Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/24/1996 B (Budget Workshop) BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY 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 9:15 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Bettye J. Matthews Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney (The following proceedings commenced, Commissioner Constantine not being present.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the budget hearing to order on this 24th day of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning for the goodness that you offer this community. We thank you for your grace and the wisdom that you have bestowed on those who have been chosen as elected officials to guide this community as we have the last several days. It's our prayer this morning that you would guide their business deliberations that affect Collier County and its people and that this would be a fruitful and beneficial time and a reflection of your will for Collier County. We pray these things in Jesus's name. hen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before we start the meeting, I'd like to ask the board members to -- to be a little more aware of the court reporter this morning, and let's try to talk one at a time. This is a budget workshop, but it is at the same time a public hearing. I -- I'd rather not have to go too formal and have to have everybody ask in before they speak, so let's try to stay aware of that this morning. Mr. Smykowski, what are we up to today? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, we're going to review the enterprise and internal service funds and the trust funds, and then we have a wrap-up list assembled from our first two days of workshops that we will work our way through, and that would conclude -- conclude the entire county budget. So I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Tindall, who is the budget analyst for the utilities -- utilities department, and the appropriate staff from public works is here as well to answer any questions you may have for them. MR. TINDALL: Good morning, Commission. For the record, Phillip Tindall, budget office. Where I would like to direct your attention to is in the small summary binder, page 4 under the enterprise funds; and in the large binder that would be page 10, enterprise, an internal tab. And to get things off to a really smooth start, I need to point out a correction that needs to be noted. That would be in the expanded service column, FY '96-'97 expanded service column. The correct subtotal there should be 1,227,800 instead of 1,297,800. One expanded service request was subsequently reduced by 70,000, which we'll point that out when we get to individual requests, which brings the total down. That was in -- in sewer operations. And subsequently what would happen is the -- the amount of the reduction in reserve capital, capital reserves, would be reduced by -- reduced to the reduction, if you will, of the same amount to pay for that expanded fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it? MR. TINDALL: That's the correction, yes, sir. MR. FINN: Are we done? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone except you, Ed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Who's going to handle the presentation then? MR. TINDALL: Okay. Basically what we're showing here in fund 408 is a total appropriation including the expanded request of 39,688,300, which is in total a 15.5 percent decrease above the adopted budget of FY '96. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What accounts -- that's a fairly large reduction over last year. What -- what accounts for that? MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn for the record. If you notice towards the bottom of page 4 on the transfer section, the transfer section is substantially reduced, and that's largely because there is no transfer going to the water department capital this year. In addition, the transfer to debt service has been reduced substantially. We're trying to achieve kind of an equilibrium with that transfer instead of having it go up and down every year, and we've been able to reduce it to approximately the 5 million dollars or so. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. This is -- this is combined water and sewer? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So is there -- what is the impact on our current rate? Does that give us more reserve or less? MR. FINN: The reserves are holding steady. If you notice, the subtotal for operations, which is the first subtotal on the page, operations including the expanded service requests are up approximately 22 percent. All of those expanded service requests are outlined on the following page for you. The next section is the reserve section for the fund, which is in the center of page 4. You'll notice that those reserves are being held more or less at the same level as last year. There's a very moderate decrease in those researches. And then the last section on this page is the transfer section; and those transfers, as I mentioned before, are being reduced substantially. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last year we initiated a maintenance program that was long overdue, and I'd like to thank Mr. Clemons once again for bringing that to my attention, to the board's attention last year. What's presented here, does that anticipate a continuation of that maintenance program or possibly an increase in that maintenance program to extend the life of our pumps and equipment? Can you ans -- can you give me a comfortable feel for that, please? MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode, public works. We're going to get into that level of detail in a minute. When we get out of 408 and get into the individual operating funds for water and wastewater, then you'll see those specifically as a line item in those budgets. MR. FINN: In a more general sense, Commissioner, part of the expanded maintenance program last year on the water side included the addition of staff. Those staff are -- are -- continue to be in the budget as part of the current service, and you'll see that Mr. Clemons' request this year includes the addition of some staff. In both areas I think you're going to see a continuation of, if you will, an enhanced level of maintenance funding as you approved subsequent to the adoption of last year's budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. My memory of the discussion last year on maintenance was that some of the stuff we wanted to put into the budget they said they just physically couldn't even get done, and it would be a -- a 2-, 2 1/2 year program to get it all done. So you're continuing into this year? MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. MR. CLEHONS: Tim Clemons, wastewater director. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did I hear you say that we're going to look at these funds in more detail at another section? MR. FINN: If it's the board's desire to do so, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, the Lakewood project is not in here. MR. DORRILL: You'll -- you'll see it under capital. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: He's got a separate capital, and that is one of the things that we wanted to discuss. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Thank you. MR. FINN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, you had asked a specific question that I failed to answer. You specifically, I think, asked if there was a rate increase contemplated in the budget that was being presented to you, and the answer to that is no. The revenues that you see on page 5 of this budget are set using the existing rate structure that's in place. The increase is simply a result of expected growth in -- in activity. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. FINN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just have one question that came to mind when you were talking about a -- the lack of a potential for a rate increase. Our rate has been the same for how long? MR. CONRECODE: Since 1989. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For seven years? MR. CONRECODE: We're -- we are currently in the process and the board has approved funding for a rate study. That has already been commissioned and is underway. My guess is October, November time frame we'll bring back the results of that. It will give us an indication -- it will actually reflect the water and wastewater master plans that we're completing, and it will indicate what those master plans for the next ten -- years how they'll impact our -- our rates. So we'll bring that back to the board in the fall and give you an indication what we think we need to do strategically to keep our rates in line. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just thinking that since we just decided a couple months ago to take rate control back from the PSC and we've appointed a -- a five-member board to help us do that, we -- we maybe want to look at our rates and look at the private sector's rates and find out why we haven't asked for rate increases and they keep asking for them and what are we doing that's different. MR. CONRECODE: And that is, in fact, a portion of the rate study. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One element I -- one element of that rate study is that the majority of our system was installed or initiated in a short period of time. And as was pointed out to me, we have a 12- or 13-year old system, for the most part, which means that our failure on that system will occur within a short period of time over a large amount of equipment. Amortizing the cost of replacement of those in anticipation of replacement, I assume that reserves should be accumulated for that purpose. However, with maintaining a consistent level of reserves, my question will be after the -- after this rate study have we factored in the replacement cost of some serious equipment that we know is going to fail within a short period of time of each other into our rate, because if we hold them, say, for five or six years with a consistent reserve amount, we need to know those reserves are adequate. MR. CONRECODE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions for the board on water and sewer, 408? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None for me. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, if you like, we could turn to page 6 and simply discuss the expanded request proposed by the departments, or we could turn to the big book and go into some additional excruciating detail, if you like. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume the use of the word excruciating was not an accident. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Move on. Solid waste. Any board member want to discuss these -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the pleasure of the board. I'm -- I'm -- I'm perfectly fine just looking at the expanded services. If there's any question on that, I think we all are aware of what our departments do, for the most part, at this point. MR. DORRILL: Summarize the expandeds on the water side first on page 6. There are no real large items this year; but, you know, sum -- sum total you'll see water is about 140, and wastewater is substantially above that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we -- do we have a motion for approval of this one or -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'll -- I'll move that we approve the changes to fund 408. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can -- we can second, but we haven't been taking motions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We haven't been taking motions -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then my suggestion -- suggestion is to move on. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with the budget. MR. FINN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As -- the utility operations at -- that the board governs in Collier County includes the Collier County water-sewer district, which is the budget that you had just reviewed. In addition, there is two other small water districts, and one is a water-sewer district. Marco Island water-sewer district is essentially a privatized operation wherein we provide for the collection of sewage and give it to SSU to provide treatment. That budget is also in this package. There is a second-year phase-in of a rate increase the board approved last year included in that budget. I want to point that out to you before we move on. In the Goodland water district a similar thing takes place. That is essentially a privatized function also where we provide for the distribution of water, and SSU provides the potable water to us. I will tell you that there is some discussion at the staff level and the board, and the budget is currently prepared to include a rate increase. We're currently charging a dollar seventy for water down there, and SSU is charging us three twenty for that same water. We have a situation -- an untenable situation down there that we'll be evaluating. In all likelihood we'll be coming to you with a proposed rate increase down there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: While -- while the utility directors are here, can we just skip ahead or back and let the board look at their capital? It's like 412, 413. MR. TINDALL: That's what we were planning on going to next. MR. DORRILL: I don't want them to get too cute. They were both jumping up like they were ready to run out the back door. MR. TINDALL: If I could direct you to the right places for the capital for utilities last, it's in the large book under the tab marked capital, page 15. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fifteen? MR. TINDALL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fourteen-J. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fourteen-J? MR. TINDALL: The first fund would be the water impact fee fund, 411. What the summary explains there is that there are total project expenses requested for '97 of 2,169,600. There's about approximately 30,100 in carryforward from prior year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. TINDALL: Basically two -- two projects. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which water treatment plant expansion is this plant? MR. NEWMAN: North plant. Hike Newman, water director. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the utilities capital section is split into four funds. On the water side there is a water impact fee fund. As you might expect, the projects there are funded with impact fees and are growth driven. That's the budget you're looking at on page 15. And as Mr. Tindall pointed out, we have approximately 2.1 million dollars' worth of projects budgeted there next fiscal year. The following page, which is fund 412, includes the bulk of the projects that are proposed next year for the water department. These projects are funded effectively by pay-as-you-go capital coming from user fees, and the page following that has a full list of the projects proposed for next fiscal year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. FINN: On page -- on page 18, similar to the water side, the wastewater side of the capital is split into two funds. One fund, which you see on page 18, is the wastewater impact fee fund. This fund is supported by impact fees. The projects proposed in this fund are growth-related projects. On the following page, fund 414, is the pay-as-you-go wastewater capital fund. Again, that fund is primarily supported by pay-as-you-go capital coming from user fees. In addition, it's important to note that on page 19 there is a -- a loan proceed in the amount of 11.9 million dollars plugged into this fund. Those loan proceeds at this point are -- it is our hope that those will be state revolving loan fund proceeds which carry a 2.9 percent interest rate. You may recall that the board had a public hearing on this matter approximately a month ago, and the projects to be funded by those loan proceeds are shown on page 20 in part. Mr. Chairman, you had a question about some of the reclaimed water projects that were proposed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. MR. TINDALL: And I think Mr. Clemons would be happy to address your questions, if you'd like. MR. CLEMONS: Yeah, those -- (Commissioner Constantine entered the room.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My question is, is that project back in the budget or what. MR. CLEHONS: At the present time the project is not included in next year's budget. It was one that we had discussed and looked at, and a determination was made not to move ahead with it at the present time. MR. DORRILL: This, again, was one of those decisions that was made probably two weeks ago. And in the interim Mr. Norris and I met with some people from Lakewood who have asked to speak at the conclusion of this discussion on this fund. Their project began about two years ago and at one time was budgeted as part of a series of reclaimed water projects. Beginning last year the board changed their direction slightly when we purchased the pond sites east of Naples Manor, and they're currently developing those as percolation or evaporation ponds on part of the old Hubschman property. In addition, the -- the backup source that we had decided on is deep well, but only as a backup source; but we continue to have a need within the community for tense water and mains, and this project is a good project that would provide water to the lakes at Lakewood -- or in lieu of the lakes at Lakewood because they have a residential irrigation program similar to the one at Pelican Bay. In fact, those are the only two communities, to my knowledge, on any large scale that have residential effluent potential tense. The concern that I had was addressed a little earlier, and I've told the chairman the same thing. I don't have a problem with this being put back in the budget. I want some additional information pending the rate study that we are working on. And my rationale for that is that at a million gallons per day, which is the size of this project, the revenue that would come to the county is one hundred thirty dollars per day or about fifty thousand dollars per year for a project that is going to cost us a million six hundred thousand dollars to install. And I have also asked the staff to show me where the project may be overdesigned in anticipation of other connections to this main, and the main will come from two different sources. But the concern that I had is that the rate is so low that it would take us almost 25 or 30 years to recap our investment. But if as a result of the rate study, the rates for effluent increase -- and I'm sure that they will -- I think that's why this is still a worthy project. It's a worthy project because the source of effluent is fairly close to Lakewood, and we're going to be feeding Lakewood from both an existing facility at Foxfire and also an old and currently unused facility near the old Glades plant expansion. Lakewood being in between, it's a logical place to try and clear because of the situation that's there. I have asked for some additional information. Staff has not had a chance to produce that yet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On the -- yeah. MR. DORRILL: And that's part of my rationale for also showing and deferring -- until I get that information -- the other two effluent reclaim projects that are on the list in the right-hand column. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- of course, it -- there is some economic question there about the length of time to repay the project. But, on the other hand, we are proposing to spend several times that amount on -- on deep well injection systems that don't bring any revenue at all back. So not only do we get some revenue back out of this project, but we also actually use the water for irrigation purposes, which is really what we ought to be doing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, does that mean that the deep well would be delayed or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I wish, but I don't know about that. I don't think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe canceled. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe canceled. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A four-one vote every time. MR. DORRILL: In fact, it's being -- it's being built as we speak. They're driving it now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's in progress right now. Then if there's -- there's no objection from the board, we'll agree and include that project into the -- the capital budget. Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let -- let me ask this, if I may. One of the problems we had in the north end of town -- and I'll use Pelican Bay as an example -- is that the -- the ability for the plant to provide effluent at the greatest-need times, there was some shutdowns that occurred and some unavailability of water. I understand that has been rectified with the expansion of the north county system in the north area. MR. DORRILL: That's not as much of a problem here. There are -- there are preexisting agreements that are in advance of this. The Lakewood people understand that, and -- and I specifically alluded to that. And some of the older golf courses in Lely are already part of the system. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we don't expect to have -- you know, to spend this money on a system, then have folks in Lakewood get upset because during the peak period in which they need it it's not going to be available? I mean -- MR. DORRILL: The potential for that at a million gallons is fairly small. Our -- our desire is when it's the 15th of July and it's raining every afternoon, we still need the ability on a put-or-pay basis to have that revenue to be able to recover the investment in the line that we've had; and that's the way we would structure it, is they're going to take it whether we can -- you know, whether they can physically handle it or not and pay for the availability to have it in -- in March when everybody in town is dying to get irrigation water. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. So we will -- we will reinclude that in the budget. What's the next item? Does that do it on the capital? MR. DORRILL: That's -- that's it for the capital, Mr. Chairman. You can see that you have a large project next year that is scheduled to get underway, which is the expansion of the south county wastewater regional treatment plant. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: And I'll just say it one last time; that's the change in process the board has decided for that particular community. But I should probably also tell you that there's no additional capacity, but that's the process to change the treatment methodology there in order to bring that into compliance with the board's desires as it's -- the nuisance aspect. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that everything then within the water sewer? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, folks. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So, Mr. Dotrill, we're spending 10 million dollars and not increasing capacity? I thought that was doubling the size of the tank but not the process. MR. DORRILL: No. We're actually changing and going from the oxidation ditch to more of a extended or forced-air system, and that was part of the whole -- and we're also pulling -- pulling the treatment process away from the residential area and relocating it to the southeast corner of the site. MR. CLEMONS: Yes, to the southeast corner of the site. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For some reason, I guess, in my discussions with Hole, Montes I was under the impression that we were doubling the size of the tank but not really doubling the size of the capacity of the entire treatment plant right now. MR. CLEMONS: The type of treatment process that's being built is different than the one that's there today. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know. MR. CLEMONS: We will be able to rerate that with DEP over time. Using that same tankage we could reduce the detention time or actually treat more sewage through it in the future if that's decided to do at that time. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That must be what's in mind is that we are going to get a rated capacity greater at some point. MR. CLEMONS: Rate of capacity initially will be the same. The tankage itself is capable of treating more sewage than the existing oxidation ditch because of the type of process. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's what I remember. Okay. Thank you. MR. CLEMONS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay? MR. DORRILL: We're back to solid waste, and you have -- you may have still one speaker, Mr. Chairman, on utility issues, if you want to handle those at this time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on utility issues at this time? If so, would you please raise your hand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please go ahead. MS. BILES: Thank you. As you know -- Fay Biles, Marco Island. As you know, SSU has been raising their rates to an unconscionable rate, as you know, and we are fighting that tooth and nail. We feel that their wastewater rate is really too high. And as you remember when this came up before, it's 64 percent, and we had asked that perhaps that could be phased in over a two-year period. And I remember -- I thought the commissioners agreed that we might be able to do that, and I'm just wondering if that is still possible. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We did just briefly discuss that and, yes, we are doing that. MS. BILES: Okay. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, we'll now move to our solid waste funds, the -- an additional component of our public works division. And that -- there's summary information that can be found on page -- beginning on page 8 in your summary booklet under enterprise fund. It's a summary of each of the four solid waste funds. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The large book or budget book? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Small book, and if you are interested in looking at detail, that would begin on page 44 and 45 within the enterprise fund section. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Overall within the solid waste operation fund there is a 10 percent increase in total budget -- budgeted appropriations. Again, this fund at this point is essentially the operating side where -- which, as you will recall, is now contracted to Waste Management, so it's a function of estimated tonnage to be processed in the upcoming year and determining our payments to Waste Management. Other items of note within the -- within the operation side, there is a million seventy thousand dollars budgeted under capital projects within this fund. That's budget for the preliminary design work of the new landfill itself. That assumes that at some point this year we make a decision regarding the location of the new landfill site. MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell, solid waste department. Also included in that 10 percent increase is a CPI increase through our tipping fee. Last year when we came to the board we discussed this and talked about holding the fees constant for the current fiscal year and then increasing by CPI over the next several years to increase reserves in anticipation of expenses for this new site. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Russell, how do our solid waste fees compare with the other counties in Florida? MR. RUSSELL: We're the fifth lowest county in the state. The state average is in excess of $42 a ton, and we're currently at $25 a ton. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- what -- and the rate I was referring to would be the household rate, the retail rate. MR. RUSSELL: The householder's rate is next to the lowest rate in the state. It's -- I believe the state average is around $160 a ton or -- excuse me -- per household per year, and we're at -- we're looking at going to $107 per household. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question on the expanded services. I note that under solid waste 470 and mandatory collections 473, we have the department of revenue growing by an additional two positions. Mr. Dotrill, we just created the department of revenue a year ago. We just went through a -- an exhaustive contract with Waste Management a year ago, and I look here. They want another fiscal clerk to help man the scales at the landfill and a fiscal clerk to provide telephone coverage. Did somebody in the deal miss something in this process that we're now asking for two positions, because there has not been an expanded service placed upon the DOR since it was formed? MR. DORRILL: And my -- my quick answer is no, but what you have is a very difficult situation at the scale house. We decided at the last minute to keep the scale house -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. DORRILL: -- to make sure that that person got a check from the county commissioners for obvious reasons. There is an increasingly -- and there has been a problem with coverage there. And I'll let Mr. Conrecode allude to that. MS. REISEN: For the record my name is Teresa Reisen. I work for the department of revenue. The landfill is open 132 hours per week. There are three scale house attendants that cover 120 hours per week. We incur 12 hours per week overtime, plus we incur overtime during eight weeks of vacation, a few weeks here and there of sick time and personal time. I have found that Iwm -- even through technological advances with the new computer system, Iwm still around thirty or thirty-two thousand dollars a year for overtime. The worst part of it is Iwve got people sitting in the Naples scale house for 11 hours a day who donwt get bathroom breaks, who donwt get lunch breaks, who donwt get any breaks at all. Itws becoming increasingly harder, because wewre up to 400 or more trucks per day. And when someonews on vacation, I only have two people to scale -- to man the scale houses. If somebody gets sick, I donwt have someone to operate the scale house. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand all that, but somebody made an error in the initial calculations for the staffing required for the scale house. Yes, mawam, somebody did, because all of those considerations should have been made at the outset. What youwre telling me today is that there was a mistake or an oversight in assessing the staffing requirements for the scale house. And, Mr. Dotrill, I donwt -- I think that needs to be noted, and we need to find out who made that mistake for it to show up on this budget rather than when it should have a year ago with the DOR and a year ago when we were reviewing taking over the scale house operations, because those are staffing concerns that you could see. You can see that you have -- youwre going to have vacate -- have vacations. You can see that out of 132 hours of operation if you can only cover 120, you have a shortfall and an overtime requirement. Those arenwt surprises to me. MR. RUSSELL: Therews -- if I might add, there is an additional dimension here. In the past at the Immokalee landfill the equipment operators rotated and provided backup, so to speak, for -- for Immokalee. And since wewve privatized and there are Waste Management employees out there operating the equipment, we donwt have that -- the backup that we depended heavily upon in the past. And I can only say that itws an extreme hardship on the -- on the good, long-term employees that we do have at the scale houses, and this is something that we really do need. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, Iim not arguing the need, and I donlt mean to shoot the messenger. The point is that we had two very integrated discussions on this matter, and someone should have recognized it at that time. And I would just like Mr. Dotrill to find out why it wasnlt done properly the first time. MS. REISEN: I think I can explain a part of that. The landfill scale houses were not an original part of the department of revenue. We got those as of 10-1. As Mr. Russell explained it, there -- there were three scale house attendants, but there was always one person that was an equipment operator. When we took it over, we didnlt feel that the 12 hours would cause as much of a problem as it did, and then when we got into more and more and more trucks coming along, that started to take a toll on the people that are working out there. Iive got people that have been out there for 15 years that have finally come and said to me, I canlt pull an ll-hour day at the landfill anymore, itls too long, itls too hard. And thatls what prompted us to ask for another person. I donlt -- I donlt believe it was an oversight by the department of revenue. I did formerly work for the solid waste department, and I always had an equipment operator to fill in on the bad hours. When we took it over, there was not a chance to ask for a person because I didn't have it through the budget hearing. I didn't get that till 10-1. MR. DORRILL: We can give you a more elaborate response, but those were the two changes. It was not initially contemplated. We made a decision beginning this year as part of the privatization, and we don't have access to the part-time help in Immokalee that we had. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's no further questions on the solid waste section, thank you very much. Who's next, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We'll get into our internal service funds. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Internal service funds? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. There is a summary of all of them in your summary booklet beginning on page 2, the tab marked internal service funds. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, I guess -- Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gonzalez is here. I think that means we're going to look at the OCPH department first. I don't believe that the detail of this is shown in your summary book; however, all of the internal service funds are shown on page 2 of that summary. Mr. Gonzalez's budget is on page 26 and 27 of the large binder. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under -- is that under capital? MR. TINDALL: Sir, that would be under the tab marked enterprise, internal. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, what do you have to say for yourself here? MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. I'd like to start off with giving you some good news. We'd like to return this year $200,000 to the general fund as part of the reimbursement to the original OCPH operating fund when it was created two and a half years ago. We also have in mind to give back next year another $200,000 to that reimbursement fund. You'll see that already actually accounted for in next year's forecast for revenues. We're going to realize it as a revenue we're going to get from ourselves. We're not -- it's going to be $200,000 less in general fund expenditures you won't need to have next year. We'll also be able to keep our rates the same, not just for this year, but the following year also by also depleting them of our revenues the next two years for that. Additional increases in the funds were mostly due to utility bills, water, electrical, things of that nature, motor pool costs, some additional training for our professionals, and our CAD technicians and computer training also. MR. TINDALL: Mr. Gonzalez, can I interrupt you for just a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, two -- MR. TINDALL: The last two pages of that section -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of enterprise? MR. TINDALL: -- those numbers are mismarked. I apologize. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. TINDALL: Please, go ahead. MR. FINN: Go right ahead, Commissioner, if you have a question. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. My question was where are we, and you answered that, so thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have one question. The 200,000 you mentioned, that is already reflected in here? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I notice, Mr. Gonzalez, there are no requests for expanded services in the expanded services column. MR. GONZALEZ: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any questions. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a good job. MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: He went to the Guy Carlton school of budgeting where he starts off by telling you how much money he's going to give you back. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A Carlton protege here, huh? MR. DORRILL: Make a fine tax collector some day. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Who's next? Next victim. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll bring Mr. Ochs and the support services division. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: A victim today? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ochs, good morning. MR. OCHS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. How are you? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're all just dandy, Leo. MS. LEITH: Good morning. Sheila Leith, budget office. We're going to start with the department of revenue and the support services portion of internal services. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, Sheila, pages. MS. LEATH: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the summary -- summary booklet for internals, it's on 2 and 3. The expanded services are on 3. The summary of all of the internal service funds is found on page 2, and the detail for revenue services begins on page 2. There's a -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Page 2 of which section, Mr. Smykowski? In the big book? MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the big book it's under enterprise internal. There is a page break after the solid waste funds introducing a new section. It's identified as internal services, and it -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I found the airport authority. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, further back, further back. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Solid waste concludes on page 52, and then there's a break, and it begins with the internal service funds. MS. LEITH: Okay. The department of revenue is requesting a 14.7 percent increase for FY '97, and department -- we have broken this down by the various functions of revenue service. The department administration, there were pay plan increases of fifty-eight hundred dollars, and there's a sixty-one hundred dollar increase -- or sixty-one thousand dollars increase in indirect service charges. This is because the DOR was a new department in FY '95, so last year, because of the way internal service -- indirect service charges are calculated, there was no charge last year, so this is the first year that they're seeing that charge. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Leath, you just mentioned two numbers, fifty-eight hundred and another number. Can you point me to those numbers on page 3 of our detailed breakout, because I don't see them? MS. LEITH: Yeah, this is actually on page 4. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On 4. MS. LEITH: Yeah. Yes, this is the administration cost center of DOR. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioner, on page 3, that was a summary of the -- if I'm not mistaken, the entire DOR department rolled up. Following those pages is each of the individual sections within the DOR and the individual detail related to each -- relating to '- MS. LEITH: We felt it would be helpful to you to see how this fund is broken out by function. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the operating expenses show a 216 percent increase? MS. LEITH: Yes, but sixty -- almost sixty-two thousand of that increase is due to the indirect service charges which were not charged to DOR in the previous year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is a revenue to your general fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the thousand dollars a pop for the computers. MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're not at I.T. yet. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. But, I mean, don't you have to pay an internal fund, you know, a fee to I.T.? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am, we do, Commissioner Hac'Kie. That's included in there, but the $61,800 is a payment from the internal service fund of the revenue services department to your general fund for the services that the general fund provides such as purchasing, legal fees, et cetera. In the first year of operation of an internal service fund, those funds are not normally charged that. So this year in the budget is for us to take part of the money that we received from the other funds and reimburse the general fund. And that's the amount that caused the major increase, and it is -- almost $62,000 of that increase is -- is merely going to become a payment to the general fund '- MS. LEITH: -- for services. That includes human resources, purchasing, board, county attorney -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- but my question, do you get real money, or is this paper money? MR. YONKOSKY: No, that's real money. It will be a payment that will be made to the general fund. That's part of your revenue sources in the general fund. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: From other county departments whom would call this an expense. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So it's not real money. I mean, we're just moving money from one department to another? MS. LEITH: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That was my question; it's not real. MS. LEITH: That's right. It's not real. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, it's not new money from the outside then? MR. YONKOSKY: No. MR. SHYKOWSKI: But in a macro sense there is 1.7 million dollars in the general fund that helps offset your ad valorem tax rate that is coming from enterprise funds and community development for their pro rata share of those type expenses like budget, human resources, et cetera, for work that is performed and benefits those internal service funds and special revenue funds. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But weren't they paying that before? They were getting indirect service charges before -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for whatever department? So all we've done is take some numbers that we used to give to this department, and now we're giving them to this department. You know, we're just moving money around -- not even money, numbers. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's called the internal transfer. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that briefly. The charge for internal services ultimately costs someone somewhere. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. FINN: Largely it costs the Collier County water-sewer district rate payers who pay their own internal service charge to the general fund as well as paying the department of revenue for their service, and they -- they then in turn pay the general fund. So it is real money that comes from somewhere. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not going to argue the point, but utilities had their own fiscal clerks to collect their checks and put them in the bank, so they were either paying the money through hiring people to do the work, or they're paying money now to the DOR to do the work. It's -- it's not any different, is -- is what I'm saying. The cost to the rate payers is the same. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully less. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems that it boils down to a single statement on page 4 of the big book. It's the last sentence of the paragraph under current '96-'97. It says there is a corresponding savings in the other cost centers. That statement tells me you're saying we're providing services that previously provided were done so at a higher cost. Is that a fair assessment of that statement? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, Commissioner Hancock, it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So at some point if there is a question about the operation of the department of revenue, you would be able to sit down and show that you are, in fact, providing those services at a lower cost than were previously provided; is that correct? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. I'm prepared to demonstrate that today. MS. LEITH: Okay. On page 5 of the big book we're looking at utility services. There were pay plan adjustments of $29,000, a net increase in operating expenses of 41,000: And this is due to the estimated sixteen hundred additional customers in FY '97 that are anticipated, which will increase postage and printing costs; and a switch from post cards to letter bills, which will increase postage; additional lockbox charges, which represent first full year of service for the lockbox service; software modifications of $15,000; and preauthorized debits of thirty-three hundred. If the new bar coding system can be utilized for utility bills, there will be some offset savings in postage, and that's being looked at by DOR and support services people now to see -- and it could be a substantial savings in that area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got a phone call and I had an interesting discussion with Mr. Yonkosky regarding why we have a lockbox and people are sending utility bills to Orlando. Could you just real quickly give the explanation you gave me? I think it was quite good. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner. The lockbox processing that is accomplished by the major financial institutions in the state have centralized their processing. And although we use a local financial institution that's under contract with the county, they actually have their data processing equipment in Orlando, Tampa, and Hollywood, Florida. Those are the three major processing centers in the state. We conducted tests and sent the payments to each of those three centers and found out that Orlando was the quickest. And if the financial institution receives a payment today, it goes in the bank and we get credit for it today. So even though we're using a local financial institution, the payments are going directly to Orlando at their processing center. We get your money in the bank faster, and it begins to earn interest quicker. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're -- one of the questions I've had regarding this lockbox, and I've -- I'm a supporter of lockboxes, but I'm also a supporter of direct payment -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and I'd like to see that for utilities as well, in fact, for all of our collections. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Matthews, we're starting off with utilities. And people receiving their bills this month beginning in the next set of cycles will receive the form that they need to sign and send it back to us which authorizes debits to -- direct debits to their account. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Success. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am, we're certainly there. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. YONKOSKY: And that -- that will happen next month that people will begin turning those in, and I invite all of you to come up and look at our sort of wall of fame when we send out the new bill formats with the lockbox. We've gotten many, many -- several hundred notes that people have sent back in saying that this is great, one like my grandmother can now read her utility bill; it's not on that little card anymore. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. YONKOSKY: Just several hundred of them, and I'd like you to come see them, if you would. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And one last question. I'm really pleased to see the direct payment option become available next month. I've had a lot of requests for it. Have we instituted a program yet for our elderly rate payers to insure similar to what FPL does where the adult children or so forth of an elderly rate payer would receive a second notice or something like that before we cut their utilities off in case the elderly person has either misplaced or forgotten the bill? MR. YONKOSKY: We have not started that yet, Commissioner, but it's something we could certainly look at -- into. As you know, out of the 33,000 customers that you have, 10,000 of those customers currently request a duplicate bill on a monthly basis, and just multiplying that by 32 cents, that's quite a large amount of money. We have just recently instituted cost for duplicate bills, which we are actually going to start putting a 50-cent charge on those. But we'll certainly work with those elderly people and their children and that will -- that we'll help them do that. We may end up not realizing the entire $38,000 savings a year by doing it, but we'll certainly do that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It just seems to me it makes sense to have a second name and address in the database that when their late payment notice or a cutoff notice is sent, that it should go to a designated adult child if -- if the elderly person chooses so that they can monitor the fact that the bills are getting paid and their water's not going to get cut off. MR. YONKOSKY: All right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to say that if we're going to do that, I'd like to see an additional charge placed on it. I don't see why the folks who pay their bills on a regular basis should subsidize that process, but if we're going to do that, I'd like -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to make it available. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure, sure, but I would like to see the commensurate charge to cover the cost. MR. YONKOSKY: And we'll bring that back to the board as we initiate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions on department of revenue? MS. LEITH: There is a expanded position request for the conversion of a temp -- a long-term temporary employee to full-time status. There would be $16,000 of offset savings within contractual services because there is a position that's being paid on a -- as a temporary at this point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that temporary never showed up in our budget previously as a funded position? MS. LEITH: Yeah, it has as a contractual service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there's no real increase here; it's just a shifting? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. MS. LEITH: Well, there is an increase of about $8,000 for health insurance and bringing them up to the rate that we would pay for that position. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Yonkosky, do you anticipate your staff growing in the next couple years by much more than it is now? MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir. We are asking in this budget request for two -- or the conversion of two full-time temporary employees that have been temporary employees for the last five years plus to convert those positions to a full-time funded position and one additional position. But we estimate that by the -- with the use of automation and the modern business concepts, that we will not be requesting for any additional staff for at least four years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MS. LEITH: Capital outlay includes the conversion from the VAX terminals to the PC network. The total cost we have in the budget is 51,700. That was based on thirty-four fifty per terminal. That's been reduced by the board this past week, so there would be a sixty-eight-hundred-dollar savings to doing that conversion. We'll now move on to special assessment, the special assessment services. Personal services have increased by $46,000 due to the additional position which was approved by the board when the B -- BCC authorized that the billing collection and maintenance of special assessments would be transferred from the clerk to DOR. Also there's a pay plan adjustment of sixty-seven hundred dollars. Also approved by budget amendment this year was $170,000 for the purchase of the solid waste mandatory collection program software. Operating expenses have decreased in the -- in the FY '97 budget by $29,000. And these are savings in postage and the cost of recording liens by moving special assessment charges to the tax bill. Also telephone costs have -- that were previously charged out in this cost center have been moved to administration. Capital outlay is budgeted for software upgrades, and this is the other expanded position that Mr. Yonkosky was just talking about, the long-term temporary position being moved to permanent full-time status. The offsetting savings would be in temporary salaries and overtime. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. LEITH: On page 9 is the EMS services cost center. Expenses will be $47,000 higher than the FY '96 budget due to the installation of a new billing system which was also approved by the board during the year at a cost of $24,000 and overtime costs associated with the new system, setting up the new system and dealing with the backlog and billings as a result of installing that system. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Yonkosky -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- tell me a date when our backlog is going to be gone on EMS. MR. YONKOSKY: At the -- at the end of last month it was $116,000 below. Through today -- and we're -- the EMS billing side is supposed to be $202,000 a month. At the end of last month cumulatively we were $116,000 behind. Today or actually through this past Friday -- I'll get it for you -- we were approximately -- we've already collected and deposited this month -- let me find the right one -- $228,000. So that $116,000 has been reduced by another $26,000 already this month. And we have $169,000 in Medicare reimbursement payments that are out there in the stream. By the end of this month we will have caught up with those cash collections and be -- and that was what has been projected and promised to you, and we will be there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great work. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Yonkosky, maybe you can answer for me -- and you'll be getting this either from my office or the county manager's office. I received a phone call from someone whose EMS bill arrived 18 months after the services were rendered, and their insurance refused to pay because of the lack -- or the lag time. You'll be getting that; but is this an isolated case, or have you had some more of these occur? I mean, 18 months is a little on the ridiculous side. MR. YONKOSKY: The -- the department of revenue has been in existence for approximately one year. You've approved the budgets in May of 1995, but you've -- you must take into consideration that 18 months ago then would be January -- a bill in January of 1995. That was a major conversion and a major change that the board's billing process went from billing individuals directly as the bills came in to going through and becoming a provider for Hedicare. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what are we going to do in these cases if this is not an isolated -- or is an isolated case? And, again, this is a budget hearing, so I wanted to bring it to your attention, because you will be asked about it. I'm going to want a remedy to this, because it's not fair to those individuals the way in which this has been handled. MR. YONKOSKY: There may have been a few -- and I agree with you, Mr. Hancock. There may have been a few of them that did slip through the cracks like that. However, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the modification to the ordinance tomorrow for EMS billing, it will have the flexibility to write those type of accidents off, and under the current ordinance we can't do that. But then the board will have the flexibility under that new ordinance, if it's approved tomorrow, for those situations where you can take an exception to it; and say the county staff made a mistake. We're not going to pursue these individuals for it because their insurance companies weren't able to pay it. We will -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those mistakes won't be made from here on out, will they, Mr. Yonkosky? MR. YONKOSKY: They will be very few and very far between, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've got one more question to deal with billing and the types of billing. This -- this is two calls now that I've had regarding patients who have been air transported instead of ground transported. And the bill that goes to Medicare says air transport when it was not a life-threatening problem, and it's refused to be paid for because it wasn't life threatening, but we air transported them for the convenience of our system. And now we have some people who need to pay the bills, because Medicare refuses to pay because we billed it in the manner that we did. Has that been handled? Have we been able to work that out with Medicare, or just what are we doing about that? MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Matthews, Medicare will not reimburse us for many of those air flights. In -- in most cases there is actually two transports, for example, on Marco Island a transport from an individual's home or a restaurant or wherever they were picked up to a place where the helicopter will pick them up, and the helicopter then take -- brings them to the hospital. One of the decisions that's been made jointly by the staff is only to bill the first leg of that run. So now that second run, the one -- the helicopter will not -- will not be reimbursed by Hedicare is not being billed directly to the patient, so I think that you will see those particular types of complaints stopped. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think that's quite what I'm talking about. One that really comes to mind is one where we had transported a patient to the hospital, which was a separate transport, and it was later deemed that this patient needed to go up to Tampa or could be Fort Myers. I'm not sure. But, anyway, it was a decision in the county in order to keep our EHS units in their cycles or circles of -- of -- that we sent the helicopter in a nonlife-threatening transport to carry this person from North Naples to somewhere else. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Hedicare refused to pay for that because it was not life threatening. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, that's a second transport and should be appropriately billed. MR. YONKOSKY: Those -- those -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are we doing with that? MR. YONKOSKY: Well, here again, it depends. We have no flexibility. Your staff has no flexibility under the current ordinance. If you approve that ordinance that's being recommended to you tomorrow, we will have a flexibility to make an adjustment to that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't want to write those off. I want to collect them, but I want them billed -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's scaring -- the response is scaring me, and you've restated the question enough. I think to make the question more clear is why are we using the helicopter -- there's something wrong with the EHS system if we're using helicopters so frivolously that you can't be covered by medical -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you'll allow me, Commissioner Hac'Kie, tomorrow when we discuss the ordinance -- I've ridden with the EHS units and actually been on station with the helicopter, and I think we can get those answers tomorrow because they are operational in nature and not budget in nature at this point. So I think this discussion will probably happen tomorrow. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just a little bit scared, because I hear Mr. Yonkosky consistently saying if we adopt this ordinance, we'll be able to make those adjustments through writing the bills off. I don't want to write the bills off. I want to collect the money. I just want it billed appropriately so it gets paid. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Matthews, when you say that, one of the other things that I did not tell you is that we are trying to collect that money from the hospital. When the hospital -- a physician in the hospital requests the patient to be transferred to another location for tests and then back, we are now billing the hospital for that so that it -- it is not being written off. I was talking about the two rides, one from the ambulance to the helicopter and then from the helicopter to the hospital. The specific items that you're talking about, when the hospital requests a transport, the use of the helicopter, we are now billing the hospital and not Hedicare. We bill the hospital directly, and we're collecting the money from the hospital. I just misunderstood your question. I understand it now. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll talk more about it tomorrow. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next. MS. LEITH: In landfill services there is an expanded request, which I guess was raised within the solid waste fund. This position is needed to improve the service of the landfill. Operating expenses in landfill services have increased by $11,900, and this is due to an increase in contractual services for a daily -- they have a daily run back and forth, courier to transport funding, and that's -- and that about covers that area. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why -- why isn't that something that the private company has to pick up instead of us? MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, because it deals with cash. When the Board of County Commissioners privatized the landfill, it made a very conscious decision to keep the cash, control of the cash, and at -- back when the county actually had control of the landfill, there were three employees in there that ran the scale house operations for you and a fourth one that was a heavy equipment driver that became part of the employment base with the private agency. And we ran almost $30,000 in overtime last year, so what we're asking is -- and people are working 11 hours a day in many cases. And we think that with the -- MR. DORRILL: John, they're aware of that. We talked about that 30 minutes ago. MR. YONKOSKY: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay? MR. DORRILL: Anything else on this particular internal service fund? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That seems to be it. MS. LEITH: Okay. We'll move on to information technology. That's page 12 and 13 of your big book and 14. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you hear that, Commissioner Mac'Kie? We're moving on to information -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Time for your question. MS. LEITH: The information technology department was newly created in FY '96. That was bringing together the AIS department, telephone system support, and functions previously performed by the clerk's MIS department. The 800 megahertz pro -- program was also moved to I.T. during FY '96. And this created five major areas of service within this department including administration, the talecommunications, direct client support, office automation, and 800 megahertz. Although there were savings that aren't reflected in the I.T. budget -- and these are in the transfers to the clerk's MIS -- they've decreased over -- they decreased over 200,000 in FY '96 and will decrease an additional $65,000 next year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we have seen a commensurate reduction in the clerk's MIS -- MS. LEITH: We are seeing, yes, a reduction in the clerk's budget. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that reflected in his budget, Mr. Dotrill, this year? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if commensurate is the right word. MS. LEITH: It's not exactly commensurate, but there are decreases. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because unfortunately we've gone through the clerk's budget when I got to this and said, wait a second, I don't remember in his budget seeing that reduction listed. MS. LEATH: Well, what you'll find -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I asked him a lot. I tried to get him to talk to me about that -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and he said that the services he's required to provide have not commensurately been reduced. I mean, I -- it didn't make a lot of sense about that we took things away from him as a responsibility, but there was not a reduction in his budget for those services that had previously been provided to the county manager's agency. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I must have been foggy because that really should have caused me to bristle, and it didn't. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I remember him saying he had not been able to identify a specific reduction. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. LEITH: Actually what -- what's happened is there were decreases within the county manager's agencies, but he's picked up on the court side. He's charging the courts and public defender and all a higher level for service than in the past. I'm not sure exactly what those programs are, but I did the analysis of looking at that to see exactly where the shift was happening. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I want to know what I get for my thousand bucks if I contract with you for a year's worth of service, Mr. Coakley. I've been dying to ask. MR. COAKLEY: I've kind of anticipated that. MR. OCHS: Just before he answers that, Commissioner -- just so the board's aware, this has been an internal service fund in the board's agency for the ten years that I've been here. And the thousand dollars that we've been hearing and talking about is a -- is a charge to cover the costs of a portion of this operating budget have been assessed to all of the office automation users, the three hundred and fifty or sixty office automation users. Every year in the last ten that I've been here started off fifteen or fourteen hundred dollars per terminal. The current year's assessment is eleven hundred dollars. What we are requesting in FY '97 is $1,000, so I wanted to make that clear that this is not a brand new assessment or charge. Actually it's reduced from prior years, but I'll let -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask -- and this folds into it. How many people do you have dedicated to that service? When I worked in private enterprise we had an HIS department of sorts, and I have an idea of how many people it took to service how many PCs and that kind of stuff. So maybe you can tell me; in conjunction how many people do you have dedicated to that service throughout the year? MR. COAKLEY: We have -- excuse me, Commissioner. We have 4 1/2 people equivalent, 4 1/2 FTEs supporting the entire client base that the $1,000 charge is going out to. Let me address Commissioner Hac'Kie's question. Within the thousand dollars you can take a first split to understand it. The computer network support, which is the new network we never had before, the new universal computing network that can be put in as a base to run all kinds of system. For example, the human resource system that you approved last week rides on top of the new universal network. That new universal network is 27 percent of the $1,000 charge. The other 73 percent is what we call office automation support, and those are the two categories in the middle on the -- they have this sheet? MS. LEITH: Yeah, page 12, the program budget page. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of the book. MS. LEITH: Yes. MR. COAKLEY: The percentage breakdown between them then is 73-23 (sic). Seventy-three is the bigger one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are these the -- it's the voice telephone? MR. COAKLEY: No, voice telephone is totally separate. It isn't paid for out of the thousand-dollar charge, nor is the direct client support. That's -- they're both separate. Thousand-dollar charge applies to the office modernization support and the computer network support in the approximate ratio of 73 to 27. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I can't hear you too well. MR. COAKLEY: The 73 percent is office modernization, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I clarify something? MR. COAKLEY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under your charges for telephone charges you're basing them on $37 per month for each 1,000 lines? MR. COAKLEY: No, Commissioner, not next year. Next year the $37 charge has been reduced to $31 per phone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. But it's per line for a thousand lines? MR. COAKLEY: I believe it's fourteen hundred lines, Commissioner. MS. LEITH: That was in FY '96; that's how the budget was calculated on a thousand lines at $37. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're budgeting fourteen hundred lines at $31 per line in your budget; is that correct? MR. COAKLEY: That's correct. Fourteen hundred is approximate; it might be thirteen ninety-five or something like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So $43,400 for telephone support? MR. OCHS: That's for -- MS. LEITH: Four hundred forty-five thousand. It's the bottom part there on the program page. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that's right. MR. OCHS: Yeah, that's the voice telephone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's even worse. MR. OCHS: That's for all phones with the exception of the sheriff's office. All the other constitutional officer telephones as well as the phone systems at the development services center all come through this budget. MR. COAKLEY: And that charge has been reduced to $31 per telephone extension as compared to 37 this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I notice the cost is up, and I -- just the line that gets me a little bit is "upgrades to keep pace with technological possibilities." What exactly are those possibilities? MS. LEATH: Are you talking on the top of page 147 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bottom of page 12, voice telephone system support we were just discussing at $445,000, going to "keep pace with technological possibilities." MS. LEITH: Well, this -- this four hundred forty-five thousand dollars, three hundred of is just the telephone bills for each department. The remainder of it is the personal service component and any operating expenses that go with it. MR. OCHS: There's no capital upgrades or anything planned as part of this operating budget in telephones. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what does the hundred and forty-five go for? MR. OCHS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what do you spend one hundred forty-five thousand on if three hundred is the bills, so there's a hundred and forty-five in addition to the pass-through of the phone bills? MR. OCHS: The telecommunications technicians that install and repair all the telephone lines and -- and telephone instruments -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many bodies is that for 145,0007 MS. LEITH: Two and a half. MR. COAKLEY: Two and a half. That's two telephone technicians and half of the manager. MR. OCHS: There's operating supplies in there, too. MR. COAKLEY: Oh, yeah. There's operating supplies and things like that. This year, unlike prior years, we're absorbing some of the costs within this charge for upgrades. For example, last year if a department had to add three telephones and they came to us and for us to add it, it would take a upgrade to the switch for an additional group of 24 or 12, whichever the case might have been. We would make the departments pay for them even though they didn't use them. This year we're absorbing that, averaging it out over the year. So we are shielding the department from having to pay exorbitant charges for the fact that you have to buy things in groups of 12 or 24 on the telephone, so we're absorbing that, and that's part of what we're talking about. MS. LEITH: Within the communications budget there's $217,000 -- oh, I'm sorry, $217,000 -- $300,000 for the telephone charges, and then there's also a charge out of the administrative component of the division, which is Bill Coakley and his secretary, and those functions are charged out as well. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that comes under the voice telephone system support? That's what the one forty-five is spent on? MS. LEITH: Yes, the one forty-five. MR. OCHS: And the staff, yeah. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I still hadn't -- I guess maybe we're going to get to it, but I understand that the thousand dollars is spent 73 percent on office modernization and 27 percent on computer network support. But I still didn't understand; what do I get for my thousand bucks if I sign up for your service? Did -- I mean, am I -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: One, you don't have a choice to sign up for the service. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I know. And, you know, the net effect of this pass-through, if we multiply this thousand bucks by every time they've charged it, I would like to know -- I would like seriously to know how many total dollars that is at a thousand bucks a pop coming into this department, if we could cut that in half. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I bet Mr. Coakley could answer that for you. MR. COAKLEY: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many thousand dollars are you charging? Do you know what I mean by that? MR. COAKLEY: Uh-huh Yeah, it's the number of -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do I get for it? MR. COAKLEY: Yeah. Let me make sure I understand the question, but I think I do. You're asking how many terminals and PCs or work stations out there we are using as the base to divide into our total cost to come up with the thousand-dollar allocation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. COAKLEY: And that number for the next year is 484, this year that we're -- that we're -- the budget process we're talking about for next year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Four hundred eighty-four computers times a thousand gets you about a half a million bucks to run off of? MR. COAKLEY: Yes, ma'am. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then you have other charges that -- when you collect the 300,000 for phone bills on pass-throughs; right? MR. COAKLEY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's under voice telephone system support. So now we're to $784,000. MR. COAKLEY: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your budget's a million three. Where is that other? MR. COAKLEY: If you look up top, there's another section called direct client support. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's two hundred. MR. COAKLEY: And that's two hundred and thirty-one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, frankly, I just don't understand why there is a charge -- and I hadn't let you understand the question yet -- I understand that -- but I want to give it to you clearly. What do I get for my thousand dollars of office modernization and computer network support that I don't already get with my direct client support? MR. COAKLEY: Oh, I see. Okay. The direct -- the office modernization support covers the following things: A first big chunk of it is -- which is 27 percent, is already outsourced, by the way, is $82,000 to maintain the old system, digital equipment, VAX maintenance, printers and terminal maintenance which, by the way, the departments paid separately in this current year. We're absorbing that within the thousand dollars, so we're covering more than we covered last year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When you say it's outsourced, it went out to bid, and that was the best price -- MR. COAKLEY: We didn't go out for bid. We continued the practice of the prior year of sole-sourcing the maintenance to VAX on the VAX because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, because of it being that proprietary stuff. MR. COAKLEY: Yes. But that's a significant chunk of it. It's 27 percent of the office modernization. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. COAKLEY: Beyond that, it's all personal services and approximately the following types of items. It varies from week to week depending on the calls and who's got troubles out there and who needs what. But these are the components that make it up. There's administration on the old system. That's -- that's tuning it, changing passwords, things like that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's not in the eighty-two? That's not privately done? MR. COAKLEY: No. That's in our personal services; our staff does that. Everything I'm going to describe now, Commissioner, is what our current staff in that group -- the office modernization group does. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. MR. COAKLEY: The percentages, as I said, vary all over the lot, but these are approximate. So administration of the old system -- problems come up on the old system, and we have to troubleshoot those problems. There's administration on the new system. As you know, we're installing a new universal county network. You have to change passwords and everything on that. By the way, we're -- we're carrying quite a load here because we're doing two systems. It's kind of like if you can allow me to use the analogy we're moving from the horse and buggy age to the automobile age. And until it's fully complete, we're maintaining two systems. We still have to have the stable for the horses and the veterinarian and so forth. We're covering both, so we have administration charges for both. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When will that be complete? MR. COAKLEY: Right now with the extension of the capital program, about two years, three years from now. MR. OCHS: See -- Commissioner, if I might just jump in. What Bill is pointing out is part of the operating costs in this section are the costs of maintaining the old technology which we can't eliminate until we have everyone cut over. So part of these operating expenses will go away when we have the complete conversion finished. For example, the old machine with the old technology, they keep charging a higher and higher rate of maintenance each year. It's out of warranty, so we need to continue to -- to unfortunately pay those operating expenses associated with the old hardware, the old software that's running on that system, until we can get everyone over to the -- to the new -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leo, this is going to be more of a question -- a general issue for you to be watching, but in my little tiny law office -- and I know that it's not the same for you with the number of employees that you have. But before I will buy a new piece of equipment or a new piece of software, you know, another printer, I have to know either that it's going to produce some income or how much money am I going to save, how much longer before I have to hire another person, because I can get more done with the same people. I'm a big supporter of this I.T. because I believe it will result in better services and more efficiency. But just like in Dwight Brock's budget I'm looking for where is the commensurate offset. Where is the reduction in his budget for what you're now doing in your department's budget and the overall budget? I'm -- I'm beginning to worry that instead of a reduction, it's resulting in an increase, and that means it was a bad choice, financially a bad choice. MR. OCHS: I understand. I -- I don't believe it was a bad choice. Again, I'm looking back at -- at fiscal year '95 when -- and I think you have that page 13 in front of you. That's when we had just the two office automation people and a -- and a secretary, and we were looking at $364,000. But if you -- if you also add in that year the telephone charges and the transfer to the clerk's office for MIS support, our actual expenses -- and that doesn't even count the 800 megahertz administration which has also been added into the I.T. operating budget -- we were looking at a million one, almost a million two in -- in what we spent for those kind of services which are now all consolidated in information technology with a much better -- much better tool. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're -- MR. OCHS: Yeah, but it's two years later. So, I mean, there are some -- there are some cost increases. And, again, part of that is supporting dual systems. So our goal is obviously to reduce this operating budget once we can make the cutover. Bill just mentioned we've got several thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in support to the old technology that will go away once we complete the conversion. Unfortunately, it's going to, you know, take 24 months or so to complete that. But I agree a hundred percent. Our goal is to reduce every opportunity that we can our operating budget, but we've got two systems in the transition period that we need to support. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we run the -- we run the risk in an I.T. department that technology will continue to slide upward, and there's always a pinnacle out there that, you know, cyberheads want you to reach but is not practical. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: As fast as you buy one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we run the danger whenever we start a new department, whether it's a DOR or information technology, of someone who becomes knowledgeable in the operation of that department being able to, you know, boondoggle their way to increase budgets year after year after year. And I look at this budget, and I understand what you're saying, and you're right. We're not -- we're not really spending a lot more than we were for an old system. But under voice telephone system support, you know, I feel like the numbers on -- on page 12 in here are just kind of plugged to justify the total cost to the department, because 2-1/2 people at a cost of roughly a hundred and sixty-five or say a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in personnel support, and their job is support for telephone switches and telephone lines. We're talking $50,000 an employee. You know, when you start getting to that level of detail, something isn't jelling there. And either the numbers on page 12 are not put together for the purposes of specific breakdown, or they're plugged or something -- something doesn't jive there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my inclination -- just to add to that so you know, I have exactly the same feeling. And I'm not getting information that makes me feel like that was an unfounded concern. So I'm -- the numbers going through my head now, well, should we cut 25 percent, should we cut a third, should we cut it in half, because this doesn't look like a real number. MR. COAKLEY: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. OCHS: It's absolutely a real number, and I'll try to provide any level of detail you would need, but these are numbers that are absolutely verifiable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we cut it by a third, what would be different next year? MR. OCHS: In which area? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just your bottom line. If we made it a million instead of a million three. MR. OCHS: We'd -- we'd have to lay off people, I would imagine, because most of this is telephone bills or direct client support. MR. COAKLEY: Yeah, that's what it is. MR. OCHS: And -- and maintenance of -- of both the old system and the new system. MR. COAKLEY: The 2 1/2 people for telephones you're referring to is not a change from prior years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't matter if it's a change or not. What I heard was $165,000 for personnel and materials for those 2 1/2 positions. That is personnel and materials, $58,000 per position. Now, either there's a lot of materials folded into there, or we've got some extremely overpaid telephone techs. So that's what I'm saying; maybe in the detail it all washes out but, again, sitting up here looking at that item, I'm not comfortable with it. MR. OCHS: You know, I could itemize the amount of telephone cable and the instruments; those aren't going to I.T. Those are purchased and then -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you said one forty-five is -- is -- actually it was one forty-five is what I wrote down. I had the four forty-five under voice telephone systems support. Three hundred of that was pass-throughs, and then one forty-five was people and stuff. So maybe you should break that down because -- MR. OCHS: I will. MS. LEITH: What we're looking at is $338,000 of operating expenses; that's including $300,000 of the -- the telephone charges. And then there's a charge from I.T. administration, a portion of Bill's administration budget, that is proportioned out based on total expenses. So that is approximately -- well, this includes the other portion, this as well, so about $60,000 there, and then we're looking at the salaries on top of that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got a comment, too, Mr. Ochs and Mr. Coakley. And I under -- understand and fully support the PC platform that we're -- that we're going through, but when the I.T. concept was brought to this board, it was brought to us with the understanding that we were going to save roughly $300,000 a year. When I look down here at the bottom of page 13, I see that 300 telephone lines from community development was not included in the original estimate at $37 per line per month. It's $150,000. MR. COAKLEY: That was a mistake we made last year, quite simply. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't matter. It was included in the $300,000 that we were supposed to save by the creation of this department, so that's $150,000 that just vanished -- MR. OCHS: No, that -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- unless you can explain something different to me. MR. OCHS: Yeah, what happened was -- and -- what happened was the operating departments budgeted their per-line charge, so it wasn't an increase to their operating budgets. It hadn't been reflected in the revenue side of the I.T. internal service fund. But when they made that correction and billed those lines out, it was no net effect on the operating department budgets. But it -- again, that -- that is part of the -- paying the long distance and the UTS telephone charges, Commissioner; that -- that's all that is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you can understand the concern. You know, again, this is the second department back to back we are told doing this will save us money, and then each year we see an increase in the budget. And your level of trust of when we're ever going to see a real dollar savings is diminished. And maybe it's out there. Maybe it's existing. But there are at least three people up here that -- that don't feel like we're seeing it or seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. You know, I'll be the first to plead ignorance. If you throw me in your department for a day, I couldn't find which way is up, and I understand that. But I'm just looking for the explanation that will make me go, oh, that's where it is. MR. COAKLEY: We'd be glad to have you, and we'd show you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's on my schedule, Mr. Coakley. Trust me, every county department is on my schedule. But, again, I'm trying to explain the exasperation here that it's not personal, but it is exasperation just the same. We keep looking for these savings. We're promised when 28 new deputies come on or when we start a department of revenue -- where are all these savings -- and they never seem to materialize. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me see if I can summarize it for Mr. Coakley. We started your department and brought you aboard with the expectation that we were going to save some money. I think you can see the disappointment in the board that we haven't done that yet. And so we would like to start seeing these savings that we were promised, and we expect you to bring those forward now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And maybe we have to force some of them by cutting something out of this budget this year. And I wish I had a better idea of what is the magic number. But if it was 1.1 in the past, and it went to 1.1 -- you know, I'm making something up. I wish you guys could tell me something instead of me just pulling a number out of the air. MS. LEITH: Well, we have -- the personal services component of this budget has increased a hundred thousand dollars from FY '96. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. LEATH: And the reason for that is the pay plan increases -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MS. LEITH: -- plus they found out when they went out to the marketplace looking for employees, they could not hire them at the rate they were budgeted in the FY '96 budget. So that's a real cost there that cannot really go away. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, there's some more, the $300,000 that just vanished, if you -- if -- if the budget was to hire technologists at a certain rate and -- and we were comparing that rate with the existing system and you're going to save three hundred dol -- three hundred thousand if we go to this new program and you find out you can't hire the people for what it was projected -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then it was a mistake. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- then it was a mistake, so more of the $300,000 has gone away. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask this. Mr. Dorrill, if we make a reduction in the I.T. budget of, say, a hundred thousand dollars, is that generally reflected in the general fund because of so many system charges -- internal charges and transfers? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it has to. Well, if it -- then let's reduce something else. Let's don't talk about the bottom line of their budget. Let's say that eleven-hundred-dollar charge gets reduced to eight hundred dollars, because that will get us a net reduction. MR. DORRILL: But it all filters out. I don't know how many of his customers '- MS. LEITH: It's about 40 percent. MR. OCHS: Forty percent of -- MR. DORRILL: -- are general fund customers. For every hundred dollars you cut out of this budget, it helps the general fund forty dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've all been making pretty much the same argument. I think Commissioner Norris made the point, and that is that last year we kind of fumbled along and said, okay, let's see where it goes. And we didn't give you everything you asked for last year, and we're not giving you everything you ask for this year either. But maybe the focus here is that if -- if someone doesn't show either higher efficiency measures or significant turnback at the end of this year, that might be a direct reflection on -- on how the county manager makes your review or how this board reviews your budget next year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- and I'd like for this to be an area that we look at privatizing completely because this -- you know, having to hire people with this level of expertise and have them on staff is expensive. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's very expensive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Once we're up and going, I can't see that we're going to need -- you know, that we couldn't do this privately for less than 1.3 million dollars. MR. OCHS: We've tried to even try to consolidate or at least talk about some efficiencies with the constitutional officers who, as you know, each run their own separate MIS staffs and agencies and tried to find some efficiencies that way. We continue to try to explore that as well. And we do try to outsource, Commissioner, as many components as we can in -- in the current program and will continue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have 13 full times -- 13 FTEs in this department? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. MR. COAKLEY: By the way, that's one less than the number that when I first came to the county and sat here at this table before you we were talking about, and I was able to keep it down by one. It's -- it's up one more, 800 megahertz; but that was another program coming in. So I was able to save one FTE right off the bat, so I've done what I can. I'd also like to make a point, if I may. I may sound like I'm preaching a little bit, but the real benefit of the information technology modernization program is not in savings in the information technology department per se; it's in the improvement of operations throughout the county. The reason for putting the PCs or the workstations, as we call them -- once you have the software on them, out there is to improve the operations overall. And if -- if that's not happening or if it's not being done for that purpose, we're -- we're off track somewhere. I mean, we're talking about, I think it was, 484 terminals and workstations next year. That's quite a lot. We've had a great deal of success with this program. You funded in the general fund a hundred workstations this year, but the nongeneral fund, big time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought we funded 60 new workstations? MR. COAKLEY: No, I'm sorry. That's this coming year. I'm talking about the current year we're in now. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse you. It was 60. It was 60. But the point is that many of the nongeneral fund departments have come in and are participating in this program, frankly, beyond my wildest expectations. I'm real glad to see it. And they're doing that because they see the advantage of having the new workstation technology out there. And we can't overlook that fact. Sure, we can look, and I'll keep the costs as low as I can here; and I want to compare it to the private sector. If you look at all the components, so be it; but look at the benefits of the program you approved last year. It goes way beyond savings in my department. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Coakley, I think you see the mood of the board. We expect you to do some efficiency measures in your department. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. COAKLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we'll expect this time next year at budget season some -- some more in-depth justification of what you're doing. MR. COAKLEY: Sure, be glad to. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are we going to suggest a reduction in this budget or not? CHAI~ NORRIS: Well, that's up to the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because -- because I can't reach in here and find areas A, B, and C that I think things haven't produced as they were promised specifically, I'm not comfortable doing that at this time. If I don't get these answers next year, then the arbitrary reduction, I think, is going to have to come to force it. But, again, those are areas that we have cut, I feel, like we've reached in and said here is why we believe a -- a reduction of X amount is justified and then let the department head make those reductions as they see fit. I can't -- I don't have that level of comfort in this budget. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I do somewhat in that thousand dollar a month indirect charge. I just think that's awfully high. MR. COAKLEY: Commissioner, if I -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I don't, like you, have a feel for what it ought to be. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the problem. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know I don't pay a thousand dollars per unit per year in my office for computer support. I just don't do that, and I wouldn't do it. MR. OCHS: Well, I agree if we weren't maintaining two systems at the same time, that charge wouldn't be a thousand dollars, Commissioner, and I'm not making excuses. But I'm saying part of that operating expense out of that section is to maintain the old system, the maintenance on the hardware, the software, the support for the old system as well as the new. We have every intention and desire to get off of that old system as quickly as we can, which will lower those costs, which will translate directly into a reduced per charge -- excuse me -- per-unit charge in the next fiscal year. It's just a matter of how quickly we can get people off of the old system. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'm going to be willing to roll one more year with this but -- but with big flags flying for next time. And -- and when we come in next year with budgets, if you -- my first question's going to be show me why that was a good expenditure last year, what did we save or what new efficiencies do we have this year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They may be measurable in requested FTEs in the departments that receive units. MR. OCHS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there are FTEs requested in the same departments we just dumped 60 units into the previous year, somebody is not doing their job, and something is not happening the way it was promised to us, so that may be part of that measuring standard. CHAI~ NORRIS: All right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a short break. We'll be right back. (A short break was held.) CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our budget hearing. Mr. Smykowski, we finished with the I.T. section. What's next? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. I will move right into -- following what is page 16 and 17 in your detail book just after the I.T. department pages are the risk -- the three risk management internal service funds. Mr. Walker is here, and I'll turn it over to Hiss Leath to walk you through those. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just before we go too far -- I apologize for this. Several weeks ago I made a commitment for a lunch date today without thinking that was our budget hearings, so I'm going to need to leave right around noon, and I will be probably 65 minutes, just a little over an hour, so we can plan according. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll do the Golden Gate stuff during that time period. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, wait a minute. Now, you guys teased me with that, and you actually did it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was last year. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, that was last week. We'll -- we'll keep that in mind as you vacate. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask for those who are here, we're getting ready to go into some what I'll say is noncontroversial internal services that run from risk management to the Golden Gate Estates trust fund and library trust funds. And not knowing what the board wanted to do about lunch, there are a number of people who are here and who have asked to speak concerning either agricultural programs in particular -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is agricultural on our agenda today? MR. DORRILL: It is under wrap-up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did we ask for that to come back as wrap-up? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you did. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's do the public speakers now then. MR. NORRIS: Is that for -- we don't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How long is Mr. Walker's -- MR. WALKER: It will be short. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not long? MS. LEITH: Pretty short. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And there is a summary of the trust funds. The board doesn't have a lot of policy-making discretion there. That's money held as a trustee capacity. There is a summary. I can get the highlights on those after we would complete risk management, and then we'd be into our wrap-up discussion at that point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Risk management doesn't have any expanded services in property and casualty? MR. WALKER: No, sir. MS. LEITH: No, the increase in budget is really due to new property added to the property and casualty. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. Group health, the 517 fund is down 16 percent, I see. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MS. LEITH: Yes. They've reduced by 10 percent the rate charged to the board for health insurance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In what year are we in of our self-insured program? MR. WALKER: We self insured on October 1, 1989. Jeff Walker, risk management director. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Worker's comp. is down 1.9 as well? MS. LEITH: Workmen's comp. is -- is also down as a result of actually the sheriff as rateable payroll being absent from the numbers, and so that's decreased our -- our exposure. MR. WALKER: It reduces what we pay in state assessments, so we're no longer paying what is essentially a taxed state for the second disability trust fund due to the sheriff's rateable payroll, so they've reduced that expenditure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone have any risk management questions? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, he keeps saying due to the sheriff. Tell me what's due to the sheriff. I'm not -- MR. OCHS: The absence of the sheriff. MR. WALKER: Right. MR. DORRILL: He pulled -- MR. WALKER: The absence of the sheriff in our worker's compensation program. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a result of -- MR. WALKER: Right. The sheriff used to be included in this, and as a result the tax we pay to the state disability trust fund included their payroll in addition to ours. Since they pulled out of our program, we've begun to see a decrease in that state assessment. It takes a couple years for it to catch up, just so you know the timing of it. But we're anticipating next year that will be going down because of the absence of taxable payroll of the sheriff's department. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it's -- it's going down, not because the rate's going down, but because our dollar volume in salaries -- MR. WALKER: That's exactly -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- under the program has gone down? MR. WALKER: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. LEITH: I would just like to mention in forecast in workmen's compensation, tomorrow on the agenda Mr. Walker has an item which will actually increase this payment line to a million six ninety-five instead of a million four, and that's in anticipation of settlements of old claims. MR. WALKER: We -- since October 1 -- excuse me. January 1 of '94, the -- the state law changed allowing us to what's called wash out old claims, which means that we can settle them in total. We will no longer owe any medical or any lost wage claims on those. We're anticipating this year that we'll do an administrative settlement on about 13 claims, and a lot of those are sheriff's claims. We -- we want to get those closed out because, of course, the sheriff's no longer in our program. We no longer receive any premium for that. Obviously the longer those hang on, they tend to get more expensive, and we want to close out a lot of older claims. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when the sheriff withdrew, the claims that were initiated, even though they're associated with his department, remained with us for settlement? MS. LEITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that called being left holding the bag? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's also called closing the bag on future claims, though. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: True. No, I understand the reason for the expenditure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker. MS. LEITH: Okay. Next is fleet management, pages 22, 23, and the motor pool capital recovery, pages 24 and 25. The fleet management's operating budget is largely driven by the user departments' demand for service. And within this budget you'll see a 2 1/2 percent increase in parts and some increases in fuel and outside the cost of outside vendors, the overall budget being up 4.8 percent. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yup. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions on that, 522? MS. LEITH: Okay. The motor pool capital recovery project is increased 13.3 percent, and this is really an increase in reserves. A total of 38 vehicles will be replaced in FY '97 compared to 49 in FY '96. And would you please disregard the expanded service request in this budget; that's been eliminated. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can't complain about that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Five eighty-nine. MS. LEITH: You did that one already, and that's it for internal services. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, quickly if you turn to page 7 in your summary booklet under grants and trusts, I'll just kind of hit the high points of the trust funds. There's a summary of total appropriations within the trust funds on that page. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't -- I -- I just keep -- while everybody's flipping. You know, the only thing that would make this even better, because this is so much better a presentation than it was last year, is if we had those summary sheets on overheads and we were able to look at them together just for next year. That would be a step in the right direction, plus they would be able to know what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Pages 6 and 7 you said? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. There's a summary of the trust funds overall. Total appropriations actually increased 19.4 percent. That is due in large part to the utility regulation; fund 669 was created this year with total appropriations of $627,500. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Without that, though, we would actually be down substantially? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Substantially, that's correct. A number of these -- obviously we're dependent upon the funds. A number of them like the GAC trust funds are a function of residual cash available. For instance, the GAC roads trust fund is shrinking with available cash. Confiscated property trust fund, there's a decrease in carryforward revenue, and it's also a function -- we cannot budget for future confiscations. As money comes in obviously we are then able to appropriate it, but up front we cannot anticipate next year we're going to have a million dollars in confiscations. That's a function of as cash comes in, it's available for appropriation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, just as a line item to help me understand something -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- animal control, fund 610, '95-'96 adopted budget is 94,700. Was that anticipation of grant or trust funds in the amount of ninety-four seven, that line item? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would be in anticipation of the neuter-spay fees and available cash from prior year operations. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And we only received thirty-five five in that same fund, so that -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, that's total expenses. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The top component there is total appropriation; that's your expense side. The second half of that summary actually focuses on the available revenues. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And in large part that's a function of obviously a large component within these trust funds may be budgeted and reserved, so obviously we do not anticipate expending those. Those just roll forward as carryforward into the future years. Just a thing of note, I guess, within the library trust fund, Mr. Jones -- various equipment needs that would otherwise be in the ad valorem fund, the general fund, Mr. Jones has opted to use available trust fund revenues to pay for those equipment purchases here thereby saving you ad valorem dollars on the other side. So to the extent possible, we used these funds and try to save you ad valorem dollars if and where we can. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would conclude our -- the planned budget review today and take us to our wrap-up discussion and/or public speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll go to the public speakers at this point. MR. DORRILL: My staff has corrected me. These are public speakers -- they're not wrap-up items -- the people that generally appear to be in, like, two or three areas that we've got some people here to speak about horticultural issues and a proposal that they have to increase fees to pay for a program there in lieu of ad valorem taxes. There appear to be some livestock issues, and then I have one person who's asked to speak about health care funding. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's go to those speakers. MR. DORRILL: Well, the first ones we have deal with the extension office. The first one I have is Mr. Walker; you'll be first. Mr. Knudsen, if I could have you stand by, please, at the mike. Good morning. MR. WALKER: Good morning. MR. DORRILL: We'll need your name, too. MR. WALKER: Cullen Walker. I own Work-A-Holics Landscape Management. We do landscape maintenance here in Collier County. I'm a member of the Collier County Landscape Maintenance Advisory Committee. And our main concern is the maintenance here; and we work with the county extension, the commercial agents that you have. And since I've had my company for the past 15 years, that's been our only source of education, not only for CEUs for continuing education, but also just to grow our business and to give us the new insect and disease updates. That is -- that's our only form of, I guess, news that we get through that. But exclusive to this area, as we have plant and turf seminars throughout the year, we have the Spanish-speaking seminars. All of the -- in Collier County here we're pretty much exclusive in the larger companies in having Spanish-speaking labor. And the last couple of years they've come up with programs through the extension office that has trained us in that and been very successful. The -- in my business where we often have problems with palms dying or different -- different things that happen in the landscape that we can't diagnose, I can pick up the phone and call the commercial agent, and he comes out, meets with us and the owners or developers and clears up any finger pointing. And there's no other source that we have for this. We could take soil samples when we have a problem like that and send it off, but we have nobody that can come out. I mean, we couldn't even pay for that. And that's -- that's our main concern in this is if you take this position away, what are we going to do. I mean, this benefits us and also the public, and so there's got to be a way that we can work this out or come up with something. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. WALKER: I thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Knudsen, if you would, and then, Mr. Cook, if I could have you stand by. Good morning. MR. KNUDSEN: Good morning. I'm Erik Knudsen. I'm representing Smallwood Landscape. I'm the horticultural management manager. And like Cullen said, we do have a lot of problems, especially after a year like we had this last summer when we had a lot of rain. And I use the agency extensively. I used a fill-in commercial agent, who was Bob Peterson, and he came out and met with me on several sites. I've got some pictures I'll be glad to show you what we're up against. And we -- I had to send off samples about five or six different times, and we worked with Dr. Morrow (phonetic) and Dr. Simone (phonetic) up at the University of Florida through the extension agency. And we finally got what the problem was, and it's pretty substantial. And we're -- we look at these kind of things all the time. If you notice those pictures right now, the pictures of all those palms right now, some of them look like they're still healthy. They're all dead now. And those pictures that you're looking at, the first ones were about 45 days after we first -- after they were first diagnosed. So they were completely dead after that. That's the sort of thing that we are facing and we're going to continue to face. These problems are not going away. We keep planting more and more plants here; we're going to get more problems. So I strongly urge you to think about that sort of thing because they -- they are the only source of information that we can get. We've got some good people here that we can ask, but they -- they don't have access to the testing facilities like the extension agency does. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cook and then Mr. Ellis. MR. COOK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I come to you representing the Landscape Maintenance Association, also the Florida Nursery and Growers' Association, a total of about 230 commercial entities involved in horticultural from landscaping, landscape maintenance, as well as nurseries, garden centers, et cetera. We have come to rely on Collier County extension, as the previous speakers said, for a good deal of information, not just textbook information, but current information: what's growing out there, what are the current insects, current diseases, what's threatening the beauty of our surroundings. So that commercial horticulture agent begins to visit either the nursery or a landscape and identify and give current recommendations. Some textbooks recommend old insecticides or old herbicides that are no longer available or recommended. So we get, again, very current information. Also we need this agent to keep us legal so that we can comply with federal laws. If you were to hire me to come to your home and spray Roundup in beds or insecticides in beds, I have to be what they call limited certification. In order to be limited certification, I need to attend 8 hours education and also pass a test. Our commercial horticultural agent does that training and performs that test; so this, again, will help us comply with federal law. Last week we had a landscape maintenance association meeting. We had over a hundred local members, and we brought up this crisis -- that's what we called it -- where we're at risk of losing this hort agent. And we passed a petition around and asked them if necessary would you be willing to pay a little more on your licensing fees to retain this person. The majority said yes, by all means. So, again, if it's necessary to add on more to our licensing fees, we would certainly consider it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question on those licensing fees. MR. COOK: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are they occupational license fees? MR. COOK: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And each company has one? MR. COOK: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To cover the cost it would be $300 a company. MR. COOK: I believe landscape maintenance, there are about 700 licensed companies in this county. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A hundred and fifty then. MR. COOK: All right. And also there are, I think, about 120 landscape contractors that they design landscapes and put them in so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What you're talking about is exactly what Commissioner Constantine was mentioning when he brought this up, and that is that a service provided generally to a portion of the business community to be funded strictly or a great portion from ad valorem tax dollars was the inequity. To establish some level of a fee system that defrays or replaces the ad valorem tax dollars for that, I think, is probably one of the most responsible steps your organization can take, and I commend you for it. I thank you. MR. COOK: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would hope that we can find some direction to take there to take you up on your offer. MR. COOK: All right. Just a little personal note. We just hired a commercial horticultural agent. She's been on the job for one week. I brought her down. She has a masters in entomology, and we need a person like this that really knows her stuff and knows our problems. So it would be a little embarrassing to invite her down and hire her and fire her soon. So we want to retain this person for our benefit. Thank you, Commissioners. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ellis. MR. ELLIS: Good morning. My name is Jerry Ellis, and I work at the Lely Resort. I'm also one of the past presidents for the Florida Nurserymen's and Growers' Association. Again, I think everything you've heard this morning is we don't mind paying our fair share. I'm sure all the nurseries in town would not mind having to increase their occupational licenses, the same with all the other landscapers and all the maintenance, which is a large portion of trying to keep Collier County as pretty as it is. It takes a lot of people in agricultural and the commercial horticultural agent that does benefit all of us and benefits really the beauty here in Naples. Again, you all probably don't have the opportunity like we do to call them out. I've used them extensively as a nursery manager and as a landscape manager out at the Lely Resort. Again, we do need that, and we will like to pay our fair share and, again, it benefits the entire community also. Again, we just wanted to bring that up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Riner. MR. RINER: Good morning. I'm Randy Riner, and I've been around the county all my life. I'm the president of the 4-H Foundation, plus I'm on the overall extension council and the fair board as an advisor from the extension council. My key point is trying to retain the livestock agent, commercial livestock agent, for the county. Fifty percent of his job description from the state and all is the 4-H agent job, and it's dependent on -- actually 4-H derives an income from the fair and the cow sales and all, and the fair does also on their building fund and all because a lot of the livestock and such are donated back to that point. To retain their tax-exempt status and remain an agricultural fair, they do have to have a certain amount of livestock and animals and stuff and that basically that, and the kids that have calves and such or hogs have to have a licensed agent, someone with 4-H to vouch for them and set that up. And I don't believe a volunteer could do that particular portion of it all. It's just, I guess, the official capacity of -- of being a -- a 4-H agent. I know they've asked if he would like to work, you know, part time and such because half of his pay is from the state, but he can't support a family at a half a year's salary. I'm certain of that. Other than that, like I say, all I can say is he is quite talented in computers, and that is, in fact -- is a bonus of keeping the office working smoothly over there. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: I'm Geoff Brown. I've sat with the livestock advisory committee for the 4-H. I'm a member of the fair board as well. With the reference to Kevin Hill and the livestock agent as well as the vegetable agent and the whole extension service there, my family -- we are great users of the extension. This kind of gets kind of personal. Because we use the agent, it helps our family. We go back to the problems of the youth today is mainly -- my children is what gives me the -- what chokes me up right now, because if -- the way we believe is we raise a lot of livestock under our guidance. We go back to old ways. We raise our children with a lot of responsibility, which that's what 4-H produces in this town today. So I request that you don't cut this service, because it's not only my family, there is -- I probably represent small farmers, which we classify ourselves as, probably 40 people -- families in this county that I know of that raise our own animals to eat, supply our food, vegetables, and do all sorts of things. The extension agent is from home economics to livestock. The whole office there is very well set up for information on problems that we occur. We run across problems in the weather this year just like the maintenance people did. It caused a lot of problems in livestock. If it wasn't for the extension service, we wouldn't be able to survive and do what we did just with the information from the -- from the State of Florida. So I request that the commissioners do -- and as we know -- well know, youth of Collier County is what we're about, because if it wasn't the youth coming up and training them, we wouldn't be here. If we don't train them right, what is our future? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, that's all on that, and then I have two others. I have one on occupational licenses, Mr. Loskill. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's -- I saw him go out in the hall. He's back. MR. LOSKILL; I made it. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Jim Loskill, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. After 1,248 hours of committee work at the Council of Economic Advisors on the EDC, I'd like to ensure that our position is clear. And if it's all right with you, I'd like to read our letter, which we delivered to you, into the record. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right, sir. MR. LOSKILL; Thank you. The Board of County Commissioners in its 1996 action agenda identified diversifying economy with expanding our job opportunities as one of the board's five principal objectives for Collier County during the ensuing five-year planning cycle. The Economic Development Council and the Council of Economics Advisors were asked to contribute toward developing implementation strategies to advance the board's policy objectives. A proposed public-private partnership, economic prosperity, retain, expand, diversify, recruit comprises the representation from government and business represent a collaborative effort over the past four months to respond to this request by identifying what tasks need to be done, when they need to be done, who needs to do them, and how we can pay for them. The plan raised up -- represents a collective assessment of the most appropriate invitation strategies to develop a meaningful investment policy for economic prosperity as a vital component to the quality of life and the hope to -- we hope to continue to enjoy in Collier County. (Commissioner Constantine left the room.) MR. LOSKILL: The guiding principle for the proposed local private-public partnership are our exceptional quality of life, the limited environmental capacity of Collier County; and the creation of high-paying jobs which export goods and services are premiere considerations of economic prosperity in our plan of action. Eighty percent of the plan is focused on retention expansion of existing businesses and industry in Collier County; and, three, a healthy economy necessitates a working middle class with meaningful opportunities of upward mobility; and, four, a diversified economy through expanded business space will reduce the impact of economic cycles, increase nonresidential tax revenues, and reduce the tax burden on residential property owners as businesses pay more taxes than the services that they utilize. We commend the board for its extraordinary efforts and to you for your management team in holding of the line on ad valorem taxes during the ongoing fiscal '97 budget workshops. Nonetheless, we believe that ultimately the efforts will provide futile unless the board develops a long-term strategy to shift some of the extraordinary tax burden that Collier County imposes on its homeowners to businesses which will generate high-paying jobs. Eighty-two percent of the tax burden is shouldered in Collier County by residential property owners compared -- this compares dismally according to national averages. We believe the plan for a private-public partnership for economic prosperity will help begin this process that ultimately will lead to a meaningful and sustainable tax relief for Collier County homeowners. We commend the board for its vision in identifying economic prosperity as a vital part of the quality of life, and we urge that you begin the process for meaningful reduction of the tax burden on residential property owners now. The public-private partnership for economic prosperity proposes to fund the public sector's budgetary obligations with a modest allocation -- excuse me -- of little more than 25 percent of a proposed 450,000 through the annual occupational licenses currently paid in Collier County by businesses. The plan proposes that the private sector through the EDC will match and indeed exceed that financial contribution made by the public sector. No portion of the program is proposed to be funded from any sources but the local business community. We now understand that maybe -- we understand that consideration may be given to funding the public sector contribution to the plan through a surcharge to the occupational license tax rather than the modest allocation from existing tax revenues. With respect -- we respectfully submit that no new taxes are needed to fund the basic implementation strategies for what the board has identified as one of its principal long-term objectives. We, therefore, strongly oppose the imposition of a surcharge on the occupational license tag to pay for this initiative. Alternately, we propose that a two-year experiment be undertaken to implement the strategies identified in the plan and that the experiment be paid for by EDC and a modest allocation of 25 percent of the four hundred and fifty of annual license occupational taxes already paid by Collier County business, and at the end of two years a critical analysis will be made to the most appropriate means to fund the program thereafter. We look forward to working with the board and look for a favorable consideration. Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Loskill, if the county were to invest $150,000 the first two years or for each of the first two years in this, would you expect to see any increased return in taxes on businesses in that same time frame to offset those revenues, or would this be a long-term strategy that the offset would not occur for some time? MR. LOSKILL: I think you could probably see some signs of more immediate, but I think that that's probably going to be year two. I think you could see some expansion of existing business. You could see some changes in plans, but it probably would be year two, and I don't think you're going to find that those would be offsetting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LOSKILL: I think that's a longer term, intermediate term, at least. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've discussed this, and I think you understand my level of support from the board perspective to follow through and the EDC's important role in that. But the statement in your letter that you respectfully submit that no new taxes are needed, if this were to be placed in our agenda packet somewhere, our -- our -- anywhere in here, it would be called out as an expanded service because it's something we don't currently do. -- and how we would view that, we would have to appropriate additional funds or make commensurate cuts elsewhere to fund it. So, you know, I understand what you're trying to say, that occupational fees have been collected and not really used to stimulate business, but you just heard the previous speakers talk about elimination of positions that help businesses and how they are willing to step up to the plate and fund that assistance. So the statement that no new taxes are needed to fund what would be an expanded service is a little bit of a dichotomy from how our budget is put together. We do have to find $150,000. We have to take it from somewhere, or we have to create it. And we've to do that to the tune of some 5 million dollars in this process. We didn't get as far, I think, as we wanted to, because we're still going to be looking at implementation of some type of new taxes to meet what is in the balance of the budget. So if we do take this on, it is going to be a part of that equation unfortunately because that is an expanded service. Not to diminish your point, but I do think that that statement is not -- not entirely accurate when placed in the concept of our budget. MR. LOSKILL: Well, respectfully my position would say that maybe the business community feels they prepaid for these services for some time. Fund the County is an interesting study in itself as to how funds flow from -- from one area to another. And the fact of the matter is, the money was collected; and it's never been used, you know, to address business needs. So I'm sure it's a matter of perspective, but all budgets have to be revised and -- and -- and corrected to meet the challenges of today. It's not an easy job. We all do it personally. We all have to do it in our businesses, and you have the -- the high responsibility of doing it for the county. But if we don't start this, especially now that you've identified it and you've lined up the county as a -- as a priority, I just don't know when you're ever going to get to it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Thomas, he's the only other public speaker that I believe is on an item that will be discussed in a wrap-up later today. MR. THOMAS: My concern is the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, sir? MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry. My name is Fred N. Thomas, Jr., 1802 Farm Worker Way, Immokalee. My concern is the positions that have been taken recently on health care generally in the county, specifically in Immokalee. I don't know how that was able to happen, withdrawing the funds from the Immokalee clinic. I called Mrs. -- Commissioner Matthews, and she's, I understand, going to be dealing with that a little bit. Something about when you leave the room you get in trouble, Tim; so you may want to stick around here for a little while. The concern I have, though, is that the bulk of your indigent health care -- when I say indigent health care, I'm talking about care that's not funded by some type of insurance. Unlike many people think, it's not in Immokalee, but it's in Golden Gate, okay. And it's not people that do not work; it's those working folks. If you looked at Sunday's paper and they talk about salaries across this country, you're talking about an average salary of about twenty-four, twenty-five thousand dollars a person. Those folks, if they're not at jobs that provide health care, cannot afford the high cost of health care now. You also have a situation where you got the Cleveland Clinic coming; you've got Columbia trying to get here. And it's not fair to expect Naples Community Hospital to continue to handle all that indigent care. Somehow that care has got to be spread across the top. It's not fair for the other folks to take the cream off the top and not have to carry any of the burden. So either -- we have to make through county funds money available for indigent health care. We need to make sure we fund the public health programs that do some preventive kind of thing. The Immokalee clinic does some good things, and I couldn't understand why we didn't support Bert Saunders' issue on the insurance for -- for low-income families that would have took just a small contribution from this commission to make that happen. Remember, the ambiance of this county is based on a healthy, well-educated work force. If you strip away all those opportunities for those -- we're not talking about high-level folks, because if you look at just the working folks in Collier County, you're talking about a median income, family income, of around $26,000. Okay, these folks need that kind of help, and somehow we've got to find a way to fund the various health care programs that we slowly moved out of the system. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted to know if I could ask you a question, Mr. Thomas, because your recollection will be better than mine. But I was so flabbergasted when the Immokalee health care money got cut. Commissioner Matthews -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I wasn't even here when it happened. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, frankly, I was in the middle of my pleading speech when Mr. Norris told me I could hush 'cause there were three votes, and we could go to lunch, bam. But is that money -- is this back to the same drama? Do I recall correctly that this is back to the same drama that when that money was originally funded it was when CURE came and we talked about and put faces on that need? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, we did. MR. THOMAS: Yes, we did. And we're not talking about welfare recipients. We're talking about the working public, the working poor, the people that go out there to try to protect this ambiance for you now cannot get health care in Immokalee; they have to come over here. And pretty soon if the Cleveland Clinic starts skimming all the cream off and Columbia Care, NCH is going to have to turn their back on some of this load unless there's a way that we can fund it some other way. It's just -- it just seems counterproductive to protecting the environment to not insure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the human part of it. MR. THOMAS: Yeah, I'm talking about you need the human side to do it. I don't understand. I mean, maybe I'm off in Happy Hollow somewhere. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We should have had the CURE people here. If I had know that this money was at risk -- it didn't occur to me that this money was at risk at the level that it apparently is. We should have had CURE come -- MR. THOMAS: I didn't know either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things need to be said here. This indication of some sneak attack on Immokalee and on Commissioner Matthews needs to stop. This item came up in the budget as it was scheduled. If an item that was of special concern to a commissioner is scheduled and that commissioner is not going to be here, it's incumbent upon that commissioner to say I would like to be here for this item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's my understanding that it was taken out of order. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, again, you can imply what you wish, but there was no sneak attack upon the people of Immokalee nor on Commissioner Matthews in this budget process. MR. THOMAS: I did not mean to imply any sneak attack. I'm saying to you that if you're going to protect the ambiance, you've got to have a healthy work force. And I'm not only talking about the funding for Immokalee; I'm talking about the funding for the public health program and the insurance program we tried to put in some time ago. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you're also aware that the commitments made to this board when that funding initiated were not met by the other party. You're aware of that too, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I have two comments as well, Mr. Thomas. First of all, your -- your reference to the Healthy Kids program, the county commission individually did take steps to secure that. So whatever you said there is just not accurate, okay. Second of all, we -- the funding that was eliminated from this year's budget was a one-year commitment made five years ago. After five years we were still making a one-year commitment. So to somehow characterize that as not doing our share, I think, is irresponsible as well. So -- but you have your opinion, and we have ours. MR. THOMAS: Okay. But my point is -- to you is this, if you haven't got a healthy work force -- okay, if you haven't got a healthy work force, we cannot protect the ambiance on this coast. We serve in Immokalee as the labor pool, not only agriculture, but for most of the service jobs on the coast. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And also in Golden Gate. I'm sorry, but I just wanted to keep making the point that we're not just talking about Immokalee. We're talking about Golden Gate working people -- MR. THOMAS: And I agree with that, too. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in my attempt to persuade one more vote. MR. THOMAS: I'm just saying that we have a problem, and it needs to be dealt with before it becomes a real critical kind of a problem. And just as a footnote -- and I hate to step off in this quicksand because relying on what I read in the paper is not always the most accurate way of dealing with the board. But it's my understanding that when the sheriff's budget was cut they said that one of the reasons is because he was paying too much for the insurance benefits for his -- his workers, okay. And just now you heard that the reason why your bill is low is because insurance -- the sheriff is out of there. It sounds like you're getting ready to run yourself into Catch 22. You either got to put him back in or give the money back to him somehow. You can't have both. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to take a break for lunch at this point then and come back for wrap-up. At what time can you be here? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1:05. (A lunch break was held from 12:50 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reconvene our budget hearing. We're ready for the wrap-up, Mr. Smykowski. Let's wrap her up. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We're just going to walk down the budget wrap-up list division by division. Mr. Olliff is here. The first item is the health unit allocation of funding among level 1, 2, and 3 services. And I see Dr. Polkowski's here, and I'll turn it over to them at this point. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. Commissioners, in -- in front of you are questions -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you identify yourself, please? DR. POLKOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm Jane Polkowski, the director of the Collier County Public Health Unit. In front of you is some information which hopefully will address some of the questions you raised at the last meeting. And I'd like to first focus on number 7, what about the $300,000 that is supposed to be going to Naples Community Hospital for primary care in Immokalee, because when you asked me that question last week, I was really puzzled what you were referring to. And if you'll look on attachment A -- and actually the response on 7 is on page 4 -- but attachment A is a memo which I got from Susan Craig. She's the acting deputy district administrator for health. The district office is contracting with Isabel Collier Read for $300,000. Also -- and this will begin with the next fiscal year. They are currently contracting for 283,000 plus 50,000 for capital improvements. In addition, what they do provide as far as primary care services, revenue would be generated, and that's also something that they would be keeping. But in addition, Susan has indicated that Isabel Collier Read has informed the district that an additional 300,000 on top of the other 300,000 will be coming down from the state to be added to their contract. And I thought that's what you were talking about when you asked me yes -- last week. And that's why I kept saying we don't have it because it's not in our budget. It's money that is put into the district and is directly contracted with Isabel Collier Read. And that's why I kept saying that last week because I thought that's what you were talking about. Now, since then, however, after the meeting, it appears that maybe there was another sort of money that this was confused with. And let me get into that. During the process when we had planned to privatize last year -- and I also had met with you to talk about the process and told you that we were going to put out a proposal, and I had asked for some community representatives on a selection committee that would interview the people who had submitted the proposals. And they were two competing proposals for the privatized -- for the maternal child health clinic. What you have in attachment B are parts of three documents. The first one is our proposal out to the community, and you see the first page which is dated August 8. And page 12 out of that is Xeroxed for you. And what we had informed the providers who may be interested is that we would make available depending upon the available resources and depending upon what had been a negotiated -- whether everything was going to be done by the provider or some things would be done by us, that we on a prorated basis could make available a certain amount of dollars. And that's where -- I think maybe that's where the confusion of another $300,000 came in. Now, the next part of attachment B is identified as the proposal for collaborative service delivery system in Collier County. This was submitted by Isabel Collier Read dated August 22. And on page 2 I've circled that portion which states that a certain amount of dollars was offered, but they are -- were prepared to provide the services outlined without consideration of funding offered by the health unit. In the audience here is Dr. Denise Hineman who is the professor of University of South Florida, and she's also the chair of your public health unit advisory board. She was one of the people on the selection committee and did the interviews of the providers among the others. And if you have any questions, she'll be happy to answer them for you because this is information that was verbally discussed in the interview process. The next part of the attachment B is the agreement between the health unit and Isabel Collier Read. And if you notice on page 3, I circled a part which describes that we are going to be providing certain kinds of services. And that was the whole idea that where -- in this -- and I've also described this to you a number of times. This is a partnership where we provide certain kinds of services, and we're using primary care dollars for that to the same patients that CHSI is providing, but they're different services. We provide the pharmacy, nutrition counseling, social work, the field follow-up, translator service, and also now as well immunizations. So there's a dolyu -- dollar value to this partnership that gets associated with that dollars that would have otherwise been available if they had done everything themselves. I'm thinking that that's what you were referring to instead of the first $300,000 which is coming from the district, but also there's an additional $300,000 which is reported to be also coming; for them; okay? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, okay except for if an entity takes over a function that has a value of $300,000, the answer of what happened to that three hundred -- 300,000 -- was your budget reduced by 300,0007 What -- did the district not allocate it? Was it allocated and spent elsewhere? DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes. We're -- we're -- okay. We did not put that money in a pot to sit. We used it. We used it to provide primary care services, and that's what I'm describing to you. We were providing the ancillary services, the field work, the adult health so that that money is used for primary care services. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So where it was saved -- DR. POLKOWSKI: And that's what we had been talking about in -- in the agreement process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So where it was saved on one hand, it was used for other purposes. And as we approach this next budget year, were the same dollars allocated by the district, or were they just not allocated at all? Did the district not even address it assuming NCH was going to do this ad infinitum at no cost? Am I -- am I misstating something there or -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes, yes. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you -- was there an assumption that NCH would continue to perform those services at no -- at no cost? DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes. That's -- we -- in our discussions -- and it also depended upon their revenues. Let me point that out too. It depended upon their revenues because they had anticipated getting a certain dollar value for -- from Hedicaid. Last year when we did the -- the year ago when we had the pediatric and OB clinic, among the pediatric patients, 75 percent were on Hedicaid. Stephanie, I wonder if you could distribute that sheet. Seventy-five percent of our pediatric patients were on Hedicaid. That was a year ago. We were very aggressive in going after Hedicaid. We became increasingly aggressive. And when we look at the age of the children that we saw, three quarters of them were less than seven. The children who are less than seven years old are eligible for Hedicaid at up to 133 percent of federal poverty level. So most of the children were eligible for Hedicaid. Now, the report I'm getting from CHSI is that they're seeing 90 percent of their children below poverty. And they're also seeing mostly young children. So most of them should be eligible on Hedicaid too, but the report that I'm getting is that only -- now I'm getting conflicting reports, though, because CHSI representative informed us in a meeting that about 40 percent are on Hedicaid. But on the other hand, I got a different report from Dr. Bill Ausbon that 25 percent were on Hedicaid. So I got two different conflict -- you know, reports. But CHSI reported there was 40 percent on Hedicaid which is considerably less still than what we had experienced last -- a year ago. And so, of course, then they are concerned about the revenues. We had also done research and, as you can see there, some data that we collected from the Hedicaid office. The Hedipass patients, which are an -- assured Hedicaid monies, had declined -- and this was at CHSI -- by 41 percent at the health unit. However, there was a -- if you'll notice on there, a considerable increase in the private physician sector. The ish -- you know, here what you're finding is more of the paying patients are going to the private sector in terms of the Hedicaid. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm just trying to get this real plain. The -- if those assumptions are correct, then we could conclude that CHSI or whatever -- I can't ever get all those -- is -- is shoveling the paying patients paying through Hedicaid to private physicians. DR. POLKOWSKI: No, I don't think you can assume that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. DR. POLKOWSKI: The paying patients are going to the private physicians, but I don't think it's because they're shoveling them out there, no. But rather it's a -- it's a process of how the paying patients are also assigned. And we had when we were doing the clinic -- and I think you have the figure there. It was over 800 on a Medipass or -- or about 800, and they in turn also -- but during this period of time, the number of individuals that are on Medipass who were assigned to them has dropped considerably. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: From 803 when you were doing it __ DR. POLKOWSKI: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to 858 when they first started to 502 -- DR. POLKOWSKI: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- it's dropped from 838 to 502, but what would be -- what's the reason for that to happen? Why would that happen? DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, and that's one of the things we were asking them also. Why is that happening? And part of that might be -- and I just don't have how much -- you know, it may be quite a bit -- that as the patients are assigned through the Hedicaid office and more physicians are interested in Hedicaid, then more are going to be assigned to other providers. That's -- but I don't know to what extent that might be. That may be a significant amount too. So we did not withhold $300,000 which is what it sounded like you were saying last week. And I was really confused by what you were referring to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you also said that you ended up spending that $300,000 in the primary care area -- DR. POLKOWSKI: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which is not what the money originally was budgeted for. DR. POLKOWSKI: It was. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if someone comes in and takes over a $300 -- $300,000 service, you then take what was originally appropriated for that and spend it in the same area. That's a net swing that far exceeds $300,000. DR. POLKOWSKI: Again, if they had provided all the services and we didn't provide any of the ancillary services, that's when -- that's what the money would have bought but -- or been paid for. But we are doing the services instead of them, the ancillary services, which is a cost to us that they don't have to bear. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is -- what I recall about this, Commissioner Hancock, was -- was Dr. Polkowski talking about leveraging that money, that -- that ins -- is my -- is my recollection right? -- that she was going to use this 300 leverage to get -- I may not remember 300 being the number we talked about but that she would use these funds to leverage in this public/private partnership so that she could get some of those services provided by others while still providing a fundamental base herself. DR. POLKOWSKI: Again, if CHSI was providing the pharmacy services, the social work, the nutrition counseling, the translation -- translation services, the -- the immunizations which we're now also doing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then they could have this 300,000. DR. POLKOWSKI: -- the field work -- they would get -- right. That's what that would be paying for or a portion of that. See, that was an annualized depending upon what they would be doing, but we're doing that in the partnership. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was the effort -- were the efforts by NCH an expanded service that addressed things that were not previously addressed by the Collier County Public Health Unit? Were they bringing -- were they addressing new patients, new concerns, that previously were not seen by the public health unit? DR. POLKOWSKI: They are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. DR. POLKOWSKI: -- saying that they're taking all takers. They're not limiting the numbers of people. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I -- can I -- can I just ask is that a yes or a no? I mean, every time -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we ask a question -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- start it out with yes or no because you lose me some of the time -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- here when we go into long __ DR. POLKOWSKI: They're seeing the same kind of patients we are. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The same patients? DR. POLKOWSKI: The same kind of patients that we are, and a number of them are exactly the same patients. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So then that answer would be no. DR. POLKOWSKI: But they are seeing more patients because they are -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- what happened here in my __ COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let her answer that, please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. DR. POLKOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Please answer that. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. They are seeing the same kind of patients we are in terms of poverty level. They're seeing the same patients that we saw. They're making an effort to see more patients. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are they providing more services for those same patients than you were? DR. POLKOWSKI: If you remember -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Dr. Polkowski -- DR. POLKOWSKI: -- when -- yes. Okay. Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- can I ask you to do us a favor, please? DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine asked -- asked you -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to please when you answer a question preface it with either yes or a no and here's the reason why it's yes or no. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. I'll remember it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can you do that, please? DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. I'll try to do that, right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So are they providing more services to these same patients than the CCHP -- DR. POLKOWSKI: The CCHPU. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Are -- are -- which is it? DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes in the sense that their physicians also are having hospital privileges. And so they are having -- and what I mean by yes is the services mean that the doctors can directly hospitalize instead of the way we had to do it. We had to refer the patients to the emergency room, and then it was dependent upon the doctor in the emergency room whether to hospitalize or not, you know. So that was the -- one of the benefits of this privatization that we talked about is the improvement in that continuity of care that we lacked. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like it would also save money if you're not spending the extra stop in the emergency room. DR. POLKOWSKI: That's right. That's right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any other questions for Dr. Polkowski? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hmm. Unfortunately being handed this in the time frame we've had, I'm -- I'm not able to go through and -- and look on a detailed basis at the responses to many of the questions we had. So again, I don't feel like I'm much better off today than I was at the end of our public hearing on this item last week. So I can say I don't have any more questions, but it's not for a lack of trying but for lack of information. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I would suggest -- I mean, I've -- I feel rotten and am anxious to get out of here too but that it might be worth having Dr. Polkowski remind us what our questions were. She's listed them here. There were nine of them, and she's prepared answers for them instead of -- because I think it'd be worth going through them verbally. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'll tell you what -- what I'm a little bit concerned about in -- in this money that we've cut from the public health unit's budget is that -- and -- and I'm sure each one of us have -- have been visited by CHSI on this problem. If -- if we don't have this money in our budget somewhere, this contract with CHSI is going to expire this fall, I believe in November. And right now based on the economic situation that they're faced with, they may not renew that contract. And we -- and then we won't have this money in the budget either for them or for public health. So I think we need to deal with the question that the money has to be put somewhere, whether it's in -- in a primary care through the public health unit and they monitor the money for CHSI or whether we put it in a separate line item for -- for CHSI to periodically petition for -- for funds when their patient load and care goes up and Medicare is not covering it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not a bad idea. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I'm concerned that somewhere or other we've cut this money from the budget, and there is a need that's not being met. And either the hospital's going to walk away from it and the public health unit will be unable to fund it then because the money's not in the budget. You know, I -- I don't have any answers, but this -- this is the problem I see. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't think the hospital has said that they're definitely going to walk away from it, but I -- and I also -- I don't like the idea because if you set money aside in case you need it, I have never ever -- well, California did in 1967 or 1966 I think. But other than that one example, I can't think of any time that government has ever had money and not found a way to use it. So to set it aside and say, if it's needed, we'll spend it is -- is as good as spending it. It's gone. Forget it. It's done. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not at all suggesting that we set the money aside in case we need it. I think history will show if we go back through the records -- and I'm sure that Jim Mitchell or Dwight Brock or somebody has all the records that we need to access -- will show that this money is needed. And just because the private partnership, the public/private partnership that was formed last fall, has CHSI agreeing for the first year to fund their program off of Hedicaid money, they are now aware that the Hedicaid money is not enough. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and let me just remind everybody too, I assume like you do, Commissioner Matthews, everybody got called on. I was called on it, and there was some -- I understand that Mr. Dotrill when we brought this up the first time -- and you -- you weren't here, so you didn't hear this. But when we talked about this before, he was saying that the hospital representatives had said, okay, okay, if you can't recommend 300 this year, don't cut this off because you're pulling the chair out from under us. How about, you know, half this year so that we start weaning our way off this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we on a different issue? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is a different issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, can we come back to the one that -- that we're trying to make decisions on now? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That may have a time and place elsewhere in wrap-up, but we're still dealing with a proposed $500,000 cut to the Collier County Public Health Unit. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I did switch. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I still never really got -- I mean, we got a yes and no but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me -- let me -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your question, I don't know that I got a clear answer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me follow up with that because from what I'm hearing and the best I can piece this together, NCH took over a portion of services that previously were provided by the Collier County Public Health Unit. The value of those services was plus or minus $300,000. Am I on line so far? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, sir. DR. POLKOWSKI: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when they accepted a contract and said, you don't need to fund us the first year. We'll do it because the numbers we've been shown for repayment through Hedi -- Hedicaid, we'll accept that the first year, there was no value of those services to the public health unit? DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes, there was a value. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's completely an expanded service. DR. POLKOWSKI: No, there was a value. If we kept providing the services this year, our anticipated Hedicaid and revenue based upon what we experienced last year just before, you know, we privatized would have been $700,000. But our costs were higher than that. So when you say the value is -- you know, you have the salary cost, the clinic cost, the laboratory cost, the pharmacy cost -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me be a little more clearer then if I may. What would it have cost the Collier County Public Health Unit to provide those services taken over by NCH had the contract not been executed? DR. POLKOWSKI: The clinic costs as -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Total cost. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. I have to subtract out the -- no. Okay. I'll -- that -- what I'll do is include the ancillary services. It will be between nine hundred thousand and a million. That includes all the ancillary services. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How did we get to 900,000? DR. POLKOWSKI: Again, the $300,000 is for the ancillary -- okay. That's not the cost of all the services of providing medical care. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I must be missing something here. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We're -- we're ships passing in the night here -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Yeah, okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because we're -- you know, it's -- it's not happening. Remember the question about $300,000? DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We're going back to that. NCH came in, and what fostered that question was some phone calls and visits I assume other board members received that the funds that NCH did not accept that first year for providing those services -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: They left them on the table. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Left them on the table. DR. POLKOWSKI: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Those funds were about $300,000. Okay. That's what I'm -- just that item is all I'm talking about right now; okay? My assumption then is that the services provided by NCH had a dollar value to the public health unit of plus or minus $300,000. Am -- is that correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because otherwise wouldn't they have left more or less on the table? I mean, it's like here's the apple. You're gonna take -- you know, take responsibility for it. What's the value of it? I mean, it moved from here to there. And when it was here, it had a $300,000 tag on it. Shouldn't it also have a $300,000 tag when it's over there? DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it -- is it more complicated than that? DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. The total cost of the clinic is -- is more than a million -- more than 300,000, and that's what I'm getting confused with; okay? The cost -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The part that they took. DR. POLKOWSKI: But the part that they took is going to be certainly more than the 300,000. But the part of the 300,000 is the value of the services that they didn't take. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's assume for conservative purposes the value is only -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Maybe there's someone else, Denise Hineman or -- is that -- you know, just for hearing purposes because I'm -- I'm hearing the questions in a certain way, and I'm just wondering if someone else is hearing it differently. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's a great idea because I think there are earnest efforts at communicating going on here, but we're not making a great deal of progress and if -- if Dr. Hine -- I don't know your name -- can answer the question -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a rush of people heading for the microphone. Go figure. MS. HINEMAN: My name is Denise Hineman, and I chair the advisory board to the public health unit. And I think part of the confusion is in the fact that the price tag of $150,000, thereabouts -- it was an estimate -- of what it cost to run the clinic for child's -- the care of children and 150,000 for the care of the women. Now, that included the cost for social work -- this is my understanding -- social work, pharmacy, and the other ancillary services were included in that so that if the public health unit continued those services, then, in fact, the services that CHSI provided were actually less than $300,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then what if CHSI had said, thanks, we'll take your $300,0007 DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, then we wouldn't be providing those services. MS. HINEMAN: Exactly. And we were as surprised as anyone. I was on the selection committee -- DR. POLKOWSKI: We wouldn't do it. MS. HINEMAN: -- and we were -- we were very surprised that CHSI left that money on the table. And, in fact, in the documents you have, they instructed Dr. Polkowski to use those funds to extend primary care, to specifically extend -- and it's in their writing -- the primary care services of the public health unit. Now, at that time we kind of hypothesized why would they do this. And my own thinking from my background in public health is that we are moving into a managed care environment where one looks at covered lives. And it's important for an organization to be demonstrating that it, in fact, takes care of the total community. So they may have had an interest then in covering as many persons in the community who, in effect -- in fact, generate a lot of uncompensated care as they could. Their own study of uncompensated care points that people need a primary source of care in order to minimize the impact on the hospital of uncompensated care. In any event, they left that money on the table. At that point they were only addressing the $150,000 and instructed Dr. Polkowski on how to use that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Therein lies a -- a -- a tremendous concern of mine. MS. HINEMAN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This board is asked on an annual basis to appropriate ad valorem taxes to subsidize a portion of the Collier County Public Health Unit. When NCH comes forward and offers to perform a service that had a value in real dollars to the public health unit and says, we don't want the money, but why don't you go ahead and spend it as you see fit, that may sound like a good deal to the public health unit. It may sound like a good deal to your board. DR. POLKOWSKI: No. Listen, that wasn't it. That's not -- that's not what was done. MS. HINEMAN: Well -- DR. POLKOWSKI: That's not correct. MS. HINEMAN: -- let him -- please finish, and then I'll respond. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: From what you said, NCH said, we're going to leave that money on the table, but why don't you go ahead and use it in primary care. Is that a correct characterization? MS. HINEMAN: I might say that's what I read in their document. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. HINEMAN: And I think that was prompted by their knowledge that the study by Frazier and Molke had pointed out that most of their uncompensated hospital care cases might be people who, in fact, have no good source of primary care. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there is a significant change in appropriation that affects the public health unit, that may affect the request for or the expenditure of local tax dollars, I'm a little dismayed that this board and county government was left completely out of that loop, that funds that were previously allocated for something, a role that was being taken by another entity, were redirected within the public health unit in some way. DR. POLKOWSKI: That wasn't county dollars. Those were state dollars -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, I can't tell -- DR. POLKOWSKI: -- primary care dollars. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the difference. MS. HINEMAN: Well, yeah, and I think it is difficult sometimes to determine exactly because -- DR. POLKOWSKI: They were categorical dollars, yeah. MS. HINEMAN: I've often said that it would be easier if county monies paid for one discrete program because then accounting would be so much easier. But what has happened with the changing dynamics of the state health dollars, it seems to us on the advisory board that county monies have been used to supplement a variety of programs. However, county staff have been attending all of those meetings. The citizen members of the board have been aware of the expansion of the primary care because that was a need addressed in the community. So it's nothing subterranean that was done. This was all done, you know, in the open. I think we have to look at, for instance, the question of whether or not Medicaid patients or so-called paying patients, even if it's the government, are being drawn into the private sector. I think they are. We don't really know where that is. So we have the opportunity here to have a healthcare system for the county, but we have no idea of what portion of that care is being siphoned off into the private sector and perhaps into private offices that -- that, in fact, emanate out of or are associated with the hospital. We just -- we really don't have a good sense. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask -- this is an absolutely ignorant question, and I apologize. But if that is the case, if -- if these paying clients are being siphoned off into private offices, isn't that the good news? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why -- why -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a genuine question. I don't get it. MS. HINEMAN: That's right. We're not really complaining about that. I can remember back eight or ten years ago when Dr. Polkowski had to go out and find Ob/Gyn practitioners to take care of poor women. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. I remember this. MS. HINEMAN: Those women were paid for by Medicaid, but no one in this community wanted to deliver a Medicaid lady. Well, when the -- when the government upped the ante, all of a sudden private offices were open to Medicaid clients, and I think the same kind of thing is happening in the dynamics of increasing competition in healthcare. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Glad to get paid whether it's Hedicaid money or personal check. MS. HINEHAN: That's right, and you need to demonstrate that in your practice or in your hospital you take care of X number of persons. And covered lives are the name of the game in the next ten years and so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, it seems the further we talk here the more numbers -- the more members of the board keep dropping off getting confused, and '- MS. HINEHAN: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you can add me to the -- to the mix now. Just a moment ago you said, well, no, no, those -- those were state dollars that we redirected, not county dollars. Well, if it was state dollars that redirected and was taking care of that program, why can't the same state dollars take care of the program in the coming year? I mean, you're losing me. You're going back and forth. On one hand, you can't live without the county dollars, but on the other hand, what you were using last year for that CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It wasn't county dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- wasn't county dollars. MS. HINEHAN: It was my understanding that a good portion of the county dollars were used just as the hospital -- although I didn't know it was the hospital we were dealing with. It was CHSI -- that they were directed towards expanding the primary care services for adults who fall through the crack and for whom there is no funding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You actually have answered my question. The result of that entire action was an expansion of the primary care. DR. POLKOWSKI: It was to provide ancillary services in the partnership -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were providing -- DR. POLKOWSKI: -- within the primary care. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the ancillary services -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- before the partnership existed. You still provided ancillary services after the partnership existed. DR. POLKOWSKI: And that's the value of that money. If CHSI did the ancillary services instead of us, we would give them the money. MS. HINEHAN: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately I know the answer. I don't like it, but I know it. MS. HINEHAN: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- thank you. DR. POLKOWSKI: I apologize for not being clear. I guess it's just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Budgetary matters are a little complicated. Let's poll the board. Commissioner Mac'Kie? Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner Hac'Kie is waiting. She's pondering. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She's pondering? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm pondering. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I -- I have a great deal of concern about where the CHSI contract is going to go or where it's not going to go, and I've -- I've got some -- some real concern about cutting this money completely out of the budget because I've -- I've just got this feeling in the pit of my stomach -- and I know that's no reason to base a budget. However, I think somebody's going to be asking us for a half a million dollars about halfway through this year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that -- that's a -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I -- I think whether we put it in Dr. Polkowski's budget or whether we build our reserves because we know that somebody's going to need that money but we don't quite know who, I think we -- I think the money ought to be in our budget somewhere. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't share the same feeling in the pit of Commissioner Matthews' stomach and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you did it'd be in your pit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm every bit as mystified today as I was Thursday or which -- Wednesday, whatever day it was we did this. And -- and I'm not persuaded, frankly. And so I'm comfortable keeping the allocation as we set it last week. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I received the answer that I -- I looked for. And even though it may be less than a $300,000 value, what happened was a shifting. We can call them state dollars. We can call them county dollars. You can call them, you know, whatever you like. An expansion of primary care occurred that would not have otherwise occurred had CC -- or CHSI or alphabet soup not taken over those -- those functions. This board was not apprised of that, nor was it indicated in any way during the budget. In addition, I look in here at things we do in level 3 programs such as pools and bathing places. $32,000 of county funds go toward that. I can understand testing of the county pool and so forth. But what I don't understand is why some of these things such as individual sewage and pools -- pools and bathing places and all these tests that we do aren't fee based in many situations. And so, you know, whether it's -- it's 500,000 or 300,000, I'm in a range of between three and five hundred thousand in looking at reducing the county's expenditure here. The places I've found are, one, the -- the contract with -- with CCHSI that -- CHSI that should have yielded some savings. The second area is fee collections are 50 percent or less on the sliding scale. I would hope that if someone meets that sliding scale where they qualified to be charged that that would be pursued more heavily. That's some fifty or sixty thousand dollars. I go into a level 3 program some of which I think could be partially or more fee based. So I'm eking up towards about $400,000. And, you know, I look in here, and this is the -- the scare tactic we always see, that if you reduce our funding, we will not provide health screenings for 9,500 school children. It's not our job to prioritize public health unit or public health aspects. That is your job. And if you place that above going out and finding fee based programs so those 9,500 kids get those screenings, that's your decision and a decision of the board that advises you. I certainly wouldn't advise it. So, you know, there's a lot of things in here that say, if you do this, the sky's gonna fall. Everything's gonna break loose, and -- and I just -- I don't buy that. I think it can be done better. DR. POLKOWSKI: Commissioner, I'm -- I really apologize. I didn't communicate clearly at all. I truly apologize because what I'm hearing is a miss -- totally misunderstanding of what I've been communicating on this $300,000. In -- in reference to your fees for -- for the environmental health, what I heard you tell me last week was you were interested in the county side. We collect a lot of fees in environmental health on the state side; okay? So when you talk about septic tanks, there's a -- there's a state side fee. If we want to add additional fee, that's -- that's another thing too. But there are, you know, an environmental -- and you weren't -- and what I heard was you were interested in the county side. And so that's what was provided. Again, if CHSI said that they were going to provide the pharmacy, the social work, the nutritionist, the HIV counseling and testing, the case management, the ancillary services, that's not expansion. Then that's the money we would give them. We are providing those services instead of them. If they were to do those services, we would pay them for those services. That's what the money was for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Dr. Polkowski. I've been as clear on that matter as I possibly can. And I'm not the only one that follows me. I got phone calls from people who are following what I was asking and had some of the same concerns, so I don't think I'm the only one making sense to myself here. There are other people that -- that hear what I'm saying, apply it to this budget, and have the same questions I do. You know, you want to talk about a separation of state and county dollars. Yet the state portion under level 2 programs ranges between 0 and 61 percent. It appears nearly arbitrary that you get an amount from the county and you get an amount from the state, and you throw them together, and you produce your programs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- I just wanted to make a suggestion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're -- we're supposed to be polling the board at this time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, this is my vote: My vote is that we -- we cut 200,000, we leave 300,000 in a reserve, and that we -- we've got to get serious about a -- this is too hard for us. We are genuinely trying to get this information. Dr. Polkowski is genuinely trying to answer these questions, and it's just too complicated for this forum. We've got to have some kind of a public health ad hoc committee, a -- a health committee, you know, with representatives from the hospital, from public health sector, from all of the health providers in the county and have a global approach, a global look at this because we are all trying very hard to do the right thing, but it's just not that easy. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you base your 200 and 300 on anything in particular or just pick them? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The 300, I'm afraid about what's going to happen with the Immokalee program if we cut it out. And -- and if we get advice from a -- from experts who can assure me that it's not going to be -- not going to result in, you know, children in the streets, then great. But we don't have the expertise, you know, to decide that today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the age old problem of what we hear is if you cut our funds we're going to have to eliminate positions and programs because Lord knows we can't do it any more efficiently than what we are doing. I don't buy it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't buy that either. That's why I'm saying that we can cut two hundred thousand of the five hundred and keep three hundred in reserves and take advice from people who study the question and, frankly, who study it with an eye towards all -- all available providers, privatizing. I mean, maybe -- you know, maybe we privatize public health. Maybe we privatize -- I mean, but there's just a whole lot of avenues here that are more complicated than we can deal with in a -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So -- okay. So I think -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you understood my vote? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would never discourage more participation, but it seems to me that's the job. That's the purpose of these budget hearings is to have those people who are experts come and tell us why, and they can't do it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The one question that has not been answered is what will be the economic impact on the Collier County Public Health Unit from the Healthy Kids program that was just enacted. Won't that take some work load off of you? DR. POLKOWSKI: If I heard your question, you asked about the impact on the public health unit. It won't have any because we won't see the children in the clinic. These are children that are going to have insurance to come to a clinic. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's my point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they wouldn't have had. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You previously were seeing these kids. And, therefore, that costs the public health unit money to service those kids. Now you won't see them. That money is no longer necessary. That's my point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where under comprehensive child health you served 2,000 children -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's 3,500 kids that you will no longer be seeing in the Collier County Public Health Unit. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We were expecting -- I think they said -- and I'm -- I'm hearing that, Commissioner Norris, that we think that we're gonna get like 2,600 kids signed up in the first year who would have been coming to you because they had no insurance who now will have insurance and can go to private pay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's exactly the argument that was made. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's exactly the argument. DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes. We no longer provide the primary care for children ourselves. It's done through the partnership with CHSI. CHSI sees the kids. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the same thing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We only have one pocket to pick. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now you're starting to sound like A1. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where it -- where it goes from that pocket is your decision. So I'm not going to sit here and try and make that decision for you. I'm not comfortable with -- any more comfortable today than I was last week. And you've tried hard to put things in front of me that I just keep putting A and B together and coming up with R. I mean, it's just -- it's not coming together. So with the Healthy Kids program coming on, I was previously comfortable to cut around four -- a reduction of about $400,000. With the Healthy Kids, you know, let's put a motion on the table. I personally would like to see a $400,000 reduction. You guys can take it from there and nothing in reserves. If you're going to force efficiency and you're going to force the question, you can't do it with saying we'll set money aside. And if you need it, come back and talk to us. I don't believe that's gonna happen. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think so either. I -- I don't know what we're going to do here. We have two votes for 500 and one for 400. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's two for 500? I haven't heard them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you guys both for cutting 500? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's two 500s and a 400. That totals up to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fourteen hundred. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1.4 million. Well, there's an idea. Commissioner Hancock, I know you had -- when -- when you came with a 400 number, you kind of tallied up a few things, and that was prior to the inclusion of the comment on Healthy Kids. And -- and if -- if that argument that was told us is valid, that's going to have a major impact as well. And I wondered if you might not be willing to add the extra money on for that and come back to the five hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than see this board at an impasse -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or you could go the other way. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You could go the other way, exactly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me try. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want to remind you that -- that a good bit of the Healthy Kids discussion was not -- was not the children who are currently going to the public health unit will now be going to private doctors and -- under an insured program. But for me the argument was that we'll have children who are seeing doctors at all. And it's those -- those -- those young -- young people in the middle who are ill and whose -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which -- which is a wonderful thing and feels great, but the bottom line is there is some impact on Our -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. I'd like to finish. It's those -- those young children who are -- they -- they can't be seen by the public health unit because Dr. Polkowski has -- has told us in the -- in the past that you can't call the public health unit today and get an appointment today. You can't do that. But they're -- they're sick kids. And by the time that they get appointments, they're well again -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. Health -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- but maybe a little worse off for it. DR. POLKOWSKI: Healthy Kids will benefit CHSI, not the health unit. The money from Healthy Kids will go to CHSI and not the health unit. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Who funds CHSI? The state and county tax dollars. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The hospital. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, no. DR. POLKOWSKI: CHSI. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The hospital. DR. POLKOWSKI: That's a private nonprofit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the hospital. It's NCH. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's the hospital. It's NCH. DR. POLKOWSKI: It's private nonprofit. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's why I want to set the money aside because I think they're going to come wanting some money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me understand this. A child who is -- is subject to indigent care because Healthy Kids is out there will not be seen by you anymore. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let -- let Dr. Polkowski answer the question when it's addressed to her. DR. POLKOWSKI: We aren't seeing the child anyway. CHSI is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're seeing 2,000 kids. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a different answer than the last time the question was asked you. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. The 2,000 kids -- all right. The 2,000 kids that we will be seeing are the healthy start children, the substance abuse babies, the children that we provide services in the field. We don't have doctors -- CHSI has the doctors in the clinic. We do our services out in the field. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're spending $900,000 on services solely in the field under child health comprehensive primary care. I don't buy it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten minutes ago you told us there -- there are children -- DR. POLKOWSKI: I apologize. I don't think we'll get -- this -- this isn't that simple. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten minutes ago you told us there were children that come to you that will be covered under Healthy Kids. Now you said no. I mean, it goes -- DR. POLKOWSKI: They are through CHSI in our partnership. They're being seen at the health unit site by CHSI. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Representative Saunders stood at that podium and told us that this would have a great impact on our public health program. This would benefit us. This would save tax dollars. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That he did. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So either he was wrong then or you're wrong now, and I don't know which. DR. POLKOWSKI: No, no. Healthy Kids Corporation would really help because what it would do is expand the availability of primary care and preventive health services instead of children winding up in the emergency room and hospitalization. CHSI is a community -- a federally funded community health center. It gets its funding to a large ex -- extent by the federal government and through Medicaid or fees. It is a private nonprofit corporation. And they provide the clinical services on our site. We provide the ancillary services for the same patients. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You told us that one. DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I just want to go back to the initial question that got interrupted by a couple other commissioners. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is okay sometimes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, some of the time. The -- the -- you had brought up 400,000. There are two or three items in this discussion now have come up that appear to be over and above that. And I won -- wondered if you were comfortable with an amount keeping it -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I wish I could explain -- I wish I could explain to you why going to 500,000 bothers me. I -- I can't. You know, it's just -- I've found a comfort level at -- at a -- a reduction of 400,000. And I'm having a tough time getting beyond that. I do know that regardless of what we do, if eight months through the year service to those below the poverty level are denied, then this item will come back to this board for a request for reserves. And at that time specific scrutiny will then have to be placed on all these other items we've talked about that could be increased fee based and so forth. So this may not be the last word we hear about this. To -- to get through the impasse, I'll -- I'll agree to a reduction of five hundred thousand. I fully expect to see this back during the year. But at that point I think a much higher level of scrutiny is going to have to happen on these other areas. And the answers we get are going to have to be clearer and better than we've had today. And, Dr. Polkowski, I apologize if you take offense at that. But it's difficult for me to ask simple questions and be told it's just not that simple and have to accept that at face value. I can't do that. I can't just accept on behalf of the taxpayers that I'm too dumb to understand how your budget is put together. DR. POLKOWSKI: No, that's -- and I truly do apologize that I'm not able to explain it in a way that you understand it. I truly do apologize. The $500,000 impact is in number 6 -- no, sorry -- number 8 on page 5. When you reduce $500,000 from our GR if that's what it is that you plan to do, that means we will not be able to truly provide a number of services that are also fee generating. So, in fact, the true impact on the public health unit is not 500,000. The true impact is 600,000 county side -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- DR. POLKOWSKI: -- and state because we lose also state revenue. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I assume just as you have shifted county funds to where you think they are most appropriate, you will shift state funds to do the same. DR. POLKOWSKI: We won't be -- okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. We -- we've taken a poll here. I think we're -- we're wrapped up on this thing, but I do want to make a statement here because this contradicts something -- an answer that you gave to a question that I asked you directly relating to this last week when I asked you directly if there was any linkage between the Collier County portion and a specified percentage of match. And you said that there was not any direct linkage or relationship, but here you tried to make a case that if we -- if we remove 500,000 of Collier County money that there will be $100,000 in fee from -- from state and county combined. DR. POLKOWSKI: That's right, and that's because we won't have the staff to provide the service that would generate the fees. That's the reason. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well -- DR. POLKOWSKI: If we can't provide the service, we won't generate the revenue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Dr. Polkowski. DR. POLKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: TDC funding of museum and Robert's Ranch. What was the question here? I -- I don't recall that we had any reason to bring this one back. What was the -- MR. OLLIFF: I guess the only question is we're making the assumption that we're leaving the museum budget showing at least for the tentative tax rate as in the general -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I think what we suggested was to have a TDC meeting in between now and the 16th, the 16th have this item prepared to come back to the board so that if we opt -- MR. OLLIFF: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to do it via TDC, it does not have to show up in the --MR. OLLIFF: Okay. That's good because their next scheduled meeting was the 22nd, and so we'll call a special meeting of the TDC before the 16th. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that meeting is not solely for the Robert's Ranch issue but hopefully to clarify category C items that I would like cleared up. So, you know, I'm going to personally ask that that be a discussion item. And, of course, I'll try and prepare and bring anything to my colleagues I can before that -- that happens. MR. OLLIFF: And we'll work through the budget office to schedule that meeting then. We'll take care of that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- you're saying that you -- there may be additional items you want on that TDC meeting? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Related items to category C funding. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, yeah, because there's two hundred and eighty or two hundred and seventy thousand dollars that we were looking to possibly fund through TDC money. And then there's the Robert's Ranch proposal that we got from the Friends of the Museum I think for another twenty or -- twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars. But anyway, Mr. Dotrill, now that you're back, I wanted to ask a question. What is the date the trim notices go out? MR. DORRILL: August 18. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Late August. MR. DORRILL: Yeah, I think we -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Late August. MR. DORRILL: I have to sign and certify certain -- I think they go out the end of August. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When do we certify the roll? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have -- I believe it's 35 days from July 1. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So by August 5 or 6, something like that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And the tax -- or the property appraiser utilizes that information and finalizes the roll based on the tentative millages you've approved and then mails out the trim notices. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which -- which board meeting will we be setting the tentative millage? MR. DORRILL: I would think sometime probably in the first or second meeting back from your recess, either the 16th or the 23rd. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Probably the 23rd. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sugden Park capital reduced 15,000. MR. OLLIFF: That's just a note. We wanted to follow up with you and let you know that there was a reduction in that Sugden capital amount that you had looked for us to go back and make some reductions, $15,000 less in that capital account, so you can add that to your list. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, there was 15 less available? MR. OLLIFF: No. We reduced the request by $15,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was that? What'd you cut out? MR. OLLIFF: We cut out one of those two ATV vehicles that you saw on that list, and we also cut out a 52-inch riding mower. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But kept the truck. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This won't -- this won't affect -- this won't affect the -- getting the park open and keeping it clean and all that. Okay. Support services, EMS revenue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. As part of the EMS budget discussion, there was a question posed by Commissioner Hancock, I believe, regarding the potential for increasing the budget EMS revenue. And he was also interested in a provision of a five-year history of collections in that regard. And staff has developed that information. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. That was, if I remember correctly -- and, Commissioner Matthews, I think you were a party to that -- that request also -- was that we've seen the board approve by ordinance an increase in -- in amount per incident for collections and why that amount as it was going up in the department of revenue with its increased collectionability was getting better, why collections in '95 were dismal and the forecast for '96 less than in '94 before we had a department of revenue and when the rate was -- was -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Scary. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, things aren't jelling on that, and I don't know why. I'd like some answers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who -- who forecast the revenues for '96? Mr. Ochs will tell us I bet. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's our current year; right? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. MR. OCHS: Yes. The forecast of 2.5 million for the current fiscal year was compiled by the department of revenue in consultation with our EHS department and the budget office. We -- we have gone back at Commissioner's suggestion and taken a look at our -- our billing -- excuse me, our transport trends. And they continue, as Hiss Flagg indicated last week, to climb even in what had in past years been a slower season. We don't have much of a slow season anymore. And Miss Leith has calculated some increases that I think we can make in our fee base side of EMS for next fiscal year and a corresponding reduction in the general fund transfer. I think Sheila's got the numbers, Commissioner, if you'd like to hear those. MS. LEITH: Yes. We've increased revenues by 332,000 which decreases the transfer from the general fund by 315. And how we arrived at that was by increasing the billable runs from thirteen five -- or 13,000 to 14,000 for next year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- herein lies my -- my biggest problem, and it may take some input from Miss Flagg to help me understand this. Before the department of revenue through 1994 we had more collections each and every year from '89 to '94, consistently went up in collections. In 1995 when we instituted the department of revenue which was a centralizing function to increase collections, to more efficiently collect funds, we saw the most dramatic drop-off in the last seven years. And we look at a forecast for 1996 that is equal to or less than '93 and -- and '94 so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bless you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Part of -- part of that picture, though, was -- was the board's decision to go to a flat fee. MS. LEITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and -- and we committed more ad valorem tax to the program when we did that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the mitigating factor was the DOR's collections were going to increase to offset that. Am I the only one that remembers that statement being made? And I know we're sitting here with four people who had noth -- have nothing -- that don't run the DOR but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As Mr. Yonkosky told us this morning COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There he is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- they were not in operation for that full fiscal year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what happened to those collections? Were they just left out there? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Part of the answer -- part of the answer is the difference in the fees that we've -- the way we rearranged the fee structure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did DOR become fully functional? Or when did DOR -- MR. YONKOSKY: In May, the month of May. So DOR was functional for the last four months of that fiscal year in 1995. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did DOR exist in October 17 When did DOR first exist? MR. YONKOSKY: DOR came into existence -- the board approved the budget amendments in the month of May 1995. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, okay. '95. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was the -- the -- the -- the ambulance fee -- I'm sorry for the terminology. Diane probably just scrimaced (sic) -- in '94? Per ride what were we charging? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, it varied. MR. YONKOSKY: There was varying -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was per mile distance? MR. YONKOSKY: -- varying charges. Yes, sir. There were several different elements in the charges. The average cost was three hundred and some dollars per run or average bill. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We went down to 250. MR. YONKOSKY: And then you went down to 250. And you've got to also remember, Commissioner Hancock, that you made a very different type of approach because you became a participating provider with Medicare which means that you now -- or in the past up until that time within a three-month period you had a bill that was -- went out directly to the individual. It was turned over in a very short period of time to a collection agency. When you changed to become a participating provider, you reduced the amount billed, the $250. You also lengthened out the time before it was turned over to a collection agency. In fact, from 10-1-95 until just two months ago, there was no amounts that were turned over to a collection agency. Within the last month we have turned over a million dollars worth, $960,000 worth, of delinquent bills over to the collection agency that you just approved this past month. That money will start coming in. And as I understand the budget that you have next year, it's -- the proposal for this year is two million five. But next year you're looking at $2,900,000 worth of in -- of projected revenues. The chart that you have does not have projected for 1997 in it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. YONKOSKY: And we were -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And maybe that -- that's where it lies because your explanation of '95 I -- I -- I understand fairly well. But in '96 when we're going to be going up to nearly $300 per -- per operation, we'll be back close to where we were in '92 with the ridership much higher, collectionability much better. And I'm wondering if that two million five isn't a conservative estimate. MR. YONKOSKY: For this year? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. YONKOSKY: What we did with the two million five for the rest of this year plus there's a hundred -- MS. LEITH: $73,000. MR. YONKOSKY: How much? MS. LEITH: 73,000 in previous year's billing. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, in prior year's revenue because that is the revenue that's going to be coming from the collection agency. It may be higher than the $79,000 that we've projected. It may be considerably higher but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understand when you bring rev -- when you put a revenue line item in there that's lower than what may really happen, we have to tax for it. And then if it happens, we don't write those people an individual check back. MR. YONKOSKY: Well, Commissioner, what we did on the budget sheet, if you'll see that there's an additional $200,000 put in there as a revenue item for next year from those prior year's bills that we're turning over to the collection agency, and that does in effect reduce the amount of ad valorem subsidy that you have to put in. So in addition to the $200,000 that staff is projecting from prior years that has not been or just recently turned over to a collection agency that will come in next year, you'll also have a -- a budget of $2,928,000 which is $400,000 greater than what we think we're going to give you this year. So that -- as Sheila said at the beginning of this presentation, the staff, your staff, is committed to increasing the amount of fees by $300,000 next year based on you approving the $302 fee tomorrow. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock's question really is do you think the 2,900,000 may be on the conservative or the short side because you're -- you have two factor -- three factors really. First you have an increased rate of collection. Second you have an increased fee. And thirdly, you have increased usership. So what he's asking you is do you -- are you confident that that 2,900,000 figure is a accurate estimate of what to expect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or is it as low as it can reasonably be? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we want it higher. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm sorry. Just the opposite. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because in the past our projection in collections have -- there's been a disparity, and we've always collected more than we projected. And this is the -- this is the part of budgets that -- that the taxpayer really hates is when you estimate revenues low and they come in higher. We had to tax at that lower amount when we could have taxed at a lower rate. And that's what I'm getting at. MR. YONKOSKY: And reasonably we have taken as much conservative-cism out of that projection as we think we can. This year it's two million five. Next year we're looking at, if you include the $200,000, $3,100,000 in revenue over what we believe that we will collect for you this year. And that's a pretty healthy increase in the amount of cash flow, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My suggestion is to raise the bar. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Raise the bar and forecast revenue in this particular item, and let's -- let's set a higher target for our department of revenue. If we want you to go for it, then let's -- let's set it as a forecast revenue amount. And if -- if it doesn't happen at the end of the year, we'll look for the reasons. MS. LEITH: Do you mean FY '97 or FY '96? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean this coming budget year, how ever I have to phrase that. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's FY '97. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three million two hundred fifty thousand instead of the two nine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Was two nine the amount for FY '97? MS. LEITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two nine what? It's two nine and some change. MR. YONKOSKY: 2,928,200. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two votes for three two fifty. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Three million two hundred and fifty thousand? MR. DORRILL: What's that translate to in a collection percentage based on the average? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're going to have to take out the calculator and do -- MR. YONKOSKY: Approximately 70 to 72 percent. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you think you can do it? MR. DORRILL: And what's your current collection rate? MR. YONKOSKY: And the current collection rate is -- has averaged historically 68 percent over the -- 65 to 68 percent over the last 8 years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly what we told DOR -- what -- what we were told DOR would do, increase the rate of collection. MR. YONKOSKY: And it has. It has. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the 70 percent number? If we -- if we push them 68 to 70 percent in this area, where does that put us? Anyone tell me real quick? MR. YONKOSKY: The three million two fifty. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that 70 percent? I think -- I think requesting two points is awful good incentive, so I'm -- I'm for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's three. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's three. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got your work cut out for you, Mr. Yonkosky. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Yonkosky. MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- if you don't mind, I see we've passed by the public services division. And if I remember right when we were discussing the agriculture division last week right at the end of that portion of the meeting I believe we had issued a challenge to Hiss Blanton to see if we could develop a fee based program. And I really would like to discuss that some more because I really think that we can develop a fee based program, but it's my understanding that the ordinance currently prohibits that. And we need to give direction to Hiss Blanton and David Weigel to develop an ordinance that would allow a fee base program in agriculture and/or livestock or what have you. And I -- I'd like to propose that we as a board put another eighteen or twenty thousand dollars into the agriculture program to preserve the livestock program and to direct Mr. Weigel and Hiss Blanton to develop a fee base program for the landscaping issue which we've cut sixty or seventy thousand dollars from. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't agree with adding money back in because we compromised in the amount we cut last week, but I do think a fee based program's great. I can't understand why any ordinance would prohibit us from seeking fees. If it's -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's my understanding -- and I'd like to -- to -- to give that direction -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That seems like a very simple direction to make. If we can generate some revenues on a service that people are willing to pay for, then we ought to do that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we need to leave the service in the budget so that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not in the ad valorem budget. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not in -- I'm not saying to leave it in the ad valorem budget. But I'm saying we need to leave the service in the budget because as I've learned in my three and a half years of fund accounting, expenditure and revenue are two different areas. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me try and see if I understand the request. The -- the total amount reduced in the agriculture budget was how much? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have the page right now. MR. OLLIFF: Roughly $140,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? MR. OLLIFF: It was roughly 140. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And your request, Commissioner Matthews, is to do what to that amount? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd -- I'd like -- I'd like to put for the time being $20,000 back into the budget to preserve the livestock program and then to give direction to do -- do whatever ordinance work we need to do to institute a fee based program for the other services. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ninety-six. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- so the -- the base request here is to put $20,000 back in that we -- we took out last time. And if it is because of the -- the livestock position -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm supportive of that for the reason that I tried to mention last week in that so many aspects of 4-H and -- and the county fair are folded into the extension office -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that I agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Constantine's comments regarding, you know, the big farmer who's got thousands of acres relying on the local taxpayer to subsidize their research. I couldn't agree with that more. I think that's -- that's not a fair playing field. But in understanding the application of this, if we put -- if we reduce that cut by 20,000 -- that's a strange statement, isn't it? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we lessen that cut by 20,000 and -- so that we can eliminate the impact on the 4-H program and the Collier County fair, I don't have a -- I don't have a problem with that. I'm fine with that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me say a couple of things. One, we're not reducing something. We're adding twenty thousand dollar -- tax dollars back in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm uncomfortable with that. But secondly, I want to repeat something you've said several times and -- and get a reaction from you is that's Denise's job is to decide what the priorities are. And I don't disagree that might be a priority. But that's her job to do and ours just simply to look at the funding. And let me finish. When you talked about, gee, I only want out of the 146 to get 20 put back in there, what we tried to get last week was 192 cut. And the compromise was to just go with 146. So we had given some back already. We only took 45 -- or we left 45, almost 46 in out of the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Forty-five four hundred. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, forty-five four hundred forty and -- COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was for the master garden program, and -- and we -- we all have a serious constituency that uses that program. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not just a business based program. But what -- what I would like to make available to our agriculture extension service, by putting $20,000 back into the budget, it would allow Hiss Blanton to more creatively keep the livestock program alive. And at the same time I'd like to give direction that she take a look at a fee base program and work with Mr. Weigel to put into place whatever legal things they need to do. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me get this straight. If we -- if we put the 20,000 back in, then we don't need the fee base; right? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, we do for the landscape and so forth. MR. OLLIFF: You're talking about two different positions here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And unfortunately, we've gotten into the area -- and I actually initiated this in bringing up 4-H and master gardener talking about what positions are eliminated. And you are absolutely right. I was stepping out of -- of what I believe is the -- the -- the authority of this board. What I hear is there's a reduction in agriculture under fund 001, a proposed reduction of $126,000. And how it's reduced and how if affects positions is up to Hiss Blanton and that department, not up to this board. And if they want to bring back a fee based situation and need the assistance of the county attorney, then that direction is being given in this action. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me tell you what I -- what I thought we voted on last time, but nevertheless here's what I support this time. I thought that we were real clear that nobody wanted anything to happen to the 4-H and the fair and that those functions -- that what we wanted to cut were -- we wanted this horticulture stuff to be fee based if provided and -- and we wanted to cut the research and development for farms. Now, if -- if we put the wrong number on that, if we said one forty-six six -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We put the wrong number on it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and the number to accomplish that is one thirty, I don't care because what I -- I wasn't trying to be clear on, you know, down to the penny. I was don't mess with the fair. Don't mess with 4-H. Get rid of the master gardener program unless it's fee based, and get rid of research and development for farms. So somebody tell me what number that adds up to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm not sure why -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 20,000 less. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know why we are even talking about 4-H program being reduced -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We didn't cut one dollar from it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- because we -- I'm looking right here at my budget sheet, and it says 3.0 full-time employees, 152,300 for 4-H youth development and leadership. We didn't touch it. I don't know why we continue to talk about that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a real good question. So have people panicked unnecessarily? Have we not cut anything that has to do with 4-H and the fair, or have we? MR. OLLIFF: In reality what happens is you have a single livestock agent. The single livestock agent is shown in two different programs. Fifty percent of his time is spent doing the things that the board seemed to philosophically disagree with which was helping the local commercial ranchers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we took that half of a person and put it back into level 3 or whatever, that 4-H, what's the cost of that? MR. DORRILL: It's already in there. MR. OLLIFF: The county -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, there's a half a person. There's only a half a guy in there for 4-H. Where's the half of him that's for the fair? MR. DORRILL: 4-H. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't show. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, it -- well, 50 percent of the livestock agent's time is spent on commercial ranching. The other 50 percent of his time is spent on 4-H and 4-H activities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, where is the 50 percent that's spent on the fair? MR. OLLIFF: 4-H. MR. DORRILL: 4-H is 4-H. MR. OLLIFF: 4-H because 4-H does the livestock portion of the Collier County fair. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you come the third level from the top, 2 -- 2.0 FTEs for 78,400 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, once again -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- he's half of that 2.0. He's one-half FTE of that 2.0. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the function of his that we want to cut. You know, the problem with this one is we've gotten a face on it, and we need to get the face off of this. I am so happy that I don't know these people. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think that -- that if -- if all we cut was the half that was unrelated to 4-H or the fair, then people -- and if this -- if this guy has other skills that can be used in other departments, there will be a way to keep key employees. I just don't believe that -- that they're gonna let us lose great employees. Find a way. Share him with Neil. Do something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The bottom line, there are 11 FTEs on here. And through some of our cuts we've looked at cutting whatever the number is, three or three and a half or something. MR. OLLIFF: Three and a half. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how Denise decides to do that and who she decides to do and which programs, have somebody on it half the time and not, is her decision. And -- but I'm so glad you brought that up, Commissioner Norris, because we keep referencing 4-H, 4-H, 4-H. We didn't cut one penny from 4-H. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I want to hear from Mr. Olliff that if we stay with this one forty-six six that it will not cut 4-H. You will shuffle it. You will do what it takes to make it not hurt the 4-H. MR. OLLIFF: I will tell you the practical reality of what will happen. We will end up with one half of an FTE devoted to livestock work at the fair and 4-H. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is what you have currently. MR. OLLIFF: Which is what we currently have. The problem is that person is a full-time person, and he probably as a person will not stay, but that's not the issue for you as a board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But can't you find -- isn't there something else that he could do for the other half of his salary? MR. OLLIFF: Probably not. Professionally he probably wouldn't. He -- as part of the university system, he would probably want to do full-time livestock ranching work and would probably look elsewhere for that kind of work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Then I'm switching back because I don't want anything cut in 4-H, and -- and I want that half of an FTE back. If that's 20,000 bucks, I want it back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute. Then we're talking about an individual because if that individual decides to leave tomorrow for some other reason, he meets a woman in Hissoula and leaves, it doesn't mean the 4-H program closes down. MR. OLLIFF: Let me tell you the other half of that story. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The position -- MR. OLLIFF: The way -- the way the budget was left, the way we would actually administer that budget was we have the funding assuming the state continues to share in the salary portion of that for one-half of an FTE. We would be in all likelihood in the position of advertising and filling a half of a position, either 20-hour week or 6-month position, to do that job. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I can depersonalize this by -- by focusing on the function. Regardless of the name of that individual, when you were talking about -- and again, when I went out there and visited with each person and saw their function, you are right. There's some positions out there that help industry, okay, and for taxpayers to fund positions that help industry is not always the best course of action. But this one position helps a lot more of people that -- and you heard from one this morning that raises their own food or -- or, you know, does that kind of -- of thing is spent so much more of his time than it is going out and -- and helping the industry as a whole or on the big farmer. And that's why I am receptive of reducing or adding 20,000 back in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds like three votes to me. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By function, not person. And unfortunately we got off on that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I -- I was just gonna add on to that if we hadn't been convincing yet that -- that our 4-H livestock use, they -- they grow this livestock year-round and -- and this -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're putting it back in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- livestock agent works with them year-round. We got three votes. Let's go. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We got 3 votes for 20 back in. Let's go. MR. DORRILL: But it's 20 back in in the second program. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and direction to develop whatever ordinance repairs or changes we need to have a fee based ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just can't believe we have an ordinance that prohibits us from going to revenue. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I can't believe it either, but that it is my quick understanding of what the conversation is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next is community development, environmental services. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. There are two issues outstanding here regarding, A, the increase in occupational licenses to fund economic development and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that have to go before the board for action? We can't just impose that with -- or can we? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's that? The occupational license fee? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, an increase in occupational license fees. Is that going to take an agenda item? MR. CAUTERO: I believe it would, sir. I'll have -- unless Mr. Weigel tells us differently. Vince Cautero for the record. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. David Weigel. I believe it would be appropriate for that to be a board-directed item -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- if you choose to go that route. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this were a year where we were having a -- looking at less of a potential for increase, you know, finding $150,000 to do this would be a lot easier. If this were on last year's agenda, I think we might have been able to find it. We might have wished to fund it. What I'd like to suggest is if we look at any increase in the occupational license that it be a-one year increase that we review during the next -- next budget cycle as to whether or not it should be taken back down because if we can find a way to fund it through existing fees, I'd like to do it, but I think this year that's -- that's asking a little much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're talking of a one-year surcharge. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I was going to say why don't we look at a one-year surcharge. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel is saying oops. MR. WEIGEL: Well, we don't come here without having done a little homework. And initially to try to answer the questions yes and no before they're asked, my first thought was no, we cannot do that. So I would expect that your charge to us, whether it's today and we get -- start working today unofficially obviously, is that we will see if, in fact, it is legally possible for a surcharge that may have a tenuous relationship to the occupational license fees itself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Weigel. Then what we can do is bring it before the board to -- to increase the rates of the occupational licenses, and the year after we'll just reduce them. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we won't have to have a surcharge. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Carlton called our office -- I think he was listening to the meeting or saw the agenda today -- and indicated that it would be impossible to raise them for this fall, that the -- the tickets, the statements that he has, are already ordered with the fees for the renewals that go out I think in September. And he just reminds us -- and he's correct -- that a change in the ordinance were we, the county, to do so would need to be implemented before December 31 of this year which, of course, from that timing standpoint is no problem for the next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, guys, since we can't do that this year, it sounds like we have to do exactly the opposite. We have to try it one year on the existing fees because we can't get them raised. You can't get a surcharge in time to do this for next year. So let's try one year on the existing fees with everybody knowing that that may be all they ever get. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, the only problem Mr. Carlton indicated was because they had already printed materials that were set to go out in the mailers? MR. WEIGEL: That's what was reported to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any idea what the printing costs might be? I can't imagine that it's $150,000. MR. WEIGEL: I have no idea, and I don't know if there are any timing ramifications in regard to reordering either. But we can check on that very quickly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Something we might want to explore. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a way to do anything we really want to accomplish. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At whatever price, though. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we're only talking about raising $68,000 by way of this occupation -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- license. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For one year. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it's not all 150,000 on this issue. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that I suspect printing costs would be a couple of thousand dollars as opposed to eating up the whole thing. And if you could have a gained benefit of 68 at a cost of 2, that might be worthwhile. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hard to say. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's also, though, a great case to be made for if we meant what we said when we prioritized this as one of the top 5 goals of this board that we spend $68,000 of a $450,000 prepayment. And -- and I -- I feel just as clearly as -- at least as clearly as Commissioner Hancock since I'm not up for re-election this year and you guys are. So at least as well as he I feel the need to keep them -- you know, to keep taxes as far down as possible. But this is the $68,000 expenditure one year that they've been paying a long time without getting any return. Let's try it one year. They've even asked for two. And I am sorry I'm not saying ask for two. But since we can't get it this year -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I take a little exception to the prepayment comment that keeps coming up because to the best of my knowledge -- it's certainly never been communicated to me in three and a half years on the board -- has there been an overwhelming objection from Economic Development Council or the chamber of commerce or others to the existing occupational fee. And so to suggest that that was prepayment and planned for this is misleading at best. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just because they were being nice. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've gotta -- I've gotta put this in context. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what did they get for their money? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've gotta put this in context. We -- we've just taken $500,000 out of the public health unit budget. We just told our agriculture department that you're going to have to find ways to charge fees to maintain positions you have. And here we're looking at doing something new that I think is important to this board, and it's not an issue of lack of desire or setting goals and saying, ehh, we don't have to fulfill them. It's simply an issue of timing at this point. In order to do it this year, we're going to have to raise taxes just a little bit more than we may have to already in some form or another. So to slap the moniker that this is a -- we're not pursuing our goals I think is unfair and is a little bit of -- of -- of a slap. And I'm not gonna -- I -- I -- I'm just tired of responding to that. I think the commitment is there. And if -- if we don't want to raise any fees, then we'll stave this off for 12 months. We'll do it next year. So the choice is either look at raising the occupational license -- what did we figure? -- four and a half dollars or something like that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Something like that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four and a half dollars for one year or to wait 12 months to accomplish this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't have to do either one. What we can do is -- for this amount of money is we can -- we can advance the money this year with the intent of repaying it from collections in the proximate year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if I'm 100 percent comfortable with that. We can do that but it's -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Still have to budget for it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I understand we have to budget for it, but the thing is we've made a commitment to go forward to the point where we are. And there's no sense stopping right now because we -- we can't raise the fees. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not suggesting we stop. I'm saying there may be a way. And our beloved tax collector has wandered in. Perhaps, Guy, you can help us out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you come to the microphone, sir? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help us, oh, beloved one. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I'm hearing three votes. MR. CARLTON: Good afternoon. As your friendly tax collector -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's your name, sir? MR. CARLTON: -- you had a question about occupational license? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. What's it cost to reprint the bills? MR. CARLTON: The bills are printed and ready for mailing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What would it cost to redo them? MR. CARLTON: Renewal is August. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What would it cost to reprint them with another number? MR. CARLTON: Well, for one, I don't believe you can change the prices till you've had some kind of a public hearing, change the ordinance. I think that's a minimum of 30 days. Renewal is August. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Assuming we get over all those hurdles, Guy, what is the cost of printing? MR. CARLTON: I think printing is around $8,000, bills, envelopes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the hurdle we need to know then, Mr. Weigel, is renewal August, and if it is, I mean, we're practically July. Could we even do it? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're getting good at emergency ordinances lately. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Too good at them. We may be able to cut this short. I -- I am in favor of what Commissioner Norris said, that we don't have to necessarily put it as a line item in the budget. I think there's a commitment here to proceed. And if we change the ordinance for next year and dedicate those funds to repay this, it's -- it -- it -- it goes -- it all goes the same way. And it avoids the -- the problem of repinning in an -- reprinting an unnecessary expenditure of $8,000. I know you're not comfortable with the vehicle, but I think it accomplishes the same thing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So $68,000 is going to have to be added back to the budget. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yup. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think it was ever cut, was it? I mean -- MR. CARLTON: Was that all you all had? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no, it was budgeted for, though, because when you looked at -- MR. CARLTON: I'll disappear quickly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks, Guy. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hike explained it to me because I was using it as a cut and you -- and you explained to me that it was not -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It is in the budget at this point in time in the unincorporated area general fund and funded by a -- an increase in the occupational license fee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if we do not do that, there will be an additional 68,000 carried on the ad valorem burden. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, or you could absorb it in your reserves now if so directed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's your suggestion, isn't it, Commissioner Norris, is to absorb it in reserves in anticipation of collections next year and pay back the reserve so it doesn't show up as a add on the tax bill? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have acclimation then to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's fine. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: We -- we will -- we will need then some clarification. When the -- the nurserymen and horticultural people were here today that the nature that I understood their proposal and Mr. Hancock's response was you raise your own fees via, you know, occupational license surcharge. We will fund that agricultural agent's position. That now does not appear to be able to be done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why not? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I had talked to them. MR. DORRILL: Because you need to amend the ordinance to send out the occupational license. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion. What ought to be done in the first place anyway is that the professional people who use the service of agricultural department should pay a fee at that time for the use of the service. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For each service. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what they should be doing, and that's what they should have been doing all along. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and they ought to organize that themselves. I mean, the PR association or the local auto mechanics' association, everybody else does all those services for themselves, and they educate themselves. And if they use a government source, they figure out a way to pay it themselves, and that doesn't necessarily have to go through this board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I would suggest that we develop in -- internally in the agricultural department. MR. DORRILL: But we're not adding ad valorem taxes back in -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Correct, absolutely. MR. DORRILL: -- which is the point I'm trying to make. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And can I just get clarification on the last item? We're going to keep the $68,000 in the budget for this year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It was in the budget. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to keep it in. And it's going to be repaid out of next year's occ. licenses which may or may not go up -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- depending on how we vote when we adopt an ordinance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You got it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, I got a real quick question regarding occupational licenses. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you -- if you work in the city, do you need an occupational license for both the city and the county? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. MR. WEIGEL: I believe yes, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was afraid of that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. I have -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- two of them for a long time. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Theirs cost more too. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next is county attorney. Oh, wait a minute. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually we did have -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry. Fund -- funding base level services. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right, in comprehensive planning. As we were looking in the unincorporated area general fund community development budget, Commissioner Hac'Kie raised that issue about funding a greater portion of community development from development fees rather than unincorporated area tax. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is the number that the board generally seems to think is about $300,000 and that I think is about a million dollars that could be collected in fees instead of coming out of ad valorem. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, no. I -- I think -- I think the number that we were given last week when we asked if everything is built out and there are no more PUDs, there are no more DRIs, there are no more this, that, or the other, what would be the cost to simply maintain our comprehensive plan document. And I think the number that we got was like $288,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of what the number is, I'd be interested to hear what Mr. Weigel's legal opinion is. MR. WEIGEL: Fine. Well, the question as we backed into it last week was -- was interesting and -- and important in the sense that if there was build-out which is a hypothetical which we'll obviously not have for some time -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never. MR. WEIGEL: But it does answer part of my question to answer which is there is a base cost that would have to be paid that is a statutory obligation of the county irrespective of whether any permitting is occurring or not. Now, where does that obligation comes from? It comes from the general powers and duties statute, one twenty-five zero one, which gives the powers and duties to provide and plan for the development of the county and county growth. If growth has stopped, one twenty-five zero one really doesn't mean much anymore. But there are additional requirements under 163 which is the statute that provides us the comprehensive plan, the EAR requirements, reporting requirements, state mandates on a 5-year and 1-year basis, some of these things. Now, again, that's basic government mandated from the state legislature upon local government. It has to be paid for, but I will say it does provide in 163 that fees may be used to fund the local -- quote, local planning agency. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good answer. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good answer. Ding, ding, ding. MR. WEIGEL: So then we get -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. MR. WEIGEL: -- when you propose fees, whether it's for occupational license or any other kind of fee, the nexus word always comes up. You have to have a rational basis for fee and -- and the person or entity upon whom it's being imp -- imposed. Could you give this to the board? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What we're discussing, Mr. Weigel, I think you just said that we have a -- a rational basis for having growth pay for growth. MR. WEIGEL: That's true. That's true. But the question is how -- how -- how strong a connection can you make -- can you make of turning that cost entirely over to fee based as opposed to some of the general basic services that people are supposed to receive through the statutory obligations of county government whether anyone's taking out permits or not. I think that through a study, through review, through some research with what other counties have done, this county probably could come up with a suggestion, a report as to what would be a logical fee increase to pay for those planning, long range planning, services that aren't currently -- aren't currently specifically addressed in the fees which we just passed out to you. Now, back in November of last year the board ultimately reduced the permit fees by approximately 15 percent. It varied if you look closely. Some places it was 25 percent, and other places it was a little bit less. But those fees are generally earmarked for specific services, whether it's review of plans, building permits, rezoning PUDs, et cetera. And it doesn't have a factor in there for -- that I see for long range planning and some of those other services that you're looking for today. The question is, though, can we just say, well, I think a dollar would be fair to add to a $50 fee or $2 would be fair. Probably the better course would be to be able to provide a basis, kind of liaison between the costs imposed on any particular permit applicant and the -- and the cost that we want to spread out. I think it can be done. Again, we've got kind of a time frame factor. There's not much time to try to do this and work it into the budget process for this fall, but it looks like it's imminently doable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because if we went back and put the 15 percent back, that's a million bucks. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the 15 percent was removed because we were approaching statutory maximum in the reserves based on the operating costs and retirement of the capital debt. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But instead of putting that into reserves, if we start spending it on long range planning and environmental -- MR. WEIGEL: That's a component that it hasn't been used for, if I understand correctly, up to this point. I'd like to be able to -- you know, rather than just kind of hammer the peg into the hole be able to have a little better basis upon which the imposition of whatever fees may we -- we may do. Also noting that little -- old executive summary we passed out, some of the fees that were reduced were such things as extensions of permits and things of that nature. We may find that extensions, some of the kind of duplicate -- duplicative administrative permit things, conditional use extensions, things of this nature, may require less of a -- may not be so appropriate for -- to have a -- a price added on to that for planning and development because it's a rote function which has almost nothing to do with planning, but obviously you would have -- rather than a mere renewal of a permit, when the permit was applied for in the first place, you'd exact your -- your planning, long range planning, and other charges. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let -- let me suggest if I may -- and, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I don't know if you've ever personally gone -- gone through the process. But when -- when -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In my -- my days as an evil consultant, when you brought an application in, if you required long range planning to review it -- almost all applications do with the exception of specific building permits and so forth -- is there a part of our fee that is assessed due to that -- as a re -- as a result of that long range planning input and review on those applications, Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: No, there isn't specifically. However, there is a exercise that we engage in called certificate of adequacy to determine if concurrency is met. And that's the closest thing, and I believe that fee is approximately $35. But there is no surcharge, if you will, or a portion of the fee that goes to long range planning activities. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With Mr. Weigel seeking a rational nexus -- and I think he's giving very, very good advice there based on the -- both takings issues and issues of -- of being able to make specific requirements that are costly that are not related to the project itself -- I think by looking at the applications that have come through, getting a -- a 30-month or a 30-day -- excuse me, 30-day test period of what time is spent on certain types of applications by long range planning because even when you come in for the simplest of fezones, long range planning looks at it. And as a part of that fee, we haven't built in their time and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Environmental, same thing. They have to pass on almost everything. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So those things that are associated with request for new development, new permits, new reviews I think would establish that nexus that the county attorney is referring to and would be a fair assessment of necessary review for the public benefit that is applied to it. I don't think we can put a dollar amount on that today. But I would guess you're going to find some 25 to 40 percent of the budget is going to fall into that area, and that's a semi-educated guess because I've been out of it for a while. But that seems to me to be the course to take is for Mr. Cautero to look at what time is actually given to requests for development or requests for new permits and reviews and to fold that time into the number of permits, number of requests, and -- and come up with a -- a dollar amount. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and mine -- my approach would be similar but a little different in that -- it might get us to the same place, but my idea's more akin to how I see Mr. Cochlea creating his IT budget. How much money do I need divided up among the number of computers? I want to see what's the maximum amount of dollars I can shift into fee-related revenues and divide it up among the permits. I would rather err on the side of overcharging on the permits than to err on the side of undercharging on the ad valorem -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- even though all my friends now hate me for saying that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to include in that nexus of fees that Commissioner Hac'Kie's looking to disburse -- distribute, I'm sorry, amongst the permits the -- the cost of the development services steering committee. We have staff who attend that. We have an attorney who sits in on that I believe, the planning commission. That's all -- that's all zoning. The -- you know, we have staff that tends to that. We have staff that does executive summaries for it, all those costs. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's about a million dollars of ad valorem money in development services' budget, and we cut their fees by a million dollars less than a year ago. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a more pertinent question then or at least more timely. I believe you heard -- I heard you say, Mr. Cautero, that our reserves are almost to the maximum. MR. CAUTERO: I believe they were a few years ago. I don't know if they are this year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And I -- I heard Mr. Weigel say that there is a rational basis to use these fees for funding the operation of development services, so why don't we take some out of reserve for this next fiscal year and reduce our ad valorem commitment to development services. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Again, brilliant. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which will give us time then to develop whatever fee structure we need. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. MR. WEIGEL: I'll -- MR. CAUTERO: Well, I -- I'm sorry. MR. WEIGEL: I'll sound like Commissioner Hac'Kie at the last meeting when she said stop me and I said stop, and she may want to stop me. But the -- the money that's collected so far that's in reserve was not collected under the auspices of paying for these things. So I will certainly have to review the ability to use that money that was collected for a different purpose, ostensibly related but different purpose, for this area of funding which has not been embraced so far. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How long would that review take do you think? MR. WEIGEL: Well, probably half a day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll give you the first leg into that. When we paid off the loan for the building over there, we'd need the building with or without growth, yet we used those funds that were collected along the way to do that. So I think we already have a history, unchallenged history. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me say unchallenged. You liked that one. Let me -- MR. WEIGEL: A lot of time's run. So I feel pretty comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you if you could assign someone to do this and have it ready at the end of tomorrow's commission meeting where we could perhaps bring it up and -- and look at your review at that point and make a decision. MR. WEIGEL: We still have a couple attorneys that are not involved in the federal court Indian matter. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But if you could do that -- MR. WEIGEL: Be happy to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you could do that, that -- we could still get that in as a budget adjustment here in this round of budget talks which is really what we need because next step is trim notices so '- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to add that the staff can undertake that longer term study for the rational nexus that Mr. Weigel had talked about and then work with the Development Services Advisory Committee who is charged by your ordinance to look at the fees each year. Their orientation -- and I'm not speaking for them, but their orientation has been in the past that the development services fees, if I can use that generic term, are the items that pay for the current planning activities in the building department and, of course, the building permit is the lion's share of that -- of that fund. Last year it was over four million dollars I believe of -- of 5.5 to 6 million dollars of 113. So the bulk of it is the building permit. And on many occasions I've heard those people say that the long range planning activity is a government function, but we -- we would have to work with them and -- and perform that -- that rational nexus if you will. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you for the '97 budget year, without having to go back and look it up, just give me a rough idea of what the ad valorem component is that we could supplant. MR. CAUTERO: Well, it was $288,000 for long range planning activities. Commissioner Hac'Kie had -- had questioned me I believe at the last meeting about the one -- the one million dollar figure. I believe that the rest of that money so a little over 700,000 are other functions in the community development and environmental services division that come out of tax dollars that may not be able to be related to the development permit process, and that's the key. If it's not related, then the decision is a policy one, do you wish to fund it or not so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we want to stretch -- I want to stretch toward if it's environmental and it -- and we -- I want the analysis to be if we didn't have any permits to ever be issued in this county ever again, we should pay for whatever that level of service is out of property taxes but anything else -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So -- so your -- your -- my request to you then for tomorrow at -- when Mr. Weigel presents his case at the end of the meeting would be to supply us with a list of those ad valorem uses that you deem would be appropriate and using the broadest possible interpretation. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Weigel. Next is Mr. Weigel. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't cut him because we need CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I need to make -- I need to make an announcement. I'm going to have to leave for a period of an hour, and I'll probably have to leave no later than twenty till four or quarter till four. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the disposition -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if we're not through with the sheriff's department by then, we'll just have to wait till I get back I guess. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the disposition of Commissioner Constantine? Is -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Previous engagement or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I -- I would not want to leave but three commissioners here to make a budget -- a budget decision. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can call a recess. I'll -- I'll have to leave for a period of approximately an hour, perhaps less. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I have an engagement this evening. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: At what time? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 7:30 out at the ag. center. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, no. We'll be done by then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hine's at 6:30, so we should be done. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- you know, takes about an hour to get there from here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to finish up, aren't we? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I gotta leave. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Soon. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Half an hour. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But I'll be back. I can come back. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he's going to be gone for a whole hour. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's move on. MR. WEIGEL: This -- this memo we provided is one that Ramiro provided you the end of last week at my request when the question came up about article 5 and state attorney expenses. I think you'll find in the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if I could make a suggestion, the three items under county attorney, I know we've got a -- a hottendons meeting scheduled tomorrow, but those are all items that I think are really interactive between the county attorney and the board and may not have other folks that are that attentive to them. However, the sheriff's item probably has a little broader expanse, and we should want -- we should get that out of the way. Yeah, since they're here and been waiting all day, I would like to ask that maybe we flip flop the sheriff and the county attorney and if we have to reconvene this evening, we do so for the county attorney. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- I'm not sure that these three items on the county attorney's section here really relate absolutely directly to this year's budget anyway. These seem to be little policy items that are just everyday policy items. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's get the sheriff stuff done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's get the sheriff up here. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good afternoon. Okay. I'm Sheriff Hunter for the record, sheriff of Collier County. Appreciate the opportunity to come back and clarify the record. I'm hoping that we can do so today and perhaps give the board some additional information that would cause the board to reconsider their decision that was reached last Thursday. I believe that the decision that was made for the 1.4 million dollar cut and the 1.7 million dollar cut was conceived on the basis of some issues that need a fuller discussion, and I'm asking for that opportunity. First of all, I would like to address the 1.7 million. This was the attrition number that was calculated. In the front of your budget document, you'll see that I've asked for a reserve for attrition. And what I would like for the board to keep in mind is this: Since approving the wage adjustment just last -- the end of last calendar year with the implementation of the wage adjustment in March of this year, with policies that I changed within the agency with an active recruitment team, what has happened over the last few months, very few months, is a new trend line on retention and acquisition of people to the point where we have right now in the agency a net of three vacancies, three vacancies in the agency. And we've been talking over the last couple of months and you have heard that our vacancy factor is roughly seven, eight, maybe as many as ten positions, total of ten positions not filled. So I believe that the new experience for attrition is that we aren't having the kind of attrition you saw two years ago. When we were talking two years ago and when we talked last year, the attrition was much more significant, 70 positions. You remember that number. That was our best estimate on -- on a daily basis of what our attrition was ranging. That's fairly significant. But we aren't seeing that now. We have a new trend line that's just beginning. It's a result of policy change, aggressive recruitment and the wage adjustments that you have approved. I'd like to address the attrition. The way that I would like to address that attrition number is that the 1.7 million dollars that we originally set aside -- asked you to set aside as reserve, I'd like for you to consider revisiting that and setting that money aside for the positions that we need in this county for law enforcement and jails and bailiff. That -- that would be one point. And again, that's based on our most recent experience. The other points that came up the other day -- and I'll -- and I want to say this for the record. You know right now that the city of Naples is involved in wage discussions through the FOP that we've heard would result in -- if completely accepted by the city council would result in about a 29 percent adjustment to pay. If they adjust to 29 percent, they will be 29 percent above Collier County Sheriff's Office members. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just when we catch up, they're talking about raising it another 30 percent. SHERIFF HUNTER: Just as we catch up. We're about $300 above the base pay right now for Naples Police Department. No matter what they do, if it's 10 percent, 11 percent, 15 percent, or 29 percent, that's the amount that they will be above the agency. And that's just an example. And you'll remember from one of the charts that were displayed for you the other day that Jeannie had up that we have not risen to a position of dominance over every other agency in the state of Florida even with the wage adjustment that you granted. We are still in a mid-range position, but that's satisfactory at this time to attract and keep talent, to have the experience on board that we need. So I guess the bottom line is if you will keep that in the back of your minds as we progress, we haven't -- we haven't gone beyond all reason in implementing the wage adjustment. We are I think where we need to be. We're in a reasonable position to continue in a reasonable fashion for the future. But again, as soon as that city proposal is adopted, they will be most likely well beyond us. The overtime was another issue that we discussed, but I'm not certain that it was clear. For clarity purposes, the overtime -- overtime is charged back through the agency for a number of different reasons. One would be to provide for services that we currently do not staff. There's two reasons why we would use that overtime. One would be for vacancies of positions that you have approved such as the 28 that you approved last year. Let's say that we were not able to hire those 28. The overtime might be spent for those positions. The other type of position need that we continue to have, if you'll recall our discussion during this process last year, we had a need, calculated need based on the number of calls for service coming into the agency, of about 66 positions. We knew that we could not get 66 road patrol positions through the academy, so I asked you for 28 positions. That leaves us with a need of about 38 positions. That need maintains today. Applying the 28 new positions, we haven't fallen off the need. In fact, the calls for service are expected to far exceed the 243,000 this year. Now, we've provided that detail to you in the budget, a projection of what our calls for service will be. So that those are the two types of overtime that we would see the need for spending, one to accommodate a vacancy that was planned -- that was unplanned in the budget and one to cover a need, a service need, that exists in the districts for patrol purposes that we currently don't in any other way accommodate except through the overtime. The other part of the overtime issue is we are currently paying and will next year pay overtime at a rate higher than what we paid last year because of the wage adjustment. And that was brought up and brought out during the discussion just last Thursday. But I ask you to keep that in -- in mind as well. When you look at the difference expansion in the overtime pay, those dynamics exist. Those issues exist within that overtime pay. And the last thing that I would like to bring back up for discussion purposes is the health and dental program. And maybe all I can say today is that that's a much more complex and intricate -- intricate issue than what we may have time to discuss today in order for you to make your appointment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can come back. SHERIFF HUNTER: But what we -- what I can say, though, for the record is that members of the agency do contribute for dependent coverage within the agency, and that perhaps was a misconception at the last meeting. We do indeed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question about that? SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon me? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I apologize for interrupting. But I wanted to ask this question while Commissioner Norris is here, and that is in my concern about where did the million four come from, I think some commissioners' opinion is that for a million two -- you could save a million two if you opted back into our insurance program instead of your current program. Is that possible? SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't know whether that's possible. I think what I would suggest is that we leave the discussion open and between staffs we -- we discuss those options. I can tell you this, though: What happened to the sheriff's office in our third year of operating a self insurance program is that we had a very bad year in terms of experience, an experience that in at least a couple of cases we had exposures that went beyond what we had -- went beyond what our responsibility was in the self insurance program, and we had to go into excess coverage. In addition to that, as we discussed last time Thursday, due to a health fitness program and to a -- and to a preliminary physical that we believe is prudent in order to get a person through the testing phase so that we don't have any loss of members during testing, we discovered 58 latent illnesses and problems that we don't expect to see next year. These were very serious situations, typically heart ailments, that could have been long-term health situations that we could have had additional extraordinary exposures on as well. But what we did was we discovered them early. We got the people into medical care, and they took care of the ailments. The problem is even those procedures were very expensive. And again, they cost us money on the health program. If we combined our bad experiences last year with your good experience this year, overall I would imagine that there could be a detrimental effect on your self insurance program. But again, I'm not an actuary, so I couldn't make any representation today. But I would recommend that we get staffs together and see what we could do in that regard. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm going to make a -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I'm the one who suggested that we might be able to find all the money in their -- in their health program. And I've since talked with the sheriff about their actuarial studies and so forth. And I've become convinced that at best there might be a couple hundred thousand there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, to be honest, I -- I thought that was a set-up question, Sheriff. I thought that the answer to that was, huh-uh, that's not possible. It's not possible to save a million two by shifting those -- putting those two insurance programs together. I guess next time I'm gonna do a set-up, I should tell you ahead of time. SHERIFF HUNTER: I -- I personally don't believe so, but again, I'm not the actuary. We are arguing with actuaries now in trying to find whatever kinds of savings there may be. Commissioner Matthews is on target. The best we seem to be able to do at this time would be a maximum of a couple of hundred thousand dollars. And that's not what you're looking for at a million four. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- and I'm sorry. Commissioner Norris was about to enter something, but any time two constitutional agencies go toe to toe it's great fodder. It shows up in the paper, shows up on the news. And I'm as guilty as anyone up here, anyone out there for creating that situation and being party to it on Thursday of last week. What that doesn't change, however, is some of the -- the inconsistent -- inconsistencies I feel that have been presented to us and things that we were kind of banking on to help fund the pay plan and help fund some other things that haven't come through. And let me go ahead and hit on those because those still haven't been answered for me. A one- or two-month trend in attrition recent -- after a recent significant pay plan increase and hiring of 28 new positions isn't enough to bank that big number on in my book. When we look historically not just at your agency but those throughout the state -- let's take the prime -- prime counties -- you know, I think any deputy in the state of Florida would rather work in Palm Beach than any other county. Pay is high. The crime is lower. I mean, there's -- they're what I call the primo deputy positions throughout the state. Even those agencies experience attrition. They experience attrition in many times the multiple digit area, not just single digit. So I understand your -- your hope as a very optimistic figure, that that 1.7 million will be necessary. Unfortunately, we would be taxing for that optimistic figure. And I -- I -- honestly to assume zero attrition is -- is incredibly optimistic, and -- and I hope that your policies come true. And I think if this board's put in a position of funding that out of either reserves or alternate sources during the year because you've reached it, no one will complain. But for us to go out and tax that amount in the hopes that that zero percent attrition which -- maybe you can correct me -- has not been achieved by any other sheriff's agency in the state of Florida on a given year with a -- with a decent pop -- decent sized population, to hope that that is achieved is -- is a big nut to crack in going out and taxing people for. So that -- that's the 1.7 million that I just -- I -- I -- I'm sorry. I have a tough time wrestling with that and can't see a reduction in that. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I can't stand before you today and represent that there's been no attrition in any agency in the state. We haven't -- we haven't done that kind of research. I would imagine the same as you that from time to time there's always going to be a vacancy here or there. As I say, we have a net of three. Our -- our current vacancies are in the civilian side. And we would hope to have zero. But we know that that's an optimistic goal and probably a bit too ambitious. What I was suggesting is the 4 percent might be a bit high. My understanding is what the attrition was calculated on was some turnback monies over the last couple of years back to the Board of County Commissioners. And as a result of that, 4 percent was calculated into the agency budget. Perhaps we need to put into perspective what that turnback was. The turnback largely was savings in health benefit and our self insurance program and the worker's comp. and health. And you'll remember those discussions over the last couple of years. It wasn't all -- it wasn't position savings per se. We were actually overspending our overtime budget in order to -- this -- this year in order to make the vacancy factor and last year. So if we use the turnback to calculate the attrition, perhaps we're not on the money in terms of what -- what we should be calculating in terms of attrition. If we could get to a 1 or 2 percent, certainly we can work within that. But again, we need the overtime money in order to -- to account for vacancies to some extent. And I would like to get to a better reckoning on -- on that number with you and -- and to a better understanding of what the overtime is going for if you need that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've kind of moved on overtime. Mr. Smykowski, what was of the budgeted turnback for fiscal year '97 for the sheriff's office, for upcoming '97? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Zero, okay. That's what I'm getting at is rather than this year budgeting any turnback whatsoever, we budgeted zero; whereas in the past we budgeted two hundred, a thousand or more. So again, that -- that we've -- you know, we've actually eliminated the wiggle room there that we're not -- we're not expecting you to give anything back. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. That's -- that's the full -- that's the full 1.7 million dollars if -- if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Smykowski; is that correct? That would be the 1.7 million, 4 percent attrition? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. SHERIFF HUNTER: And what I'm saying is the attrition that was calculated was calculated based on savings in health benefit and worker's comp. as well as some personal services savings that we were able to come up with as well as some operating as well as some capital. It all goes together. Whatever I could -- whatever I could save I saved and I turned back to you. But to say that we're going to have 4 percent attrition and people want the person on the street providing services would perhaps be a bit misleading and not entirely accurate. What I was suggesting is maybe we go to a 1 percent or a 2 percent attrition calculated and then you still don't calculate any turnback for us. We'll -- I understand that. I understand the reasoning. I just would like to get to a better basis because we're not going to have the savings in health program apparently this year because of last year's experience. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I don't understand, if -- if overtime is budgeted independently by itself, what I'm hearing is there's been a mix. You're -- what you have actually enjoyed or -- enjoyed is the wrong word. What you've actually found in attrition ends up going into overtime in other areas to put officers on the street. Is that a -- is that what you just said? SHERIFF HUNTER: And in the jail and in the courtrooms, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Wherever we need a post. Dispatch center as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- so where we have an increase in overtime, we're asking -- you're asking for no -- your original budget was asking for no attrition, to put it all into reserves because you expected using all of it, and we have 28 new deputies coming on line in October of this year. That -- that's just a huge trust me out there on those numbers. And -- and they just don't -- they don't come home for me the way they should. SHERIFF HUNTER: No. Well, let me clear that up again. The 28 positions that you -- you regard as coming on line in October, actually many of those have already been hired or in place or in the academy. They're in FTO. They're already within the agency but not on the street providing service because that's how long the process is to get someone through the academy process, through the field training officer program, and then on the street so that they're providing services in a safe manner and they're not injured or in some way cause damage or injury to others that they're serving. Those 28 people I expect will -- will be available before the end of summer on the street. Some will -- will finish up academies by the end of summer. Let me -- let me put it that way. But those 28 will be monies spent before October 1 certainly. And the other part was the overtime. The overtime, again, is fairly complex in the sense that it's not one thing that causes overtime. It's needing people all over the agency for a particular purpose, whether for sick, injured, vacations that weren't properly coordinated between divisions, and that doesn't happen that often, but that's another reason for need that exists on the street that we have not provided manpower for or people power for such as the district patrols that, as I say, we still need according to the numbers that we look at that have been good for every other year about 38 additional patrol deputies that I havenwt asked you for, but wewll need that. And the other part of the overtime -- and this is just a quick touch on all of this. But the other part of the overtime is that itws been recalculated at a new rate based on the new wages that are paid as opposed to the old rate, and thatws an automatic increase. Wewve actually reduced the number of hours of overtime that are being paid, but theywre being paid at a higher rate, and theywre costing more money. We tried to do what we can to control the overtime. But theywre being paid at a higher -- those hours are being paid at a higher rate. So, therefore, you see that reflecting in the budget. But to cut that out means you are cutting the actual services on the street, in CID, in our bailiffsw bureaus, in the warrants bureaus, in dispatch, and in jail. And Iwm not sure where we would come up with that -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Iim curious if we -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- because the compensatory time becomes a losing battle. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- if we budgeted and reserved 2 percent attrition, what would that cost on -- we keep using this infamous $100,000 tax bill. How much money are we talking about on a personls tax bill? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Itld be half of the 1.7. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Itld be a million one. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Okay. But what does that translate on an individual tax bill? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A quarter -- a quarter mill raises four million dollars, so it would be a fourth of a quarter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff Hunter, can I ask you a question? Youlye just said youlye actually lowered what youlre estimating for overtime hours this coming year. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea by what percent youlye lowered that? SHERIFF HUNTER: I saw the figure today. I donlt know the percentage. I can tell you what we are trying to do. Welre trying to go from about 102,000 hours to about 88 hour -- 88,000 hours, the difference between those two. Roughly 20 percent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence what youlre doing is youlre funding patrol positions with overtime? SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I say in essence youlre funding patrol positions and jail positions with overtime? In a -- in a nutshell is that what welre -- welre talking about? SHERIFF HUNTER: What welve been -- well, no, no, it wouldnlt be quite that. Yes, welre funding those. I donlt want to get into one of those discussions. Yes, welre funding those. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes and no; right? SHERIFF HUNTER: But welre also funding dispatch positions, E-911 operators, bailiff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why are we doing it that way? Why arenlt we converting this -- this 1.6 million in overtime and benefits to positions? And -- and I understand you said you need 38 more positions than you asked for. Yet under the old numbers there are only two out of the five districts that had people going call to call to call without any patrol time. There were 1 percent in 2 districts if I remember correctly. The other 3 districts had up to 35 percent patrol time. And again I'm recalling those figures. So if I'm -- I'm ballpark. I may be off by a few points. If you needed 66 positions when you had 3 to 5 districts operating with some level of patrol time and you've added 28 what I believe are road patrol deputies in the 2 most needed districts, if we don't have everyone going 100 percent call to call and there is some patrol time in there, it seems to me that we're not tapped out without providing -- providing any patrol factor. And what I continue to wrestle with here is that -- that number of 38 deputies out there that you say you are going to need or need now, if we fund your budget at the level requested, what it does is makes it doubly difficult next year to look at an increase in any positions. And what I'm trying to do is find those areas that we can force or -- or twist or tweak some wiggle room so that we have the ability to fund positions next year. And without -- without taking the conservative approach on this from our standpoint and -- and either being proved wrong or proved right, I'm not going to know where we stand next year when a request for -- for new deputies comes in. And I guess that's the easiest way I can explain, you know, the -- the -- the level and the amount that -- that we agreed on and that I was a part of. And I'm afraid I don't have a better explanation than that. But I'm trying to look out into the future and what your needs are and find a way to -- to do that. But without any reduction in your budget this year, without -- having to go out and tax for it and set it in reserve doesn't help us at all next year because my feeling is those funds will be used. I guess I'm trying to force efficiencies, and you can blame it all on us for doing it. That's the normal course of things. But to do that we're giving some room next year maybe to add those deputies which is what my constituents want. So, you know, again, there's more than just a motivation of being the ax man and looking good to -- to people who don't want to pay higher taxes. It goes much deeper than that. And I'm trying to find a way to fund your objective in the long term, and I just don't -- I can't see not touching your budget this year and then doing that again next year. It just doesn't fit. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. And I agree with -- with the basis of your thoughts that I'm certainly for putting people on the street as -- as opposed to paying some overtime number. Let's -- let's put it in perspective, though. Again, overtime, let's take the 28 that we hired. While they are away in academy or out in FTO program, field training officer program, that position that they would fill is going unfilled unless I pay overtime. You're actually -- you're actually paying about two and a half times for that position. You're paying for the person while they're in the academy and in FTO. You're also paying for their position staffing while they are here in -- in academy or FTO. If you don't accommodate for that position, then you let it go. You just say, well, we didn't need that whether it was jail because the jail has FTO and the academy and patrol has the same features. In addition to that, while we're waiting for this person to come out of the academy and out of FTO, you have not moved that patrol person over into criminal investigation division where they're needed to pull a case load. You're waiting for that person to come out of FTO and the academy to fill the position in the road so you can move that road position over to CID. Again, you're -- you're -- you're eating up overtime hours in CID on important cases that need solutions that we're very close to but we don't have a person to fill that position. You haven't erased a need there. You're actually paying about two and a half times -- maybe it's two and a half. Maybe it's three times what you would spend for that position normally. That, I guess, is the easiest way to explain why we're not asking you for 30 more people this year in positions that we're asking for the overtime because there are people in process that will get us back to about 22 percent patrol time availability. That's what we hope to have by the end of this -- by the end of this fiscal year. We'll still need the overtime because they're in progress. They're in process. The other things that you need to keep in mind, that there are positions that we have inherently had difficulty filling, especially in communications. For some reason we lose people in those high stress positions more often. And when we -- we can't find people to fill those positions who aren't already trained in communications -- you have to have somebody come in and fill that -- they typically are road patrol officers. You're paying road patrol officer wage for a communicator's slot because you can't not answer that radio and you can't just take somebody off the street and -- and say, okay, sit here, and if somebody talks, try to respond as best you can and get help to them. Those are some of the mechanics and the dynamics of overtime inside the agency that cause me not to be able to equate the overtime budget to a full-time position. In addition to that, you have deployment considerations, special events, things of that nature that happen where you put a person out there on overtime, but it's only for a couple of hours. You don't want to hire a full-time position to cover that peak time that you hope to be able to hire -- handle with the overtime and maybe a few auxiliary deputies. So we're trying to do it as efficiently as possible still keeping in mind that those needs should not go unmet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one quick question. On -- on your point there you said -- and I understand when you've got someone off at the academy, you still need to be covering that. We were told Thursday or -- yeah, Thursday that of those 28 those will be virtually completed by October 1, the start of the new fiscal year. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's right. That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And back -- so just the overtime or the extra position it seems like you won't have the need then. They'll be back on a regular -- SHERIFF HUNTER: By October 1 I think we will have completed the last part of the academy for those deputies coming through the law enforcement academy. There will also be some deputies in progress -- in process through a -- a jail academy to fill the slots of the jail deputies that I took out of the jail to put in law enforcement academy. So it becomes -- there will be some overlap. There will be some overlap period for the overtime there. That's just one type of overtime again. That -- that's the most expensive type of overtime because you have people in process and you're trying to accommodate for their positions. The same thing's going to happen in the jail. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sheriff, I really hate to interrupt this spirited little conversation, but we're going to need to recess for an hour. Is that acceptable? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, do we have to all stop because you have to be gone? I mean, Commissioner Matthews had to be gone, and we kept talking. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think on an item as important as this -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's too big? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and as controversial as this or as -- and it's a -- it's a big item. I'd be more comfortable if we had all five of us here. And if I had to go, I would ask you to do the same on an item like this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we held lunch -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I know. I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The Immokalee healthcare issue, too, was equally important. It depends on -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we discussed today with all five commissioners present. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not the Immokalee issue. We haven't discussed it yet. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I sense we will. SHERIFF HUNTER: Are we then set to come back for wrap-up, or will we be notified? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely, absolutely. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you tell us what time? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: An hour. One hour from now. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten till five. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, would you like me to lead off here? SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like me to lead off and see if we might get this -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I wonder if you might give me -- could we have like -- I haven't had a chance to speak to staff just yet. While you were away at your meeting, I tried to squeeze a meeting in with citizen commissioners as well. And I wonder if I might have five minutes. Could we -- do you have any other items too? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, this is the last item. SHERIFF HUNTER: This is it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. SHERIFF HUNTER: I think if -- if I had five minutes, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able to work some numbers out from some discussions that I had over break. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it's important enough to do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. Go ahead. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you want to make that a five-minute recess? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's have Mr. Weigel give us his -- his take on these questions that were asked that have nothing whatsoever to do with this budget today. MR. WEIGEL: I may not be able to use five minutes, but I'll do my best. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Stretch. MR. WEIGEL: The first question that had come back was a legal opinion regarding the estate -- the state attorney funding expenses, the article 5 expenses, and the county's responsibility. And -- and we had distributed a little earlier our latest memo in that regard, redistributed, dated June 20 Ramiro had prepared. And really what it boils down to is that the state statutes provide for certain obligations of the counties. We've enumerated them in the -- in the memo in there. And included in those are transportation, office expenses, quite a list. Includes travel, out-of-state travel, expert witness fees. The one thing that may give some solace to the county is that it does provide that the county may contest some of the charges that are court-related within the courts. And, of course, that's what our county attorney does, and I am proud to say I think that over the years and now it's an effort that's -- that's never been more finely honed than -- than it is now. But in regard to the -- kind of the big ticket items I guess that came up the other -- the other day concerning transportation, Ramiro has correctly provided in his memo almost quoting verbatim from chapter 27 of Florida Statutes transportation services that may be necessary for the proper efficient functioning of those offices. The state attorney office makes its determination and submits the budget to you. And -- and I guess to the certain extent that -- that you don't line item respond but approve or disapprove a -- a blanket number for them, they would have to make their own choices within -- within that framework of -- of monies that are allocated to them. And as -- as Hiss Hac'Kie had stated, they would obviously reserve their rights for any legal options they may have if they were dissatisfied with the board funding. I don't have any other comment. I'd certainly respond to any other questions you might have. A gentleman from the state attorney office was here this afternoon, did leave, and I don't think there's any problem that we're going here -- going on without him at this point. But I just mention that to you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, what's your -- what's your view then on all -- on all the discussions and concerns and mandates that kind of surround this veil that we call article 5 costs? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's been a lot of legislative fluff that hasn't brought anything concrete back at this point. And again, I think the Florida Association of Counties and the individual counties' efforts for our purposes ought to be spent in getting some legislative relief so that the state mandate is recognized as, you know, the significant burden that it is upon counties with the increased responsibilities that translate to fiscal responsibilities through the court system and the prosecutorial and public defender system. Article 5 was a wash-out in the legislature this year, although it was much ballyhooed. And until the state steps up to provide some kind of a funding source toward these mandates, they're going to remain as they are statutorily upon the county. And they're -- they're pretty clearly statutorily on the clou -- on the county. And unfortunate as the case may be, I'll refer you to statute 2734.34, and it says the state attorney's office shall be provided with this litany of expenses that the county is responsible for except as otherwise provided in the general appropriations act. Well, nothing is being done there. And so the statute reads nicely as if there is going to be something there, but legislatively there hasn't been something there. So it's -- it's a problem for this county and other counties, and the collective cry has not been responded to yet. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So what -- what would happen if we as a county or other counties were to join us in just simply not funding it? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we as a county would, you know, be subject to an enforcement action of the affected agencies that we weren't funding. As far as if all the counties or many counties together got together and did such a thing, I think that they would probably merely be responsible legally to the state attorney offices within their particular circuits that were affected. I don't think that would translate into a true class action against the counties is my best guess at this point. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. I've just been involved in this for three and a half years, and I just think we ought to somehow get the state to recognize its responsibilities instead of shifting it to the county. MR. WEIGEL: I couldn't agree more. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess I'm asking for help. How do we do that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd be happy to assist in kind of an ad hoc task force to do a little research with the Florida Association of Counties. But beyond that the Florida Association of Counties has endeavored mightily but has not obtained the results. So it looks like there's something beyond that that needs to be touched. The appropriate buttons apparently aren't getting -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, they've -- they've had a task force on this now for eight years or more. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one solution. That's file a class action suit against the state to make them step up to article 5 funding because we can committee this thing to death, but you can go to Tallahassee and ask a hundred and sixty some odd legislators to -- to, you know, give us more money all you want. And the answer's going to come back the same. And the answer's going to come back, well, gee, we haven't done it in the past. Why do it now? So I don't -- I think we're kind of kidding ourselves as far as, you know, look into this more and task force and ad hoc. I don't -- I don't think it's gonna get us anywhere. The only thing we can do is determine whether or not we believe the state has article 5 commitments they have not lived up to. And if that's the case, then we file suit against the state to force them to make payment. I don't see any other way to this. Otherwise we're going to be like FAC. Five years from now we'll still be talking about it -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and we'll have a task force doing it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's -- that's my feeling on it. I know one county last year sent the state a bill for article 5 costs. Of course, it didn't get paid but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: State -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- made the point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: State said, that's cute, have a nice day. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, Commissioner Hancock, are you suggesting we cut some of those costs and see where we go with it? I like the suggestion if that's it. MR. WEIGEL: Can we prepare a report to you on the efficacy of trying to put together a lawsuit? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, what will happen is a lawsuit will take such an extended period of time if it happens that when we cut those -- those funds, are we hurting ourselves in the process? I don't know the answer to that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't want to hurt our citizens, and I certainly don't want to injure the justice system any more than it's already injured. But -- but I certainly think we -- we as a -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't beep? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Pardon? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Mike was going to set the beeper for five minutes. It didn't beep. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. I think we as a -- as a county may -- may want to direct Mr. Weigel to look into the suitability of filing suit and seeing if we can't force this issue. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suitability of a suit. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The suitability of a suit. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Suit suitability. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suits me. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're all going to wear a new suit that day; right? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We may be leading the charge, and then again, we may turn around and find no one's behind us. But my guess is that other counties would be as interested as we are. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Somebody's got to take the charge, though, to see who's behind. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you -- can you just furnish us with a little memo here soon -- MR. WEIGEL: We will. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to try to define these for us, and then we'll make a decision at a county commission meeting on whether we're gonna sue the state or -- or continue the way we are. Sheriff Hunter, would you like to continue? SHERIFF HUNTER: Please. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought the answer just might be no. SHERIFF HUNTER: Where were we? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe the easiest thing to do is to -- to give some detail to a discussion that the sheriff and I had over our break and to find out if those -- what we discussed is an acceptable approach to you or -- or not if that's -- if that's a fair statement. When the constitutional officers have come before us on this budget -- the clerk of courts stood there for how many seconds was it, Mr. Dorrill? About 137 MR. DORRILL: Maybe 30. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe 30? And we found out later there were some positions that had been cut that were in his budget that we ended up funding elsewhere and so forth and so on. But there -- typically unless you are adversely affecting the ad valorem rate and you're a constitutional officer, you get a -- somewhat of a deference here, and you go on your way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless you're the sheriff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the sheriff's budget this year is affecting the ad valorem rate. No question about it. It has the potential to. And I -- and thus the reason I think for increased scrutiny. But in having our discussion for about, I guess, 30 minutes, you are the lead law enforcement officer elected by the people of this county. And for me to sit here -- and when you say, I simply can't do something at a certain price, for me to tell you, yes, you can makes me queasy because it's -- it's simply my accepting responsibility for something that the voters of this county did not entrust me with. However, there are areas within your budget that make me equally queasy. And I have to reconcile those two things. And let me suggest what I have discussed with the sheriff, and then maybe your response will tell me whether we're -- we're near agreement, in agreement, or so far apart it doesn't matter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to break the reverence of the moment, but I can see queasy is going to appear in the newspaper tomorrow. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't be the first time I've had a quote I wasn't proud of. But the first element is -- is the 1.7 million dollar budgeted attrition. The commission had asked all constitutional officers to budget for 4 percent attrition, and that just doesn't show up as a line item in your budget. It's revenue that never -- never -- or it actually shows up almost as a revenue. You're requesting us to set it aside, to tax for it and set it aside when we believe it's not going to be necessary. I think a middle ground there is not to tax for it but to commit as I thought we had mentioned earlier today, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here, that if during the course of the year you find your attrition rate to be less than 4 percent and that the money set aside for personnel services are not sufficient, that this board would entertain a budget amendment from reserves to -- to finance your fantastic rate of attrition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But first we gotta put it in reserves; right? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's in our reserves. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- we are talking about Board of County Commissioners set aside reserves. I'm not talking about increasing the reserves by 1.7 million. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm talking about rolling the dice a little bit here. Both of us are rolling it. We're saying if you have less than 4 percent attrition that we will obviously meet your personnel requirements to avoid taking officers off the street. That makes sense to me. And again, I may be the only board member who feels that way but -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I -- may I just comment as we go along -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can do that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because I -- I think that that makes a lot of sense. I'd be more comfortable if we -- Mr. Dorrill needs to tell us if he had enough fluff in his reserve to cover this because seems to me we probably ought to add 1 percent attrition or something to the reserve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, realistically the sheriff's going to have some attrition. The question is how much. And if he only experiences 2 percent, then we're looking at funding 2 percent of his attrition out of our reserves which is a much lesser amount than 1.7 million. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we weren't planning on funding any of it out of our reserve. Have you got room for that in your reserve, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: General fund reserves were budgeted at 5.3 million dollars. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just suggest -- and I know we're all going to have questions as you go along. But maybe you can go through what the two of you talked about for 30 minutes, and then we can review the whole thing instead of stopping and starting because we'll never get through it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the first element. The second element was a 1.4 million dollar reduction in the sheriff's budget, not to tell him how to do it or where it happens but simply a 1.4 million across-the-board reduction in his budget as proposed. My biggest concern with that is that what it still -- what -- the reason that was approached was that the overtime and benefits category appeared substantially higher than it -- it seemed like it should have been. And when you budget into overtime, those sources and revenues are not dedicated in any way that I can sit here and look at the general public and say, well, we funded the sheriff so he could go do X. It's -- it's tough to get your arms around, very difficult concept to understand to just generally budget a high amount in overtime. In order to reduce that 1.4 million amount, I have to be able to tell the taxpayer what they're getting for that -- that dollar. And what I propose to the sheriff is that rather than reducing his budget 1.4 million, that we reduce the actual budget by an amount of $400,000 and that we get 9 new patrol officers during the next fiscal year. Those nine positions -- and this may be -- I may need some input on this -- hopefully would be offered and dedicated within the first quarter of fiscal year 1997 so that the income for those positions would not be spent in other means throughout the year and then the positions come on later in the year and don't have a net benefit. The reason for this is the sheriff has -- has mentioned that there are three or four areas he feels he can make reductions in his budget that are gonna be hard but -- but he's willing to do and that those nine new officers would have an impact on his overtime. And again, it's a gamble on both sides. The sheriff is gambling that he will be able to meet his overtime requirements with these new positions, and he's not real certain about that based on our phone conversation. But we are gambling that the public will trust that by only reducing his budget 400,000 and putting in 9 new positions that their concerns are being addressed. That is the crux of the discussion I had with -- with Sheriff Hunter. If all of those things can be met, I have a far greater level of comfort than making it just a flat 1.4 million dollar reduction without really receiving anything in return to the taxpayer by way of increased patrol and deputies on the street. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: 400,000 was the number that I had thought when we originally were discussing the budget, the sheriff's budget, had some validity as a potential cut. And for me that was because it was in that overtime and benefits number that I didn't think made sense based on the increased number of deputies. So what you're saying is -- speaking to me, it's making a lot of sense about the right numbers, 400,000. The part I don't understand yet is why nine and how does the nine patrol positions -- talk about that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll -- I'll talk about my calculations, and the sheriff can tell me whether he agrees or not. What we're talking about in essence is putting one million dollars back in the sheriff's budget that we -- we took out on Thursday, of that $1,000,000, 9 positions that cost according to the sheriff approximately $71,400 for a road deputy to be brought in -- and that's over a full -- a full fiscal year I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that number again, how much per year? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: $71,400. Nine positions times seventy-one thousand is six hundred and thirty thousand dollars. The balance of the -- the -- that is $400,000 that would go toward overtime above and beyond what last year's budgeted amount was. So in essence he is cutting -- would cut a lot -- a majority of his overtime that would create the new positions and gamble that he has enough money left to fund the overtime that's necessary. It's a little bit of a give on -- on both sides but one that I think the general public benefits by. And the reason I want to put a time frame on when those nine new positions are created is that if -- if the sheriff's office waits until the fourth quarter to implement the positions, they haven't expended the $630,000 in salaries, but they could use it in other ways throughout the year. I would like to see those positions funded in the first quarter or -- or at the latest six months of that year so we make sure we get those -- those officers on the street and the funds can't be used, again, to fund overtime instead of the new positions, not that that's your intention, Sheriff, and we didn't discuss that on the phone. It's just something that I -- I jotted down here as I was making some notes that if we're going to have nine officers, I'd like to see them on the street sooner rather than later. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you the reason he was late getting back? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was on the phone with you? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's the reason he was late too. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six hundred thirty thousand would be funding a full year of the nine new positions? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But you haven't -- you've been talking all along about funding or hiring them for a half year. Why would you fund them for a full year if your intent is to hire them for a half year? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that -- that's why I suggested their hiring be in the first quarter of the year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: First quarter of the year is October the 1st. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It also ends three months later. That -- you know, I understand the sheriff has been stacking positions, but I don't know that he's stacked enough to offer nine new positions right away. Maybe he can tell me otherwise. So yes, there is some give in those numbers. But again, I have to look at -- at what I believe our law enforcement official tells me, and I have to assume -- and I think correctly so based on his history -- that -- that if he simply cannot do something and tells me that, I've gotta consider that. And so I'm trying to find a way to -- to meet the needs of the public and meet the needs of the sheriff all at the same time. And -- and that's what I've come up with. And now you can chew me up and spit me out and tell me what you think. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear what the sheriff has to say. SHERIFF HUNTER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. The -- may we take the 1.7 first? Our discussion did revolve around some of the overtime issues and -- and the vacancy factor that we've experienced over the last couple of years. And what we were going to try to arrive at was a more realistic attrition number rather than that which had been calculated against health benefit savings and whatever savings we could put together that we return to you at the end of the year. And by the end of the conversation, I was of the opinion -- and I may be wrong -- the -- that there would be a 2 percent -- say a 2 percent attrition factored with 2 percent set aside in reserve if we should need it at some future point. And we would apply back to you for appropriate board approval of an amendment to budget if our attrition factor was running less than that, less than 2 percent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sort of ties to the question that I did interrupt earlier but had for Mr. Dotrill about whether or not the general fund reserves have room to absorb this potential 1.7 million dollar contingency or if we accept the premise that there needs to be something done, some address made to the -- the issue, shouldn't we add something to the reserves, or can you absorb it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think a majority of the board is prepared to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern there is that where we had talked about -- the 1.7 million dollars for attrition was never in the budget as it was presented to us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So as we're looking at what we have to come up with, that was never considered. For us to consider $850,000 of that as a line item in the budget and still agree to only a $400,000 reduction, we're actually talking about a net increase of $450,000 over what was in our budget package. And, Sheriff Hunter, your recollection is -- is -- is correct. We had talked about that. And by the time we got off the phone, I wasn't sure where -- you know, you made the statement -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I wasn't either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- well, if you would commit to -- to funding the difference, that would be fine. I took that to mean something different than setting 2 percent aside. So that was just a communication difference between the two of us. Again, I -- based on the history -- and I know you have a new pay plan and everything -- I think you're gonna get closer to that 4 percent than you do. And one of us is going to prove the other one wrong. The difference is whether or not we tax people to set it aside on the front end. And -- and so my -- my choice is to gamble that I'm right and you're wrong, you're going to have 4 percent, and not to tax people for that on the front end. That's my inclination, and I differ, I think, with Commissioner Mac'Kie I believe but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I just have a great fear of -- I don't want to pretend -- and I know everybody's intentions are genuine here, but I don't want to fool myself into thinking that I have reserved, I have -- that Sheriff Hunter can come back to us for money if it turns out that he did need 1 percent and then have Mr. Dotrill say, well, yeah, but I didn't plan for that when we budgeted our reserves. So it seems to me if we're gonna do it, we better have some money set aside for it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'd prefer to do is spend our time on the other one because it appears we have at least three people who don't want to set the 1.7 aside for attrition. And rather than sit here and continue to talk about it, if we don't have a majority, let's address the issue we haven't addressed yet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The problem is, you know, if the sheriff is going to budget 4 percent attrition and then ask us to put it in our budget as reserve, he's not budgeting for 4 percent attrition. He's -- you know, he's doing it on paper on one side but then asking us to go into our budget and put it right back in. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's because he's saying he doesn't really think it's gonna be. SHERIFF HUNTER: No, that's correct. I don't believe we're going to have 4 percent. So I'm saying we'll take 2 percent into the budget as a -- we'll reflect 2 percent in the budget. I'm just asking for your recognition and on the record that should we experience something better than that in terms of acquiring public safety positions next year that you would be amenable to me approaching you for the budget amendment necessary to acquire and fill those positions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before moving ahead on that discussion, you had mentioned you would try and get some -- and I understand on the -- on the quick -- try and get some numbers on what your attrition rate percentages dollarwise of attrition dollars versus payroll dollars has been in the last several years. Can you tell me what those numbers are? Were you able to get them? You had five whole minutes. SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't know if we -- I don't know if we were able to put that together yet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Do we have an actual number? Well, the best we can find at the moment is we were -- it's a range that I've been given of 1.7 to 2.2 for the last 2 years. So mid point of that is 2. Two percent would be the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 1.95. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- actual attrition number in terms of dollars. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the last two years. SHERIFF HUNTER: In the last two years what I've been told. But I'd rather have an opportunity to give you something that we've analyzed rather than working off that plus -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to look at the long-term history, too, because I just -- that's markedly different than the attrition picture that was painted when we did the -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- change. SHERIFF HUNTER: But remember before our break we got into a little bit of that discussion. Some of the attrition number that was calculated which was a dollar figure was actually savings that we had recouped from the health benefits program, the self insurance program, and the worker's comp. program that we implemented. And the other side of that is that within the last three months we've had an extraordinarily good experience with reducing attrition, reducing vacancies in the agency to the point where I believe that we're going to do much better than 4 percent. And that's why -- that's what led to our discussion, and the 2 percent I'm willing to take into the budget and reflect that as part of the budget with the understanding that people know that that money's going towards public safety positions and that we don't expect the kind of experience that we have encountered over the last two years in filling those vacancies because we did have a very poor experience. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're just asking that if it gets to be next April or Hay or June and you find yourself having the good fortune of having nearly no attrition and the choice is that either get some money from reserves or take law enforcement patrol off the street that the board would say, gosh, we'd -- we'd help you out there? Is that what I heard you asking for before? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'm like Dr. Polkowski. It's not quite that easy. I'm not going to suggest I'm taking road patrol off the street. I would probably have to say to you that if we had some vacancies out there that I'll try to fund it as best I can. I might have to ask you for some dollars for overtime while we're trying to fill those positions. But as the commissioner and I spoke, we know we can't have a perfect no vacancy record. So what I was willing to risk is 2 percent. I realize that I may not be back to that reserve account for the 2 percent. But on the -- on the other hand, if things go as they have been for the last three months, I'm not going to turn people away who have applied for the vacancies that exist to fill the needs in the agency. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask another question. Mr. Dotrill, on a typical budget year do we typically exhaust our reserves? MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we roll, what, half of it forward, how much? MR. DORRILL: No. Typ -- typical budget year we -- we'll be somewhere -- we will spend about 400,000 on -- on average. And typically in the general fund we're carrying about five and a half to 5.7 million dollars. And you budgeted next year 5.66 million dollars. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even though we -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This whole discussion just doesn't seem to have a point to it. That's my point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do we budget so much -- we budget five and a half million dollars, and we're fussing about his million seven when we budget five and a half million and use four hundred thousand? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's my point. This whole discussion is pointless. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, maybe ours are overbudgeted for God's sake. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two words. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have to budget 5 percent. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're required by law, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll give you two words: Hurricane Andrew. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he's got hurricanes too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. And when it comes to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is it coming back? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When it comes to a natural disaster, we're all in the same pot. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, Commissioner Hac'Kie, we're -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, Hacissioner -- Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Commissioner Hac'Kie. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Easy for you to say. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're required by law. But also as Commissioner Hancock said, you gotta have a big lump there in the event of some unusual circumstance. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we've got five million extra bucks laying around here, that's really back to the question I asked Mr. Dotrill is does he have enough fluff in his reserves to cover this million seven in the worst event of a 4 percent attrition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but I wouldn't call it fluff. I'd call it state requirement. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. State required enhanced reserve account. MR. DORRILL: And -- and the point being we -- Hurricane Andrew's effect on this community was minimal, and we spent two million dollars in overtime -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. MR. DORRILL: -- and in special contract services for waste management divisions as far away as Clearwater cleaning up on the weekends for six weeks. And we spent two million. Now, you ultimately get a portion of that reimbursed, but it takes six to nine months to get it back. And you've got to have operating cash when those sort of things happen. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What was our expenditure last summer with all the driving rain? MR. DORRILL: I'd say it was several hundred thousand dollars just, you know, in road and bridge. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, Commissioner Norris makes the point that we believe without some dramatic occurrence that the money is there to fund a 4 percent attrition rate for the sheriff's office should he have zero. So that being the case, I'm comfortable with that. And it's not meeting what the sheriff is requesting. But, again, the money's there. We believe it's available, and I think we are giving a commitment that if you have no attrition, come on back. I mean, let's -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. With that understanding, the one -- 1.7 then would just -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go to the 1.4. SHERIFF HUNTER: We'll consider that to be a done deal. That's over with you. We will look at the attrition as we go along during the year. And should we need the money, we come back to you and ask for it at that time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you a question that goes to -- somewhat related to attrition. Tell me the number of law enforcement personnel on your staff October the 1st of '95, start of this -- this particular fiscal year. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Physical beings. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, no, not budgeted positions but actual physical. SHERIFF HUNTER: What was the date again? What date was it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: First of this fiscal year, 1st of October. SHERIFF HUNTER: October 1. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, October 1, '95. MS. MEYERS: Jean Meyers, budget analyst for the sheriff's office. We are budgeted 396 authorized law enforcement positions October 1, 1995. We were running about 48 vacancies, so that's 348 filled positions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three hundred and forty-eight filled positions and forty-eight vacancies? MS. MEYERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, October 1, '96, you will have how many budgeted positions? MS. MEYERS: Four hundred and six. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Four hundred six? MS. MEYERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many will you have filled by then? MS. MEYERS: Hopefully all of them -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All. MS. MEYERS: -- on board. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. MEYERS: On the payroll, on the payroll. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On the payroll, not just budgeted but actual humans. MS. MEYERS: Humans on the payroll. They -- some may still be in a training capacity, but they are on the payroll. SHERIFF HUNTER: Humans. MS. MEYERS: Humans. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That doesn't take the dogs into consideration. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we're not getting into the K-9 unit just yet. The second part, the 1.4 million, again, my -- my proposal -- and I use the words patrol officers. But obviously if it serves to reduce your -- your overtime more to have a jail deputy, maybe I'm being too specific and you can help me with that. But what I'm looking for is 9 what I will call certified positions and a reduction of $400,000 from your budget, and my question is can you do it. SHERIFF HUNTER: To respond to the latter part first, the $400,000, based on the discussions we've had between commissioners individually and my discussions with staff, we think we can get the lion's share of the 400,000 by abandonment of the dental, trim back on overtime as we discussed 100,000. We believe we could get there and look at the health package, the health benefits self insurance program, work with the actuarials to see what we can do there. And again, I can't guarantee that because I'm relying on the actuarial to be the professional that they are, and I am not an actuary. So you'll have to give me some flexibility there. I -- I can't give you an absolute yes today. But we'll work that $400,000 out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question? This goes to your formula there I think. You said roughly $71,000 by the time you've started somebody on with all their benefits and all to go. My recollection is it was twenty-four five -- and we might be up higher than that, or maybe that's the new starting deputy salary. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's close, yeah, twenty -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are -- because that's still 46,000 plus. What -- I just -- I don't know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Equipment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the vehicle, for all equipment, for the academy, for -- is that -- all of that is covered in there? SHERIFF HUNTER: With the seventy-one four? Yes. The academy training cost, fuel, lubricants, auto insurance, vests for the deputy, uniforms for the deputy, light bar, shotgun, radio in the vehicle, a vehicle, yes, that would be the cost. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, the reason I got to nine was that we talked about the 400,000, and I felt that a majority of any money being put back in should go towards the -- the patrol officers if possible. You know, eight and a half officers equals a little over 600,000, so I thought nine officers would bring -- you know, would eat up some of that time that you're allocating the positions so the funds that aren't being expended could roll into new -- you know, new people. So that's how I arrived at nine new officers. And again, as I mentioned earlier, it helps get me where you said you want to go is putting more officers on the street to handle these issues. So, you know, I couldn't justify just putting it strictly in overtime, and I had to find a way -- if we weren't going to cut you back 1.4 million from your requested amount, I had to find a way to justify that -- that interim level. And the only way I could do it is to assure our citizens that more officers will be on the street, and that's what -- that's what I've requested. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we just -- SHERIFF HUNTER: We've had -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we just summarize this and see if we can wrap it up then? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, sir. The -- we've had perhaps the most extensive discussion I've ever had on overtime between Commissioner Hancock and I. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In fact, we're going into overtime even as we speak. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. The overtime -- just once more for the record because what we said on the phone we didn't capture, but the overtime's a little more fluid than that. And it has to do with court -- court dates, off-duty court time. When a deputy comes in off duty, spends the day in court, we have to pay for that. That's a mandatory overtime. Otherwise you get into compensatory time, and then you're eating away at your own organization, and you're actually hurting the time on patrol even worse. It has to do with training for special events. It has to do with -- as we said before, if you have somebody in the academy or on FTO, an FTO program, you still have to fill their position while you're waiting for them to finish up their program. So you're actually combining expenses there. You're paying maybe four hours to one deputy sheriff to cover part of that shift, another four hours to another deputy to cover the shift of the person who still remains in the academy or in the field training officer program. So it's a very complex issue, the overtime. We tried to pin down as much as possible and know specifically where we spent the overtime to the best of our ability which led us into this discussion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Summary. SHERIFF HUNTER: The discussion was for some additional patrol officers because I like the sound of what Commissioner Hancock was saying during -- just before the break. Certainly I support more road patrol officers any time we can get them. We most definitely have the need. As I communicated to the board earlier, we have about 38 positions we can identify as needed. In order to accomplish that, staff reminds me in our five-minute session that we -- we had asked you for ten new positions. Five of them I believe are particularly critical, youth relations deputies in the elementary schools which is where we start that communication bridge between law enforcement and youth. And as I said to Commissioner Hancock on the phone, by the time they get to middle school, they've already begun experimentation. They're using gateway drugs like tobacco. They have already fixed some of their behaviors and patterns, and we all read that literature. I've been asked to try to do more in the elementary schools with their programming and communication with youth. And it's a very good expenditure of money to my mind for basic crime prevention and delinquency prevention services. So I'd like to preserve those five. We had 2 dispatchers in there for 800 megahertz system which is more complex and would require more consoles. And I don't have to go down the list. But staff reminded me on our break that we had 10 positions in there for about 573,000 I believe. That having been said, taking the million dollar difference between 1.4 and moving the $400,000, recognizing a million dollars, permitting me the latitude of deciding which way we go, intelligence analysts versus road patrol officer or part of a road patrol officer, I'd like to move towards acquiring road patrol officers. We may not be able to spend as much as nine road patrol officers because I would like to reserve some of that money for overtime because again, that -- that's off-duty court time and various other types of overtime. But I would like to see somewhere in the neighborhood of four to five positions for road patrol. And we'll need to hammer out the actual numbers so -- so that it is an appropriate number respecting the fact that some overtime will be necessary due to the wage adjustment. And we've tried -- we've tried to predict what that will be. And I've just asked for the number. Hurricane Andrew cost us about $123,000 also. So if we have those nine named storms this year, nine major storms, which hopefully won't come true, that is a pretty heavy tap. I'd like to have overtime there in order to accommodate some -- some of that. Okay. The -- this is in response to Commissioner Hancock's question regarding -- or his point that he would like to see those new positions, how ever many that is, five, nine, seven, whatever we can work it out to be, that the next law enforcement academy would be the 15th of October of this year. They set that in Lee County. So we're pretty much at their convenience. But that would be the first one. It's a 16-week course plus holidays. It would be completed approximately -- don't hold me to these dates. I'm not sure exactly where they came from -- but February 28 of '97. Then we go into the FTO program, field training officer program. And we talked about that on the phone. Just for the public's benefit, I keep saying field training officer program. That's not some secret program. That's where the individual deputy sheriff learns all about the policy and procedures, the manual of the agency, the report formats, how to complete a report, how to complete a citation book, the street names in their areas, the grids and how they're laid -- laid out. So it's really the learning process, our codes, our radio codes. That's when they learn those radio codes, how to operate the radio, et cetera. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. You said that's completed in February -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Hay? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but that begins when? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: October. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: October? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: October 15. SHERIFF HUNTER: So approximately June of next year is when you would see those -- those positions actually working on their own, not riding with another deputy, not being scored and evaluated. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we would begin paying their salaries on October 15 when the academy begins. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, we'd be paying those salaries. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When is the second academy? Do you have the next date? MS. HEYERS: No, I don't. SHERIFF HUNTER: But usually it's about March. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I don't mind the direction where we're headed with this. I have a little concern just with your last comment. I know you want to be left some latitude where -- and use that where you need. But the one comment that I go back to from last week is when we looked at the pay plan adjustment, we were told repeatedly and -- and loudly that it would dramatically alter the overtime situation. And that's -- I just get a little concerned when you say -- and I heard you say the second time five, seven, or nine. But the first time you said three or four or five new positions and use the rest for overtime. And I know there's some things like court appearances that there's no way to fill that other than overtime, but I just -- I like the direction you're headed. And if you can get some new deputies on the street, but if that's only three, that's only five, that raises a little concern. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, let's try and get this discussion to a decision. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm saying nine. The sheriff's saying five. Okay. Seven, five patrol, two discretionary. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Talk numbers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. You're saying fund seven? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fund seven positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four hundred and ninety whatever thousand? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Five would be patrol, two would be discretionary wherever the -- the sheriff sees fit to reduce his overtime needs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why wouldn't we leave -- leave them all discretionary? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- because our -- I don't know about you. But, you know, most of the phone -- phone calls I get are I want to see more patrol cars on the road. You know, I don't get phone calls saying, we need more investigators. And again, they don't see that function. I understand that but -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I've had calls that -- you know, the youth relations officers in the schools and how important they are. So, I mean, it could be a lot of combinations. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aren't -- we're not trying to decide for the sheriff what positions he's going to fund, are we? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hope not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case I'll just say seven. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're saying seven law enforcement positions. My concern wasn't where they go. I don't -- if he needs investigators, then we should give him that latitude. My -- my concern was when he said maybe three positions and the rest of that would go into overtime. Then it gets us back to the original argument if the majority of it -- I don't mind giving you the discretion. Obviously that's your job. You know where the need is. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just didn't want to see two-thirds of that money going into overtime instead of to some sort of certified personnel. SHERIFF HUNTER: That would not all be overtime. The difference between the positions and the one million dollar figure is not all overtime, and I may have misspoke. Perhaps Jeannie can clear it up just a bit. But again, let me allay your concerns, Mr. Constantine, Commissioner Constantine, because the -- we did have about a fourteen percent decrease, thirteen and a half percent decrease in the total number of overtime hours that we're predicting to fund next year. We did cut overtime hours by the people being there. We still have about a 38-body need on the road. The addition -- the fewer hours that we will fund next year, though, will be at a higher price, at a higher wage due to the wage adjustment. So, therefore, that is being crunched into the total number, the bottom line figure that you see in your budget document. The guts of all that we, between Commissioner Hancock and I, tried to get some of that worked out. Commissioner Matthews worked with us as well. And, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we talked about that. But I don't have a -- I can't give you to the penny where all of that overtime went because -- because it goes for off-duty court, and it goes for filling in for somebody that's been injured or disabled or is ill. Some of it, as we said during our discussion, will go for the vacancy factor, and it -- and it has to. If you're missing a jail deputy who's overseeing a 52-cell pod, you have to have that jail deputy there. And many of these -- much of this overtime goes for jail deputies. Much of it goes for dispatchers. Much of it goes for road patrol officers. We only asked you for road patrol officers. So this -- this is a -- a fairly complex issue, and I'm not trying to make it seem less so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make sure I get the math right here, Commissioner Hancock. The 7 positions times 71 would be roughly 497,000, and then there was the additional 300,000 plus when you would add 9 positions that took it up. So if you add that 497 and 300,000, that's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Eight hundred. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, roughly 800,000. I just want to make sure we're saying the same thing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be consistent with my numbers. What I heard the sheriff say is that he can't fund 9 positions with a cut of $400,000. He can only fund in his estimation five. So there's -- there's still a divergence on that issue if this board wants to go that direction in -- in reinstating some funds in exchange for -- for law enforcement positions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Didn't we just now speak of putting in seven, though? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- that's -- I was trying to strike a middle ground there, that if we're gonna make a -- if we're gonna put a million dollars back into his budget, I'm more comfortable seeing something like seven positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I like the seven positions. It's just my math came up to 800,000. If I'm not figuring that out right, you need to help me. That's all. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you cut the million to eight, then you're going to look at five positions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm hearing is the over -- the required overtime, required overtime for those things that the new positions won't account for, is the difference between what the sheriff is seeing at -- at $400,000 for positions and 600,000 for overtime. That apparently is his comfort zone. To go to 7 positions, we're asking him to reduce that $600,000 overtime comfort zone down another $150,000. And my -- my initial zone was 350 so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the re -- but I'm -- just to -- to come back to a central place I think, we are -- this -- this -- this analysis is very good because before I didn't know where the million four came from, and I was troubled by that. But this obviously is very detailed and very thought out and -- and very, you know, examined. However, even for me I think we're getting to the point that we should stop and pull back. If we've said, okay, a million dollars can go back in because as we have examined it, it might be for overtime, it might have been for positions, it might be -- you know, but we need to not -- there comes a point when we need to get out of the law enforcement business. If -- if you have found a way to be comfortable with the million seven comes out, the four hundred comes out -- excuse me, the million seven stays out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you -- that -- and -- and four hundred comes out but a million goes back in and then we ask him to please maximize that with road patrols and tell him that we think that means five, seven, nine, but he has to spend that money. We can't tell him how to spend it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only concern I have is that there are -- and we all answer for this. But there are at least three people up here today that are -- are going to be hammered when people get their tax bills. I mean, and -- and to be -- to be just to that position, we need to say taxes, if they go up, are going up because, boom. And I'm not willing to say because we funded increased overtime in the sheriff's department. I can't do that. So we need to -- we need to be a little more specific about what the dedication of some of those sources are. And my trade-off was increased patrols versus just a blanket overtime check. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm agreeing with you that the answer is increased patrols. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Time out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But let's don't pick the number. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Time out. How did we get to a million? We've just set here and talked about 7 -- 7 increased positions at $500,000 plus $300,000 makes $800,000. Where's -- where's a million? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I initially had a million when I was assuming nine new positions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. But we're saying seven. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Let me -- let me ask the question -- same -- same question, just a little different way. If -- if they are 7 positions at 71,000 apiece, that's 497, half a million dollars, and then half a million more the same price just to cover their overtime and stuff again, you know, I -- I -- I missed that. It's like -- it cost me twice as much for a position. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can you help us with that? MS. MEYERS: I'll try. I don't know. I'm kind of confused myself. But I think we're mish mashing these numbers now together -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's my -- MS. MEYERS: -- where we had the million seven that we were talking about for attrition. Attrition can be people. In our case it can be salaries, overtime, both lines. Is that -- is that how you come up with attrition when you're saying this 1.7 million dollars that you -- you are not budgeting for but it is being set aside in your reserves that we may come back and ask you for? So if our overtime is running more, we can't come and ask for that, only if we don't have the people. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think I -- MS. MEYERS: And now we're mixing -- now we're talk -- we had this million four that you had reduced our budget by last Thursday and now you're saying, well, we'll give you a million dollar back if you add nine road patrol deputies. Well, we had ten positions, nine and a half FTEs, in the budget that we needed the 400,000. The sheriff has said, I can compromise. We can probably find the cuts in the health insurance and some other areas, the dental or wherever it is for the 400,000. We need that million dollars back in the budget just to get us back to status quo current operating as he asked for his budget. Now, if you're adding nine more people -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you hear what she just said? MS. HEYERS: -- or asking for nine more people, then to me that sounds like that's more money. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, what -- what -- and he was on the telephone. What -- repeat what you just said. You need a million dollars back just to get back where you were in the budget, not to add anybody or anything, not to do anything any different. MS. HEYERS: That would get us back to with our expanded COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That -- that gets me back to last week and our trouble. MS. HEYERS: -- which was the nine and a half FTE which, there again, it's the -- you know, it's the sheriff's discretion on those nine and a half. We went through that. They were the five YRD and the two dispatch and -- and so on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no. MS. HEYERS: And now you're saying specifically you want nine road patrol. To me that's in addition to this million dollars that we need back in that. If you want him to convert those positions, that's up to him. But we need the million dollars back just to get us back even. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I hear -- what I hear you saying is if we put the million back in, other than the positions shown in the budget, there will be no new additional positions. Is that what you're telling me? MS. HEYERS: Five hundred and seventy-three thousand six hun -- that would fund $573,600 in new positions. Where he chooses to do that is up to him. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, where was -- where was our discussion because it doesn't seem to be surfacing? She's arguing positions that we never -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. The discussion was about 1.4 million dollars. The 1.4 million dollars is part of the number that staff informs me is to be used to fund the 10 positions, 573,000 as I said when we came back in the room, the overtime phased-in positions for this year annualized, insurance, premium adjustment, and the things that we were talking about during the presentation last Thursday. So I guess what I'm hearing from staff in my very brief discussion was that we'd be adding five, seven, nine positions now if we were talking about patrol positions instead of -- so that would be in addition to the million. The million dollars is there just to preserve what we have and to add the ten positions, the five YRDs, two dispatchers, intelligence analyst, and a school crossing guard into the budget for this year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're right back where we were Thursday. And correct me if I'm wrong. But what I heard the staff just get up and say is we want the million dollars back, and it's exactly what we asked for last week. Just to get back where we were, we need that million dollars back. And I see Crystal back there nodding her head. SHERIFF HUNTER: And the -- and the $400,000 would be the cut that we would try to find. That's my mistake. In our discussion with you, I thought we were talking about new money as well. And I'm told by staff that that is money that we've requested as part of the budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- let me ask a question. I -- after last Thursday sometime -- and I couldn't tell you exactly when -- but I believe I heard you on the radio I think it was or someplace say that with the proposed reduction that we talked about last Thursday that you would not have to remove any road patrol deputies. You would not have to remove law enforcement people. SHERIFF HUNTER: No. I have not made that quote. I told the radio -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think we can pick that up somewhere. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know. It may have been newspaper. It might have been radio. SHERIFF HUNTER: What -- what they were wanting was how many people will you lose. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. SHERIFF HUNTER: And I said I don't know what the consequence of the cut would be at this time. Will you lose people? We could lose people. Would it be road patrol people? I said, well, it may be road patrol people. It may be civilian. But it's a significant cut. Those were the -- those were the quotes I gave, and we were predicting some very large cuts if -- if 3.1 million dollars was lost to the agency. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if we're back to -- I got two or three questions or points. If we're back to the discussion on Thursday and what appeared to be a compromise with Commissioner Hancock is off the table now, then there are a couple things that -- again, I go back, and I -- I haven't to my satisfaction got a clear explanation yet. We were specifically told that by funding and filling those 28 positions which you were confident we could do and we did do by adjusting the pay scale that we would see a dramatic savings in overtime and a dramatic savings in attrition. And those were two of the big dollar items that appeared in the budget, and that's where the discussion was Thursday is, boy, those went up even though we were told this would show us a, quote, dramatic savings. And what happened? Where are those dramatic savings? And I understand, yeah, you've budgeted less hours. But, man, there are a lot of hours in there for overtime that -- Commissioner Hancock, I heard you say something, 888,000 or something? Just when you do the math, it breaks down to what could be full-time personnel regular positions. SHERIFF HUNTER: If they were -- if those 88,000 hours for discussion purposes were in a particular number, a specified number of positions, certainly you would look at those positions and say, I'm going to fill that position with a full-time person instead of paying overtime. And what I have described to you is something different than that. There are full-time positions in there that we would like to fill that we've been trying to fill that we spend overtime monies on because we can't attract people. That's a couple years ago up until now. But there are other features to overtime: Off-duty court, special details, special events, hurricanes, downed aircraft if that should happen in this county. There are -- we aren't able to detail exactly for you today, me standing here at the podium, what those actual events were. We could get closer to it and -- and describe that to you. But what I said to you was we reduced the total number of overtime hours we're projecting to be worked by about 13 percent. And the difference is that we're going to be spending more for those hours in the future because it's a higher wage that we are calculating those hours at. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know how much more percentage-wise per hour you're spending on overtime? SHERIFF HUNTER: No, not off the top of my head. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably about 20. SHERIFF HUNTER: We'll have to get that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want an about. And that's a legitimate question. I don't know if anybody knows that in here, Crystal or -- could we just -- SHERIFF HUNTER: They -- they may. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not willing to give up entirely on -- on what you and I discussed on the phone, Sheriff. And let me -- let me build the blocks quickly if I may again, and maybe there's something different your staff can -- can tell you that makes it -- that -- that helps us get there. Eighty-eight thousand hours of overtime on a forty-hour work week equates to over forty-two full-time equivalent positions. To fund the level of overtime you've requested is the same as funding the equivalent of 42 FTEs. That concerned me greatly that -- that the overtime is to such a point that that number of positions could be funded full time at the same -- same number of hours, roughly the same amount; okay? SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- on Thursday of last week, 1.4 million dollars was pulled from your budget. Certain things were itemized to arrive at that 1.4 million. One was $600,000 in overtime and benefits. One was a -- several hundred thousand dollars in possible health insurance and -- and coverage questions. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's disappeared, though. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's down to 200,000. Whoopee. We're at 800,000. There was a $50,000 mistake in the budget you presented to us that added back in revenues. There's a $20,000 travel item. And somehow we got to -- I think your tally was 1.6 million and we -- we've proposed 1.4. Here's my point: To restore -- we never went after the five youth relations positions. No one went after the school crossing guard. No one said those should be eliminated. And we were not told that that 1.4 million would mean the school crossing guard would be outta here or that one of those youth -- youth relation deputies would be outta here. I never heard that. I don't think it was your intention at that point if you had to stick to that 1.4 million to eliminate the 5 youth relations deputies. Now, I'm -- I'm speaking for you, and I'm -- I'm sorry. But when I talked to you about restoring a portion of that 1.4 million dollars, my statement was that for the equivalent of some 42 full-time equivalents, if we're going to bring a million dollars back that we took out on Thursday, I would like to see an increase in patrol staffing so that the taxpayer has a little more grasp on what they're getting for their tax bill this year than if we had just funded your requested overtime. It was a trade-off. It was exchanging full-time equivalents for a portion of that overtime but still giving you approximately $350,000 toward overtime. Based on what your staff has told you is that million dollars you and I were talking about is needed to fund other things that were never on the table. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but if I -- may I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Finish. I mean -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I guess the reason I'm confused is that I thought you and I were very clear in that discussion on what we were -- we were saying. And you now tell me you thought I was talking about a new funding source like I was going to SHERIFF HUNTER: No. I thought we were talking about the overtime. But what staff told me and reminded me of is that the whole million dollars is not overtime, of course. There's some overtime in there. If -- we already talked about a reduction in overtime when I came to the podium to begin this discussion by about $100,000. So we're taking some of that money away on the front end, but there's some overtime money in there. And I believe, if I understand what you're saying, is take some of that overtime money and convert it to full-time positions which I told you I'd be willing to do. And perhaps what we should do right now is freeze the discussion there and let me see what the real -- what the hard numbers are because we're grasping at numbers, and I don't -- I don't have them in front of me because I'm in agreement with you. I would like to have road patrol positions. And certainly if there's any way to convert overtime hours to full-time position hours, we would take that opportunity. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But isn't it our function, though, to -- to justify whatever number we think is appropriate for the sheriff's budget that we can justify individually? You may justify it based on nine new deputies. I may justify it based on health insurance. But we need to give him a number. And then it's his job. I -- I mean, I -- I'm a thousand percent sure that if he can buy a deputy for five bucks or buy an hour of deputy's overtime for ten bucks, he's going to buy it for five. So -- so once you've reached in your own mind an analysis, a justification for a number that makes sense, then we turn it to him, and it becomes his job. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that I'm asking the law enforcement professional if my arrival at that number is correct or accurate. And what I'm hearing is you can't tell me that right now. You think there may be some validity in it, but -- but we don't know. So, you know -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, no. We talked on the phone. Eighty-eight thousand hours doesn't equate necessarily to forty-two full-time equivalent hours or positions due to the fact that you were using two thousand eighty hours. We're using 1,556 hours. So I -- I haven't run those numbers out between the time I drove from the training center over here. But I -- I like the idea of trying to do -- move in that direction. I just can't give you the actual number today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I asked a minute ago about the 13 percent. I don't know if you got an answer on the -- how much -- what percent the hourly rate for your overtime went up. I just did a little math. And if you do -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, realizing that there's about 600 members of the agency being paid all different salaries, Commissioner Constantine, I can't give you a fixed salary that the overtime will be today. We'll try to give you an average. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On average. I assume you based that on something. SHERIFF HUNTER: And what we're going to try to give you now is an average overtime rate. MS. HEYERS: The average overtime rate from a quick calculation that we were trying to do today, there is an -- there was an 11 percent increase in the overtime rate. And we have reduced the overtime hours thirteen and a half percent. Does that answer your question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just if you do a little algebra, then there shouldn't be a marked increase in the bottom line number. If you have a 13 percent decrease in X '- MS. HEYERS: In the hours. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and an 11 percent increase in Y '- MS. HEYERS: The rate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that in that line item the overtime and benefits was lumped into one. And part of the benefits was the $425,000 for health insurance less the 1.6 million dollars. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just wondering as we are all here still sort of pondering and getting sort of glazed looks in our eyes, are we going to hear from the public who are here because maybe they'll shed some light? MS. HEYERS: Can I try one more scenario or numbers? And I know we're all probably, like you say, bleary eyed in numbers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will it result in any new positions? MS. HEYERS: Yes, nine, I think, where you would like to be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nine that were already in the budget, though. MS. HEYERS: Or -- but, like you say, it's at the sheriff's discretion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, here's the thing: Commissioner Hac'Kie made a good point earlier. It's -- it's really the point I always try to make in this discussion is that we shouldn't be telling the sheriff which -- which parts of his budget to fund with what money, whether it's personnel or equipment or whatever it happens to be. We need to look at it on a more global perspective and that, you know, the 1.4 million equates to 2.8 percent of the overall budget request. That really doesn't sound like a lot of money to try to -- to take out of a budget. I think if you'd look at what the county commission's done on our side of the budget, we've certainly taken out a lot more in the last week than 2.8 percent. And I'm sure the sheriff is certainly not going to come up here and say that a 2.8 percent reduction in request is going to collapse his organization or anything. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Important to point -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not going to get into that sort of thing I'm sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Important to point out that's still a 12 percent increase. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's -- yeah, and it is still a 12 percent increase over last year. SHERIFF HUNTER: Here we go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. SHERIFF HUNTER: I may have an answer along the lines that Commissioner Hancock and I spoke of earlier -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Please let's -- let's do it. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise I'm out of here. SHERIFF HUNTER: When we spoke, Commissioner, we were talking about the overtime portion of that adjustment to the budget. And here's where the confusion came in. If you'll recall that the overtime increase, the expanded portion of the increase, was $600,000, and you were saying take -- instead of spending all that on overtime, why don't you buy some full-time equivalent positions and use some of that for overtime. I said, yes, that's a good idea if we can -- if we can make that work out because there are overlaps, and there are part shifts here and part shifts there that we're trying to fund with that overtime. I said I'd work with you on that, and it may not be nine positions. It may be four positions. And we -- and remember I said that's what? Two hundred and eighty or ninety thousand dollars. Maybe we can work that out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In fairness, we didn't lock down a number. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my suggestion. SHERIFF HUNTER: We did not, right. The remainder would remain in overtime. So a total of $600,000 of that -- this now hypothetical million dollars would be in this discussion overtime, but I'm removing $100,000 of the $600,000 expanded overtime budget, so that leaves us $500,000 to talk about because that's our agreement, try to reduce by $400,000. I'm saying to you right now we will take that $500,000 -- if this pleases the board as it does me, I'd like to see road patrol positions, and I'll try to make this work out. I'll take the 4 positions at $71,400 each, put those in place as rapidly as possible. October is what our target date is. Hire them October 1, prepare them for the academy, get them in the academy, and get them out the other end by June. That's what the time frames would be, keeping the other part of that $500,000 for overtime. The remainder of that $500,000 is all those other things. They were the phased-in positions. They were the new positions. It was liability insurance. It was everything that are part of this budget. So to that extent you and I are still talking about the same things as long as we're talking about the overtime. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my question goes one step further. The previous million that you had -- now we said it was 1.6 this year, and we're talking about the additional 600,000. The previous million because your total overtime and benefits I think was 1.6 million, can any of that be converted to positions? And -- and I guess I want to ask you to look at the overtime as a whole and converting it to positions, not just the 600,000. I understand what you've said, and I'm not going to disagree with it. SHERIFF HUNTER: And you said would you be willing to risk it, and I said, yes, I'll be willing to a cautious risk -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I apologize for using the words risk, gamble, or anything like that because these are tax dollars, and that's inappropriate so, you know -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. And I know you're not a wagering man. That's on the record. But the -- I'm willing to risk the exposure in the sense that -- that the overtime can be controlled, that the full-time positions, the four patrol positions for discussion purposes, will help us with the overtime. I'm willing to risk that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So somebody tell us what -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So summarize that for us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- what is the numbers we're dealing with. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I can do this. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me ask one thing. Did I just hear you say then that you're going to take the overtime dollars which cumulatively is like a million and a half in the budget and convert some of those dollars and hours to full-time FTEs? Is that what you said? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And thinking that's going to be four. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four, three, four, whatever you can schedule to get in there. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's what I'm saying. I was talking about the $600,000 expanded portion of the overtime, cutting back to 500,000 expanded, and converting part of that to full-time positions reserving that other part of the expanded overtime for overtime. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, your current overtime, expanded overtime, doesn't matter to me. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. It's all overtime -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock -- SHERIFF HUNTER: But this was the other part of that discussion, so I was trying to stay true to what Commissioner Hancock and I spoke about. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you explain it to me so it makes sense, Sheriff Hunter, the -- the 500,000 or 600,000 expanded overtime brings it up to a total of how much overtime? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 1.6 million. SHERIFF HUNTER: 1.6 -- 1 -- 1.7 million. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and we can get the help from our registered CPA here, but the expanded is then a big chunk. I mean, it's like a 60 percent expansion or 55 percent expansion. And you do the algebra of number of hours times rate of pay, and you do number of hours minus 13 percent times the rate of pay plus 11 percent. It does not in any way come out to a 55 percent increase. And that's why I'm having the trouble with the overtime pay. I mean, the math -- mathematically it just doesn't work. Doesn't even come close. MS. KINZEL: Okay. For the record, Crystal Kinzel. I'll try this once I guess. What we looked at, we went back over and took the current year pay periods actual overtime hours to date; okay? Then we annualized those assuming that for the rest of this year because we have some of those bodies on board, but they're not actually on the road -- they're going through the training process -- but by the end of the year what in 1995 hours equaled over 100 hour -- 100,000 hours is now in annualized numbers for this current year 79,650 hours. So the hours are less, but at time and a half with an average 11 percent increase on the hourly rate because of the pay plan, the dollars are more. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And that's what I'm -- that's exactly what I said, and I don't understand the mathematics of it. And I was thinking it was 88,000 hours, and you said 79, so it's even a bigger decrease. MS. KINZEL: Well, 88 is for -- what we're projecting for next year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Okay. I was going actual this year to this year. And if you project that out then for '97 to the proposed budget, it is the 88 that Jean mentioