEES: If you want to take four, five, six, seven, and thirteen and just put a black line through them, that's fine. We'll take them out of this discussion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Those are -- MR. HCNEES: Those are covered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're already covered. MR. HCNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By people who currently exist? MR. HCNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So now we have these -- these executive summary preparation, that's now done by -- Well, for fiscal impact review, that's now done by somebody else that's moving? MR. HCNEES: That's done by somebody whose job has been proposed to be eliminated as part of the reorganization. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bond issues. I'm not understanding what your department would do with bond issues yet we also have a finance committee, and we also have bond counsel, and we also have -- whoever else we have that gets mixed up in bonds. MR. HCNEES: Two things. Essentially one being on new issues, the staff work related primarily to the official statement preparation whereas -- all data gathering and working with the engineer, provides the engineering report and coordinating all that information. Secondly, monitoring of covenant compliance, rate coverages, that sort of thing, and that's not a constant ongoing every month of every year process, particularly on new issues, but it is something that when it happens, somebody has to be responsible, and that's typically been this person that's being eliminated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Lease agreements, how many leases do you have? MR. MCNEES: A few. Not very many. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not very many. MR. HCNEES: Not very many. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions from this list? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Any of those leases about to expire? MR. HCNEES: To the best of my knowledge, no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- Why haven't we transferred those to real property that has a computer program to monitor expirations and lease terms? MR. HCNEES: I don't know that we haven't at this point. I know that the type of issues with the leases are -- ongoing leases that we have are processing, making the payments and processing, particularly the ones with the Hubschmans where we have to kind of keep a hold of that because it's complicated on exactly how much we're paying and what the status of that is, and I'm not representing that to be a huge effort. It's just something that somebody has to be responsible for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Somebody has to do it regardless. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think Mr. HcNees has answered the original question, at least to my satisfaction, so I'm willing to go ahead and approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think he has too. He's got enough functions here that need to be tended to. We need a third person. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Consensus. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got. MR. MCNEES: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next area is department of revenue, Mr. Yonkosky. We're looking for another analysis or a better analysis of savings that were generated. MR. YONKOSKY: For the record, John Yonkosky. Yes, Commissioner, and I don't know whether you all have the report that was handed out to you. We have a set to give to you if you don't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have anything. Oh, they're in our in-boxes. Mine was. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These are? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: During the line item review for the department of revenue, there were four questions that were raised that you asked for additional information, and briefly they were lockbox process and savings, and personnel reductions and utilization, prior year costs, and the expanded services. On the lockbox process, the lockbox is basically a trade-off between cost and -- that you currently have and additional cost that you would pick up played against the benefit, the economic benefits of reducing the float time. You have two schedules in there, one that was prepared concurrently with the one that I prepared last year that shows an overview of the process and shows you what the savings are there. We, in effect, did eliminate or will eliminate in the 1995 budget two positions by the use of the lockbox. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We -- The cost of the two positions that are eliminated is how much and -- MR. YONKOSKY: Approximately $53,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much are we saving today? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 53,000 so far today by getting rid of two positions. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Where in my budget are those two -- Where in my budget can I find those two positions being eliminated? MR. YONKOSKY: If you'll let me go to the next one, to the personnel reductions, I'll walk you through that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: So you have two comparisons there that show approximately $25,000 in net savings to the county under the lockbox process. Under personnel reductions and utilization, in the fiscal 1994 and 1995 budget, you had funded and paid for 23 positions in utilities for the finance section, three in solid waste, and four in EHS. That's 30 positions, plus you paid for three positions in the clerk's cashiering section. Utilities paid for two of them, and community development paid for one. That's a total of 33 positions. The budget that DOR is requesting for fiscal 1996 has 29 positions in it. That's a net reduction of four positions. Two of those positions dealt with the cashiering. They're absolutely gone. They're not part of what's being requested. You have a net reduction of four positions in there by the combination of the different departments in the billing section. And by combining them, you're able to use people to move them laterally for one peak billing period to another. The use of the lockbox actually eliminates two full-time positions. MR. DORRILL: Where were those then -- Where were the two cashiering positions? In this year's budget, where were the cashiering positions? Were they in the clerk's budget or were they in MR. YONKOSKY: They were in the clerk's budget. They were part of the funds that you actually transferred to the clerk. Utilities paid for two of those positions, and community development paid for one. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Then part -- part B of that is the other two positions that are coming down on the positive side of this little ledger through the lockbox mechanism were -- like one of those community development and one at EHS, or where are the other two? MR. YONKOSKY: No. The two -- Two of those positions came from the lockbox. You paid for three cashiering positions. Using the lockbox next year, you're only going to need one of those positions. And then over on the other side, by combining the different billing functions, we actually eliminated two other positions. MR. DORRILL: Where would they be in this year's budget in the '94 -- fiscal '94 budget? Where are those two positions? MR. YONKOSKY: They were in EHS. Those positions were in EHS and you -- Oh, okay. All right. I see. That's a question that -- If I understand the question, those positions -- we did not fill that one position in customer service. That was vacant at the time that you approved the -- MR. DORRILL: But that -- it was in that budget at EHS? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, it was. It was in the EHS budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those four positions you're talking about do or do not contemplate the two positions that were originally coming over from the tax collector and will not be coming over from the tax collector? MR. YONKOSKY: They -- They do not. And as I go through this under -- on the second page, you can see there, Commissioner Constantine, I addressed that very specifically and in detail because you had raised that question at the line item meeting before. When we came to you and you approved the combination of all the billing departments, we gave you a list of options, put all four of them together, and we will reduce the number of people that's required. If you would like us to take over and actually perform the mailing function associated with the mandatory special assessments, we could do that, but we would have to add two individuals to do that, and that same time we would reduce the amount of money that was going to be paid to the tax collector and to the clerk and to the property appraiser, giving you a net savings of $125,000. And the commission at that time very clearly said, well -- and recognized the fact that that $125,000 savings is only going to be valid if the tax collector reduces his budget by $125,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along those same lines, you said two of those four positions were formerly shown as clerk positions. Did we see -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cashiers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we see two less cashier positions in the clerk's budget this year? MR. YONKOSKY: I'm sure you did because that was not part of the transfer. That was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three? MR. YONKOSKY: -- a payment from -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three less. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three less. MR. YONKOSKY: And we had to use one of them as -- so that -- that is a real savings. That's not part of the general fund transfer. That is a reduction, and your staff is now performing the cashiering functions. So when you approved or accepted the $1 bid from the tax collector as opposed to DOR performing the mailing, you accepted the bid from the tax collector, $1 per account. That comes out at 50,000 accounts to $50,000. You had been paying the tax collector $175,000. There's a $125,000 savings. This time it is -- it's real because there has not been an increase in staff in those two positions. So it is a -- It is a real savings. Does -- Mr. Constantine, does that address the position you were talking about? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. YONKOSKY: And then Commissioner Hancock directed me to prepare a schedule because he wanted to -- it was showing 200-some-thousand dollars budget to budget for the functions that DOR will perform in '96 compared to a budget for DOR in fiscal 1995. Commissioner Hancock asked me to go back and put together a schedule of actual costs for those functions in fiscal 1994, and that's what I have done. And when you compare the two of them, the million nine o four two seven three, for the cost for ninety -- actual cost for '94 compared to the budgeted cost of a million eight seven four, about 400 for the proposed cost in the DOR in fiscal '96, there is approximately 30-some-thousand dollars difference. And you've got to recognize that those salaries in fiscal 1996 have six point -- or 6 percent -- 6.2 percent increase -- well, $56,000 for the increases that you awarded those people, the 2.7 percent in fiscal '95 and the 3.2 percent which you have currently left for the personal increases. So there's $56,000 in the difference of a two-year increase that the board has approved. And if you look at the actual expenditures themselves because DOR is coming away from utilities, included in that budget is $60,200 for meters, for the small meters that would be changed out by the meter-reading crew in the department of revenue. I would assume that that $60,000 decrease occurred in the large change-out meter inventory in the utilities division. And in addition in there too, we also have $56,000 when you approved the tax collector putting those mandatory special assessments on the tax bill in fiscal '97. In fiscal '96, you're going to have to pay to get that roll certified the first time. That's been estimated at approximately $40,000 you're going to have a bare minimum of $16,000 to mail out first class notices to everybody in the county and approximately $4,000 for advertising, and that's to go through the conversion process. And that's the one-time expense. So that is a savings that you will realize. And then, finally, the -- you have approximately $25,000 in interest earnings that doesn't really float through your budget, but you're going to realize an additional interest earnings of approximately $25,000 by the fact that you have eliminated the float that is out there in the utility billing and the mandatory solid waste billing. The last item that you had questioned dealt with expanded services, and I've written you a fairly lengthy memo on the expanded services, but there's five positions that are being requested. Three of those positions currently exist. They are -- just because they're going from one division to a new department that you've created, they're being reflected in expanded services. there's really only two expanded services, and one -- one of those is an individual that's being split. When you privatized the landfill, you may opt to maintain the scalehouse operations and rightfully so because of the cash that flows through there. But under the scenario before you privatized it, your landfill scalehouses are open six days a week, and you had three employees performing the services there from early in the morning until late in the afternoon for the trucks going through. You had two employees in Naples and one in Immokalee, and one of the employees that you transferred to waste management used to be a part-time employee in the scalehouse operations that would relieve that person that was in the scalehouse, going to fill in when that individual was sick or couldn't make it to work. That is now waste management's employee. We need to have someone to fill that up. And one of the things that was happening is that you were shelling out about $30,000 a year in overtime for those people so that they could maintain the scalehouse being open. And I believe, Commissioner Matthews, it was you that suggested very strongly that someone ought to take a look at reducing that overtime and putting a part-time employee in there which is -- under this scheme or plan is what we're doing. We want to have a half a position to fill in out there. We'll use flex time. We've reduced the overtime from 30,000 down to 12,000. So it makes those people's lives a little bit more agreeable too, and we do think it will work. We've worked it out to -- where by the use of flex time and using people back here from the department of revenue to fill in when there's vacations that are needed, we think that we can handle it. The other half of that employee would be to EMS -- because we can't hire a half an employee, and so we'll use the other half of that employee to fill in at peak periods and do some other -- perform some other functions. We are really tight in EMS, and that would be their primary, secondary function, but that employee would then fill over into the other areas, utility, billing, and special assessment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess the alternative would be to hire a half-time person. MR. DORRILL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, a half an employee. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would save on medical benefits and stuff too. Is the other half -- you know, justified, I guess, is my concern. MR. YONKOSKY: We think that it is. For example, we went through and did some very serious analysis in the EMS area, and the growth in EMS this past year -- and I guess you had your EMS review this morning, that the actual growth in EMS has been -- at least from the information that we're getting has been considerably more than we thought that it would be when we first pulled together the DOR budget. We would like very much to be able to have a slight amount of -- and it may be cushioned, but to have that employee in there. And then if it works out that the growth isn't there in EMS, then we could come back to you and say that we probably should go the -- use a part-time employee for that, but right now we feel that we can use it because of the growth. One of the things that -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Yonkosky, let's -- hang on just a second. Let's -- the reason we've been here for six hours. Let's see if they've got some questions now. We can answer their questions, and we'll see what decisions they've got, unless we need to keep going. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have any questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, John. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public services. I thought we covered the $21,000, that Denise said she was going to outsource that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as we're going to save it, I don't think you'll have any argument. We probably don't need a verbal review. If we're not going to save it, then maybe we do. MR. OLLIFF: That's fine. We'll do that. I think the only reason it ended up on this list was because there was an outstanding issue that Miss Glanten (phonetic) raised about some possible legal problems with what she had proposed, and I think those have been resolved. There are no legal problems, basically laying off, so you know, two existing FTEs, and we will replace that with some contract service which we can do without the overhead cost, without the benefits cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: On the parks I had thought as well that the board had made a decision that the site lighting improvements -- those were the two site lights for Aaron Lutz and for Frank Mackle Community Park. They were primarily not athletic field lighting but parking lot and more security type lighting for a $30,000 item. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's not on the list. MR. OLLIFF: It's not on the list. MR. DORRILL: It's already in. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. I want to make sure I'm working off the same list. My next item is maintenance. Is that the next -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neighborhood parks deeded to homeowner's associations. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just do it. MR. OLLIFF: Neighborhood parks, I'm assuming I've got some direction to do that, but I do need to make the board aware that in order to do that, if we're going to create taxing districts, the timing on that is it has to be done by January so that we could not actually create districts to pay for those until fiscal year '96, '97 at the point -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You might have to do it over a two-year period. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. MR. DORRILL: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the concept's good. MR. DORRILL: But in lieu of that, we would go to just a minimum level of maintenance for neighborhood parks. I mean, we wouldn't be out there cutting the grass every week and that type of thing. MR. OLLIFF: Right. Okay. MR. DORRILL: Let's -- Can we get on down to the meat of this thing? Because he does have some options for you on the -- what I'll call community park type maintenance and mowing schedule. MR. OLLIFF: What we handed out to you, you had had before. I just felt obligated to at least preface what we started by handing you out that budget fact sheet as well, and if I can just draw your attention to numbers two and three, I think I need to impress upon you again that your park maintenance staff is not at a Cadillac level. I think your number of maintenance employees to acre is higher than -- or, actually, lower, I guess, in that case than anybody around and has been getting lower and lower each year over the last number of years that we can count since 1991. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One to 30. What's that? MR. OLLIFF: One maintenance worker per 30 acres of park land, and you generally have a very, very good maintenance department in terms of how much we provide for what you put into the system. In addition, your cost per acre maintained continues to go down, and you are already 7 percent lower than anybody in the area in terms of how we maintain it. And it was just a little odd because I felt like what we were being told was that you do it too good. And I'll tell you what our philosophy is, that when people get to our libraries, our parks, I don't want them to leave satisfied. Our goal is that they leave impressed and that's -- that's how -- what we're stressing to our maintenance crews, and I think we do that, and I'd stack our parks maintenance up against anybody, whether it's Palm Springs, California, or Palm Beach, Florida. I think -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even the City of Naples. Is that counting the City of Naples as one for every two and a half acres? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two and a half acres. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Theirs ain't better than ours? MR. OLLIFF: No. I don't think so. I think a lot of the credit goes to those two guys sitting in the back of the room -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks, guys. MR. OLLIFF: -- to Hurdo Smith and Gary Franco, who do an outstanding job for you in that regard. But, anyway, that is a starting point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to at least clarify. There was -- There was no question whatsoever about the quality of our parks, and I'm not trying to penalize you for doing too well, but in a year where we are looking at what big bill areas have small fine-tuning that may result in a different level of service, albeit lower, can we go down a little tiny bit and save a significant amount? And that was the question I think that we were looking at, not do we want to degrade the parks that they're no longer quality or no longer impressive, but is there a way we can drop a little bit of quality for a big dollar savings and still have some of the finest parks in the state? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, I think the place where we're seeing that is through divesting ourselves of the neighborhood parks and reducing the neighborhood parks maintenance and that we might not want to make anymore cuts than that and even if that does take a couple of years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We may just want to see what that accomplishes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate to do much more than that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't want to limit our cuts either, particularly before he's even had a chance to explain what these options are. I think we do have to look at whether we have an opportunity. I would just like to hear what those options are. MR. OLLIFF: Just based on your discussion, we did put together three options for you to at least look at. The first one -- and I will tell you clearly it is primarily all capital related. These are what you call operating capital items. They're not on your capital list. These are 001 fund-supported capital items. And it's primarily just simply delaying replacement of some of our existing operating equipment, postponing that into future years. And there's a whole list of capital items there. All of those are in an operating capital area because they are less than $25,000 per piece. So they show up in your 001 budget. A $298,000 net decrease cost to the general fund on that option. MR. DORRILL: One year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The TECH worker contract, though, isn't that where we use, like, mentally impaired people to do some work that they -- I mean, that's a wonderful program. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. There's five people on that contract. They work half a day over at the Golden Gate Community Park. Steve Brinkman, parks and recreation director. MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. Tom Olliff. I didn't do that either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I'd agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie. I'd hate to lose that program there, and I think we'd probably get a benefit, as does the community, from that and as to those individuals. The other items on here, though, the pickup truck, the mowers, the tractor, et cetera, I'd like to -- I would like to see deferred out for a year or years if we can, and that's still $268,000. MR. OLLIFF: The next item we actually -- option we actually get into reductions of maintenance worker positions and -- and, so you know, we would sort of be going in two different directions. Your cuts are a little greater than just the number of positions that you're looking at. You're actually increasing the number of park acres next year by 8 percent, and that's without Lake Avalon. Assuming that we will bring Lake Avalon on, you're talking somewhere in the 15 to 18 percent increase. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's 60 acres of it you don't have to cut. MR. OLLIFF: That's true, and that's the kind of park we love to have, frankly, from a maintenance standpoint. But what we are proposing on that particular option is those three maintenance worker two positions at the top are those that are budgeted in this coming year's budget, primarily to offset the middle school maintenance for those facilities where we would improve the middle schools. What we're saying is we would bring those on line and simply absorb those into your existing staff and not add any -- any personnel at all in order to be able to handle those. In addition, we're showing those two maintenance workers -- When we totalled the number of hours that we spent today in neighborhood park maintenance, it comes up to about a little better than 4,000 manhours per year which is about two FTE positions, and so we're talking about taking those and at least showing those as being funded by some other source. In addition, we went ahead and continued to show that capital from the first list, and your net decrease to the general fund increases $303,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you have the three worker positions on there, what's missing from the list on the front? Because it's only $4,695 difference even though it has 72 plus 48, whatever that equals, 120,000 in positions that don't appear on the front. I think it doesn't list all of the -- MR. OLLIFF: It does not list all of the capital. I know items ten and eleven are not on this second list. I think they tried to pick of what were -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four and five aren't. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just thinking, is there a mix and match here, or could you include those 72- and 52-inch mowers because that's still another $100,000. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, you could. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have option two plus those is 100 minus the 30 because we don't want to delete TECH, but that would be $270,000 roughly. MR. BRINKMAN: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. 370. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Steve, could I get a copy of this? We're sharing here, and I'm starting to make notes and Chairman Matthews is making notes. MR. OLLIFF: Option three takes you to a net decrease general fund amount of nearly $450,000. This is a reduction of primarily 25 percent of your maintenance staff. There are nine total maintenance worker two positions, the TECH contract. And, again, that -- I think this is the same reflected list of capital that's in option two, so it's not that complete list from option one. But that option takes you to 447,000. We do try to specifically show you in both options two and three that there is a service level impact. We try to listen to your desires for the trash receptacles at community parks to be cleaned every day. When we say "delittering," you need to know that's when we actually have people in the parks picking up the trash that's left behind by the public at a ball game, and that's a significant amount and a significant time that we spend on the maintenance crews. But when we say we're talking about reducing our delittering efforts, that's what we're doing. So, I mean, we may go every other day, and we may get some complaints from that, but I think that's -- in terms of priorities, that's a lower priority than emptying trash and cleaning rest rooms. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion and see if can get consensus from the board. I think perhaps option three goes a little further than we would like to go, but I like option two. You said we could absorb those three positions at the top into -- what they're doing into what we have now anyway. Add in the small capital items that would be -- that are on the first page as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Take out TECH. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take out TECH. So total all that up and it's 372,000 or something like that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that makes sense to me, except for, Tom, I didn't understand -- what's the -- what's the result of eliminating those three maintenance worker positions and the two maintenance -- five positions and the net effect on the parks will be -- MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. The -- And that's under the service level impact that you see there. The community parks means that the grounds for littering will be done four times per week now instead of seven. It means that athletic fields will be dragged four times per week instead of on a daily basis now, and that all softball and baseball fields will be mowed once per week, and soccer fields will be mowed twice per week. Both of those are one mowing less than we currently do. General park area mowing will be accomplished every ten days, and then trash receptacles will be emptied and rest rooms cleaned seven days per week because that was an important issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That seems consistent with what we had asked the other day. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question. You've got two maintenance workers, and I don't think we've addressed this, but it says here that they're paid for from a beautification district. Is that HSTU and not ad valorem dollars? Is that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not general fund dollars. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not general fund dollars. MR. OLLIFF: The beautification district is probably incorrect. We were talking about a taxing district like you were talking about for neighborhood parks or in those cases when an association can pick it up completely, do it that way but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question on that is, are these workers that are working on the beautification district? MR. OLLIFF: No. MR. DORRILL: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These are not those. Okay. MR. OLLIFF: These are parks and recs. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're a little thin on that already is what I keep hearing but -- So these would be for the neighborhood parks funded by the neighborhood associations; right? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. It would be the pay for the two people that we have maintaining those neighborhood park areas. MR. OLLIFF: Right. By some other means and displacing ad valorem monies with taxing district funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, oh, okay. So you're saying that $48,000 would be replaced with taxing district. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So that -- MR. OLLIFF: Unless there are associations who want to simply pick up the maintenance, and that's great too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And there may be. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We've also previously stated that that would not occur until FY '97 in terms of being -- our ability to implement a new taxing district. MR. DORRILL: If we're going to impose a taxing district, we will probably do it in '97. If we have, for example, the Poinciana Village Homeowners Association and they're willing to assume that responsibility, then we would certainly undertake all of those in 1996 which begins on October the 1st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a quick information question to refresh my memory. How often are we currently mowing the baseball and softball fields? MR. BRINKMAN: Currently we're mowing the baseball fields twice per week during the heavy mowing season and the soccer fields three times per week. This will reduce option -- Option two will reduce that by one mowing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It looks like -- It looks like we're looking for option two minus TECH. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Modified by taking TECH out. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And adding on the other -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Capital from one. Leave it to us -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Adding what? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the front page there is the 72-inch mowers and the 52-inch mowers totalling $100,000. That was not included on the list on page two, and we're saying it should be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, two of them are. MR. OLLIFF: What you're telling me is that you want the full list of capital? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we going to be able to get by without replacing these mowers, or what is the status of these mowers? MR. BRINKMAN: Well, they are really on the list, on the replacement list because they are due to be replaced, and they are in such a condition that they are needed to be replaced or new equipment is needed. We would have to postpone that for a year and kind of nurse them through for a year to make that happen. MR. OLLIFF: And we can do that or we wouldn't have put them on the list. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I feel comfortable if you can do it. MR. DORRILL: That's going to be a management function. If they start spending too much money on maintenance on a single piece of equipment, then it's just time to stop surplus. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Gottcha. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I agree. MR. DORRILL: Beach parking fees. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've already discussed that in depth. MR. DORRILL: Have we done it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We gave direction on Monday to bring that back as an executive -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As an executive summary later this summer, didn't we? MR. OLLIFF: Uh-huh. My notes from that were to bring that back in the July or August time frame and get some specific approvals for new FTEs required to put that position -- that program in place as well as the ability to order those capital equipments necessary. By then -- I have a meeting scheduled next Wednesday with Bill Harrison, the city's finance director, to go over the inter-local agreement that we have, and that will be part of that package that I bring back to you as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. That was the direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yep. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wonderful. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just quickly in the parks, are you proposing to reduce the proposed millage or reserve those funds for either a future decision or to be carried forward into -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 372 you're talking about? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would -- I think we're talking about cutting that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We wanted to reduce the millage. That's why we went through this exercise. MR. DORRILL: We can do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment as we prepare for the next item, Building W expansion. Earlier today we talked about the possibility of either trading that off for something else and I understand -- Whoops. I'm sorry. Never mind then. I'll get to that. You can go ahead. MR. FINN: All right. We can go ahead. Kathy and I are sitting here in response to Commissioner Norris' request to clarify a little clearer answer to some of the confusion surrounding the clerk's budget and some of the just general concerns we had about whether we're being presented an accurate picture of what's going on. To that end, we've put together this spreadsheet seen before you. You'll see the first three columns on the left-hand side deal with the expenditure budget comparing '95 tentative budget to the '96 tentative budget. In total dollars terms, the amount of increase is $10,900. Let me first say that this budget is somewhat confusing for everyone to deal with. So the confusion that occurred the other day is not really that surprising. This is a very confusing thing. I think Kathy supports me in saying. MS. HANKINS: Actually, we can cut to the chase. I was wrong. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. Because that would have been the third one for Mr. Finn, and we would have to say good-bye to him. MS. HANKINS: I'm new. I'm learning. I didn't have all the information, and I have to tell you, these guys have been great. They worked hard with us, and they taught me a lot, and I still have more work to do on the budget. They've identified at least two other areas where I should be looking at fee income that may offset the board's contribution, and that's in the area of the county -- county courts and also in MIS. We have another fund that folds into that that I wasn't aware so -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks for your candor, Kathy. MS. HANKINS: What can I say? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The first mistake you made today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If it's all cleared up, then can you please then -- MS. HANKINS: I've been punished. I've sat here for hours waiting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've only made one mistake and Ed's already made two. MS. HANKINS: That was it. MR. FINN: I think those mistakes occurred in the last fiscal year. They're just being reported now. MS. HANKINS: Thank you. MR. FINN: If there's no further questions, we'll be happy to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bye. MR. FINN: Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Y'all be good now, you here? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now on to Building W. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Building W. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to say one thing. We talked earlier about trading it off, and then I know the word "priorities" was mentioned. Well, we have to establish what our priorities are. It seems to me on something like this, particularly after the explanation Monday, either we have a need for this or we can get by without it for another year. Maybe I'm being too black and white. But it seems to me if we were ready to trade it off earlier today, maybe we can get by without it. UNKNOWN VOICE: I wasn't here for the trade-off. MR. DORRILL: Let me -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was, and I wasn't ready so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was ready. MR. DORRILL: Let me respond to that just quickly. The only reason I picked this one was because it is the only other 301 capital project that's comparable size to the computer-aided dispatch project; and, otherwise, we would have had the use -- like then take the balance of the projects that were there, you know, the re-roofing and the change-outs with the air conditioning, and it was coincidental only in that it was the only one of comparable size. All of the other projects are less than $200,000. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what about the parks money we just cut? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let cuts be cuts and not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We cut capital. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not capital either. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp. I've been working for the last four or five months with the constitutional officers and particularly the clerk and the supervisor of elections. As you know, we temporarily moved the microfilm out of this particular facility and put them in a temporary facility. The clerk has agreed to relocate the microfilm department to a record retention area that he's also -- needs additional space. He wants to keep it on campus but will take it out of this office building which to us is very good because it would cost us around $60,000 to incorporate his -- all the utilities that he's going to need to the renovation of the fourth floor. The expansion of Building W would be for the benefit of all constitutional officers and directly or indirectly for you also. If we can move microfilm over to this Building W expansion along with providing the constitutional officers with additional record retention space, then you have departments even under the commissioners, under your agency, that will benefit. For instance, risk management now is in very crammed space. They deal with a lot of personal items, health-related items, whether it's HIV or hemorrhoids, for that the matter, and they are literally on top of each other. So your own departments will benefit from this expansion also. We've put it off for five years. The last warehouse was good for ten years. It was 1985 that we built that, and I really do wish you would consider this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you. I think the manager pointed out on Monday that this was a metal building. MR. CAMP: That's correct. It's about $45 a square foot. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: $45 a square foot. Being a metal building, is there an opportunity to expand it in phases rather than a 15,000-square-foot expansion at one time? MR. DORRILL: We had that discussion after you left. Frankly, can we do something -- you know, I know these buildings come in sort of pre-engineered widths of certain dimensions and the point being -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Phase. Phase. MR. CAMP: You could do that. There are some economies to doing it once because of mobilization costs and that wall, but, yes, that could be done. MR. DORRILL: Can you give him some idea? MR. CAMP: Well -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Obviously -- MR. CAMP: 5,000-square-foot increments is the way I would recommend it because that would at least get the clerk and the supervisor of elections' acute situation taken care of. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They have a cute situation? A 5,000-square-foot expansion would take us out to how far would you guess? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many years? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many years? MR. CAMP: If you did a 10,000-square-foot expansion and allowed us to privatize a little bit some record retention, I think that would be good for five years. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Five years. MR. CAMP: We would have to continue to privatize at least the board's part of record retention which we started to do. MR. DORRILL: That's a very nominal cost. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the comparison with privatizing if that's how we're -- what we're going to call it now, the whole concept? I mean, I hadn't seen that comparison. MR. CAMP: We want to do that in concert. We've actually gone out this summer to get those figures. There's one organization in town that does it. It's Robert Flynn, I believe. And we have -- That is a competitive quote that we have, and he's going to start taking some pressure off of us, but it's 80 cents a box per month. Okay? And there's a retrievable fee. And some things you have to keep forever. Some things can be microfiched, and other things can be just boxed for dead -- dead file. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It just -- It just occurs to me -- I mean, when you just walk around, there's empty space all over the place. I mean, maybe things aren't as organized and pretty as having it in one big warehouse somewhere, but I just can't imagine that we need this, and plus -- well, that we have to have this, that we can't do this some other way. I mean, it's too much money. And I'm troubled by -- Didn't you guys just tell us it was 51 bucks a foot and now it's 45 bucks a foot? And wasn't it that it had been postponed for five years and now it's been postponed for three years? MR. CAMP: It has been five years. Every year for the last five years we proposed it, and every year we've deferred it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just find it '- MR. DORRILL: In fairness to Mr. Camp, he was not here for this discussion the other day. I think we were relying on Mr. Conrecode or Mr. Karpinski, and I think the $50-a-square-foot number was their number. It may have included certain portions of site work, included the filling and -- MR. CAMP: Yeah. It's broken down to construction, architectural, and site, and the square feet -- I may have picked up the square feet for the construction, but there's some architectural and site work that's got to be done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we've done an analysis of every inch of space available on this campus, and there's just not anywhere to put any of this stuff? MR. CAMP: Absolute -- there are alternatives, but the alternatives are more expensive, and right now these people are in a temporary space in a shell on the fourth -- fourth floor of the courthouse. MR. DORRILL: That's the microfilm and records retention. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's wrong with the temporary space in the shell? MR. DORRILL: It -- well, frankly -- MS. HANKINS: It isn't -- It isn't even certified for occupancy. It literally -- It literally is a hole. There's no insulation. There's no walls. There's no ceiling. I mean, it's -- it's literally an unfinished floor. MR. DORRILL: And the other problem with that with all candor is I also cut a request from the judges who wanted to spend 2,700,000 to finish the fourth floor because it is a concrete shell that is air conditioned. But they asked me, and I took out of my budget two and a half million or whatever it was because they wanted to have it finished for future courtroom expansion space anticipating additional judges being added to Collier in the future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think prioritizing this is less important than some of the other things that we're already cutting out. MR. CAMP: Commission, we are out of space, and the clerk has really worked with us to put his people in this temporary space in order for us to better utilize the space in the office building. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long has it been -- microfiche and all that stuff been put in this, quote, temporary space? MR. CAMP: When we started the renovation of the second and third floor offices. MR. DORRILL: December. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would happen if it was still there next September? MR. DORRILL: We would probably need to try and incorporate them onto the clerk's fourth floor of this building, and we would have some costs associated with that, and we might have -- we might have to relocate the marriage and passport section in order to get microfilms closer to the bathrooms because the only stand pipes in this building for water and wastewater are at this end of the building, so we would have -- we're going to have to have some costs to get -- MR. CAMP: They have a lot of special requirements because of all these big cameras that they use, not only for exhaust but, like you said, for water and those kind of things, and those utilities have to be taken from this side of the building over. And, quite honestly, it may not be the appropriate department just because of all the utilities and their uniqueness to this kind of a structure. MS. HANKINS: I would second that. They're a very low traffic area. Right now I just checked on them today. There's 150 cases of records that are lined up waiting to go through the machinery. Virtually no people walking in there. So using your high-traffic Building F for that type of an operation might not be your most cost-effective move. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me suggest something. I mean, they're going to sit here and demonstrate the need and we're going to say we don't think it's that high a priority, and we can do that for hours of hours. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to go back to your first question, though, of the stepped approach. What would the expense be to do, say, the initial 5,000 square feet? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It would be -- Let's say $250,000 would be close. MR. DORRILL: Roughly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Roughly. It would be close. MR. CAMP: Would you consider a -- if we could do half the building now so that I can consolidate their operation? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I could do that. I'll do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I'm getting -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I can do that. It's $375,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three seventy-five, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Or something to that effect. Three eighty-seven fifty. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. HANKINS: Sold to the Americans. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sold. Now, let's see now. That gives us $400,000 for the sheriff's CAD system; right? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. It gives us $400,000 to give back to the taxpayer. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless they would be better served by some other -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: two items left on here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: dollars. Good luck. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: time? I mean, that's to be determined. Well, there's only -- There's only Yeah. And together they're a million Yeah, but spend them all at one HR. DORRILL: Let me bring up one point just because I know everybody's already seeing it. When the big fellow starts moving over here, you can't let him do that. We can also cut that from the millage, but if you will remember and the reason he's coming over here is we've got a two-year budget projection that they did, and every time you lower the millage and lower the millage and lower the millage, remember, next year -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's got to go up. MR. DORRILL: -- was supposed to be the boogie man year, and he's going to say y'all get medals for cutting the budget. You can taking credit for that. He's going to say in terms of your millage capacity, you're better off to put it in some restricted reserve account so that if you need money next year, at least you've got it already factored into the millage because if you lower the millage, he's going to say that creates a bigger burden. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That 18 percent is going to become 20 percent real easy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MR. DORRILL: Theoretically. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which makes it that much more important to hang onto these cuts rather than simply trade them off for some other -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they're not cuts. MR. FINN: The only thing -- The cuts that occur in operating areas are multi-year cuts and those real reductions. Cuts in capital are one-time cuts and -- and they aren't significant in the multi-year salary. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We used to allocate approximately $14 million a year for capital, and we still had a long laundry list of projects requested but not recommended. That has over time shrunk to 7.6. And then you have, you know, parking lot expansion project, 800 megahertz. Your available spendable dollars for capital outlay in a large growing -- MR. DORRILL: Put it in reserves is what he's going to recommend to you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we have a one-time cut and it's put in reserve for next year, then it does impact next year when we're trying to struggle with how we're going to afford -- MR. FINN: It's available to offset an otherwise increased ad valorem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is certainly an option to you next year, obviously, should we face a budget issue that you could further reduce from the funds that you could say we're going to allocate only $5 million now and use that other money to fund operations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But, on the other hand, if their operating costs increases and we do some magic numbers this year which increase our reserves a percent or two, all we've done next year is stave an operating cost increase off one more year. MR. FINN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all we've done. MR. FINN: Yes. Ideally we would like to levy the millage required for operations. That is why Mike's multi-year scenario has a large spike because eventually the millage needs to keep up or catch up to annual operating costs. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. You'll note in the budget we have $12 million approximately in carry forward. Reserve numbers are approximately $6 million. That means we are, in effect, upside down to a certain degree already. And at some point -- You know, we've been lucky over the years with additional turn-back funds or reorganizations that, you know, have allowed us to accumulate those funds, but eventually that one-time revenue dries up and your fixed operational costs continue on. MR. FINN: Or there are significant changes in the level of service when that year happens. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hear you. MR. DORRILL: We'll reserve it but -- It will be a budget cut, but it will be reserved so that it cannot be used for any other purpose. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Final two items. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got to go. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You've got to go? (Chairman Matthews exited the room.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Shall we proceed on the last two items? Has anybody changed their mind since this morning or -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We haven't heard about one of them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have not, but perhaps my mind will be changed. Who knows? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We haven't even heard this one yet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Identify for the record and proceed, please. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brief shot. MR. BARNETT: Scott Barnett with the Collier County Sheriff's Office. I'm here to answer any questions about the video imaging system that we proposed. Basically the video imaging system is for both jail centers, and that's why the cost is higher than what you would normally expect. Immokalee has to have one. Naples has to have one to develop a database. Putting the photographs on a digital storage system allows for us to either instantaneously drop a photo or never drop a photo if we don't have to. We can also do multiple stacking of arrests. Because we have a lot of repeat offenders and for career criminals, the A number with different variations, we can pull all of the arrest photos for someone for later identification for the judges. Other positives out of video imaging are I can transmit, in the future with the 800 megahertz system, a photograph to a squad car. And future uses of it would be each of the substations would have the receiving terminal which is basically a computer where instead of investigators driving to Naples or to Immokalee to do a photo line-up or to get a photo reproduction, they could pull it up on xerox paper at the substations themselves. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a public safety or an efficiency? We're going to save dollars because of this, or are we going to get more criminals off the street? Which is it? Money or safety? MR. BARNETT: Up front it's not a savings. In the long-term it is -- you'll save time and money for court because every time one of our techs makes a photo line-up for investigators, even for a deposition, they're called in to state what they've done on a case, and that's several hours each time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's assume that this year the sheriff focused on increasing personnel and next year he focuses on equipment. Those pictures that are gathered over the next 12 months, will we then be able to put them on video when the system comes on line? MR. BARNETT: We'd have to -- It's easier and more cost-effective to start from scratch. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. But what I'm asking is -- In other words, all the pictures we've taken, are those wasted? We're not going to get those on video? MR. BARNETT: Yes. They'd have to be stored from this point on. So if we go another year, it's just another -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So in a year we have pictures. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a year we've lost and -- MR. BARNETT: Yeah. And after five years, we -- these pictures seem to be deteriorating anyway because the Polaroid format seems to go to a total white shell as opposed to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things. It seems to me, we're not going to be able to make full use of this until we have the 800 system anyway. So it might be just as well to wait a year. Secondly, many of the uses on the 800 system you mentioned such as actually transmitting a picture to a unit while they're in the process of arresting someone, or what have you, is way down the road. That's not one of the initial functions of our 800 system. It's just -- I think it may have some nice applications and again may be premature right now to get very much use out of. Secondarily, you mentioned the photographs and the Polaroids are wasting away. I mentioned the other day to Crystal and -- we purchased 18 months ago, 19 months ago, a full lab for regular photographs to be able to develop -- MR. BARNETT: We spent roughly $24,000 on that small photo lab, and right it's processing -- Since October, it's processed 1,300 rolls of investigative film. So it's running at it's capacity right now. It's also doing medical examiners. The problem with doing jail photos is you need an instant photo or one within a few hours for the judges or for intelligence or whatever, and to shoot a whole roll of film and then bring it up 24, 48 hours return on the photographs back to the jail and that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if the Polaroids have a life of five years and we're looking at having many of those things you mentioned with 800 megahertz on line within five years, then we're still okay. But I just think as of today, right now, how much use we're going to get out of this, it's premature. MR. BARNETT: The dilemma with it is today with the 800 megahertz, that's -- that is a future application. It's when we started which is when the benefits are going to -- It's going to take a year for me to start realizing the benefit out of this because we need data base built up before it starts to pan out. So a year's delay is not even -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My comment is the same at it was this morning. We asked the sheriff to come in with a budget that was millage rate-neutral, and he came very close to doing that. It's not really the Board of the County Commissioners and I would never presume to tell the sheriff how to run his agency, the sheriff's department. I'm not qualified, and that's up to him, but I think what I would prefer to do is leave the sheriff's budget as it is presented. And if the sheriff feels that these are more important than some of the other things that are in his budget, he'll make the necessary adjustments, and that's the way I think the board should approach this item and the one after it also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to agree in not approving this for the reason that there are a tremendous number of technologies out there that would assist us in our job. The question is, when can we fund them and how can we fund them. The answer to this one is, not now, not this year. So there are a lot of things out there that could help us do a better job or help the sheriff do a better job. The question is whether or not you can afford them. And I think that's where we are, and the answer is this year, with the budget he submitted, we can't. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I concur with you on the next item as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is one item I want to hear on the computer-aided dispatch that I asked this morning that hopefully we can get something different on. It was presented to us as a single line item 850,000 mega -- this is it, this will solve the problem type of thing, when what we saw in pictures was -- and what I've seen in the communication center is a magnetic board that obviously is, you know, not in line with today's technology or last decade's technology, and something like that I think we're talking about an operational help, but I need to know, is there a way to maybe increase operation without spending $850,000 on this one huge all-encompassing system. I don't know the breakdowns. I don't know the levels in there. So that's where I need help. MS. KINZEL: Well, unfortunately, I thought that was kind of answered this morning, but I'll try to rephrase what I understand from the technical people. We can phase in certain aspects of that. The 850 is the entire project for the dispatch segment which some of the graphics that pertain to the GIS because I know this morning there was some confusion as to whether it was GIS system. It's not a duplication of the GIS system. We're primarily talking about the dispatch operational. And the two most important components, while we can work on the hardware, software applications and phase it or lease purchase to reduce the cost, I think the two primary things that we need to be concerned with are the graphic applications so that we can monitor without as much human error where the vehicles are and where the incident is that they can get to, but also the down time that Damian expressed. When we're down, we're down. They have to go to the fully manual system which is almost impossible. We unfortunately experience a lot of electrical, a lot of storm problems here. I think he'd indicated he'd been down numerous times already this year. By putting in the primary hardware piece of this system, because it's got that hot transfer, dispatch can stay running on one system supported by the UPS, and it can transfer the data so you don't lose any of the automated dispatch time. Unfortunately that's probably one of the most expensive components of the whole unit that he's proposing. But a lease purchase or phasing this in over a couple of years would meet with us also. We can do that to compromise. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For my benefit, what you've answered is that you can phase it in, but you can't physically segment it? In other words, you can't draw a facet of it and not get the rest of it? It's either a package you go up front or you phase it. Either way you're going to get the whole package? MS. KINZEL: That's my understanding. Right. Because you have to have the graphics to connect with the other hardware component or the CPU processing unit that actually retains the data that generates this, and that's the piece we're missing with just the COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Crystal, you should really be in sales. You know that? You have the persistence and the gift of the gab and all that. MS. KINZEL: Vince convinced me. Believe me. I'm hard on them. I really am. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you know what? You know what? Collier County has the lowest crime rate in Florida, and they've been doing that for years and years, and they've never had one of these enhanced dispatch stations. So, you know, it's -- it's -- once again, it's up to the sheriff to decide if it's important enough to make adjustments within his budget. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Crystal, I'm going to save you a little bit of time here because I'm not ready to approve something, even phased in, that's an $850,000 system at this point. So that's two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three. Anything else on wrap-up? MS. KINZEL: I believe we had one wrap-up on the attrition that you did ask me to go back and speak with the sheriff on. I did go back over there. He asked me to express to you a concern about making a cut in our budget at this time. He'd like the opportunity to come back and explain to you a little bit more the management philosophy. We looked at this budget extensively. We looked at how to manpower, should we allocate it. We've looked at all of the attrition, which departments are down, which are up, and what we would like to say is that we know that in the past we've had those vacancies, but what we're also saying is that this year we've implemented very specific strategies in recruitment going to the campuses. We don't foresee that that attrition will remain in subsequent years. So what the sheriff would like to do is be able to meet with you more substantially on this issue before you make a decision to cut his budget further. We've cut the overtime. We're asking for specific bodies. The only way to cut the 3 percent out of our budget is law enforcement positions. We're 82 percent manpower. It's going to cut positions. What we're saying by that attrition factor is that we can't staff up, and we're optimistic with these new strategies that we've implemented that we will fill up and we need to fill up to provide the road patrol. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we already gave that direction this morning. I didn't realize it was still on the -- I don't see it here on the list, but I thought we gave that direction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what Crystal said is that we've given the direction and she spoke with the sheriff, and this is his response. MS. KINZEL: He's requesting that you reconsider the cutting of his budget at all. We've come in with a 4.6 which we think is very positive. We've implemented again all of these strategies that we feel we will staff up. If we don't staff up, you will see a turn-back as the alternative. But we are -- The way we have structured now with the recruitment at the university, the minority recruitment, minority task force, all of those things have been implemented in this year that we're in. So while we may have had a deeper attrition in prior years, we're not looking to have that attrition in subsequent years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what's the net of your budget if these two items that we did have in wrap-up remain cut? You said you're 4.6 or something? MR. FINN: I'm sorry. The items -- Are you referring to the attrition being cut or the capital projects? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The two capitals are what I'm talking about. MR. FINN: Okay. The 850 for CAD was never in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FINN: The 110 for the video imaging is in -- the countywide capital fund is not going to have an impact on the sheriff MR. DORRILL: It's not part of the sheriff's budget. That's, frankly, our budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. So you're coming in '- MS. KINZEL: 4.6. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- with the 4.6 percent increase. If we had that 4.6 percent increase to get more patrols on the road, if that -- if balanced with the other cuts that we've done, are we still tax-neutral? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. We walked in at 1.1 percent in the general fund below rollback. In addition, now you've made these parks and recreation cuts, 350, $360,000, and I've requested we make -- we not reserve that but we actually reduce the proposed millage as a result of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So as much as our instructions and marching orders are we want to be tax-neutral, it may be that road patrols, increased road patrols, is something that people are willing to pay for so long as their tax bill doesn't go up. And if we can accomplish that goal, I don't see how we're -- what we're doing wrong. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're not asking them to reduce the number of road patrol deputies. We're just saying budget for attrition, and that's really not the same thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps you want to -- Perhaps you want to poll the board, but I don't have any interest in voting to overturn this morning's decision. I don't know. Maybe you want to poll the other commissioners. MS. KINZEL: Just so that you understand, if we -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Crystal, for just a second. We -- This has to be decided obviously and acted on before the trim notice. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. FINN: We can always reduce the millage. We cannot increase the millage after -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. MR. FINN: -- the trim notices go out. MR. SHYKOWSKI: At this point, what we could do is based on your direction, just put the money -- the marginal dollars that this would free up into reserves, and at some future date you can always -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, this morning we gave a specific direction. Now, if the majority of the board wants to change that direction now, obviously we will, but this morning we gave a specific direction on how to handle this, and I for one don't have interest in changing the direction we gave. MS. KINZEL: Could I mention, though, that, Commissioner Norris, in a way it does reduce our manpower because it assumes that we will not fill our authorized slots. If we are successful in our recruitment, the dollars are not there to pay the full authorized slots because you've reduced those dollars by the 3 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you carry -- MS. KINZEL: So, in effect, it is a cut. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you carry a reserve account? MS. KINZEL: No. The county carries one for us, but we did not request a reserve as part of our 4.62, no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you anticipating a turn-back next year? MS. KINZEL: No. We do not anticipate that at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a dollar? MS. KINZEL: We -- We -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not going to turn anything back next year? MS. KINZEL: We allowed -- The budget office estimates the turn-back for your benefit. We only request from you those positions that we feel are necessary for the operations of the sheriff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is the way you've done it the last two or three years; right? MS. KINZEL: Six that I've been here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Six. And your turn-back has been a million three, a million one. All of a sudden next year, it's going to -- the world is going to change. There's no turn-back. There's no room for budgeting for attrition. MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, not all of that turn-back has been directly attributed to attrition either. We saved last year, for example, over 700,000 in health insurance, and that's what we're asking. If you can keep it at a millage-neutral now and put it in the reserve, that's fine with us. That gives the sheriff a bigger opportunity, and perhaps we need to do a little more work in explaining why this is a management tactic for law enforcement. And, you know, just by keeping the money in reserve and not cutting the millage at this time -- you can always cut the millage by the hearing date, but if you keep it in there right now, at least give the sheriff the opportunity to maybe talk to you a little more about his strategy because we think it's extensive, and that's what I talked to him about at lunch and that's the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If it doesn't cost us anything, out of respect for the sheriff, why not let him make that case? If it's not costing us anything, the trim notices are going to be what -- you know, it's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, with all due respect, that's what these budget hearings are for, and if the sheriff chose not to come, you've been here, I believe, on three different occasions, so he certainly had the opportunity to do that. This has been scheduled for -- I don't know how long. We've had this on our calendar for two months. So there has been ample opportunity. To suggest that budgeting for attrition is cutting positions is absurd because it's not. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask you poll the board and ask us if we would like to change our direction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I will do that. Commissioner Hac'kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to honor the sheriff's request. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to keep our direction that we set this morning, budgeting for attrition. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to maintain the position we established this morning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I will go along with that also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sure we'll hear from the sheriff. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As any '- MS. KINZEL: Well, the unfortunate part, if you set the trim notices at that level, then you can't increase the millage. Then you are looking for additional cuts to fund those positions. Again, if we are successful in funding the positions, then you lose the reserve which affects subsequent years so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have anything else on the -- MR. DORRILL: No, sir. We will reflect those cuts in the millage rate, and I'd be the first to say that if the sheriff experiences problems next year, then you'd have to take action on a supplemental budget to move some money out of reserves and give it to him if he experiences less attrition than 3 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If he enjoys the wild success that Hiss Kinzel is predicting, then we'll have to deal with it at that point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to ask our budget office. Do you expect that to happen? MR. SHYKOWSKI: What to happen? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if they're qualified to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know they're not qualified to talk about the sheriff's hiring procedures, but I assume the board -- The action we took this morning was based on information given to us by the budget office on past year, on turn-back, and attrition and so forth. Is what we're doing consistent with the discussion we had earlier today as far as what the sheriff has -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Although we did not actually discuss either reserving the money or reducing the millage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just like at the final public hearing last year, it appeared that there would be additional sales tax revenue and revenue sharing. Rather than reducing the millage, we reserved the money, and at that time point obviously that has assisted this year in allowing us to be below the rollback once again. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: On the surface it appears to me that reserving it, opposed to reducing the millage is a wise course. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. That's what I'm saying. Reserve it. Don't send out a trim notice that gives you nowhere to wiggle. MR. FINN: We can always reduce the millage. We cannot increase it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We can always go down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So leave it up and we can always go down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess where I'm caught in this is that you said you would bring it back to us showing the budget the way we asked for it, and now you come back saying, no, the sheriff wants to talk to you about it. MS. KINZEL: No. I believe I was very specific that I couldn't make those decisions that I would take back to the sheriff what you requested because I -- it is the sheriff's office. All we are is his budget reps, and in reference to the comment about the sheriff's had ample opportunity, quite frankly, we had -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not part of my question, Crystal. That wasn't my question. Let's stick to what I'm talking about here. I guess my inexperience is causing me a little problem here. Okay. Because if we reduce the millage rate, we're then going to have to allocate from reserves should this thing turn out other than -- In other words, if there is no attrition within the sheriff's office, it's then going to have to come out of reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. FINN: Commissioner, the attrition numbers or the turn-back numbers that have been evidenced in the past are real numbers and are real turn-backs, and we did not use those numbers when we budgeted. The sheriff's staff is representing to you that they are going to do something different in that that number is going to be lower. I can't sit here and tell you whether what they're saying is going to happen or not. I can tell you that it's their budget, and I wouldn't be totally comfortable, in light of what they said, reducing that entirely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand correctly, we've budgeted initially for 600,000 in turn-back? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the history shows in excess of a million for the last couple of years. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There was some discussion about reducing that budgeted turn-back to $200,000 this morning. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Your direction this morning was budget 3 percent attrition and reduce the turn-back to 200,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: My only issue with that is what you would propose to do with that marginal money, reserve it or reduce the millage rate further. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Reserve it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Reduce it. MR. FINN: There are two opportunities at public hearings to reduce the millage subsequent to the trim notices going out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, if we reserve -- If we said to reserve it now, we can reduce it later? MR. FINN: You have two opportunities to do so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to get just a little more solid on this before saying reduce it. I want to reserve it now. We can lower the millage rate at a later date, but right now let's reserve it until I have -- and I'm sorry. This may be inexperience talking, but I'm just not ready to say reduce the millage, because I want to -- I want to understand a little more how it affects the big picture. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the other problem is like we have been. If we reduce the millage this year, continue to try to reduce it -- we've already got it reduced. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. MR. FINN: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we can continue to try to reduce it, we're going to have to deal with that next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's a restricted -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It exacerbates our problem. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's a restricted reserve, I'm more comfortable with that, but if you're merely saying reserve it so that we can have this exact same discussion with the sheriff's office in September, I'm not comfortable with that. I don't need to revisit the issue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But restricted reserve for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Millage rate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For the 3 percent attrition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: We would -- We would take it out of the sheriff's appropriation and put it in the Board of County Commissioners contingency reserve in the general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bingo. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. MR. FINN: And in the event the sheriff's office -- the attrition did not happen, then you would have a reserve dedicated to give them what they needed to get through. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. Now, is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can live with that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- Yes. That gives me everything I was looking for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:52 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR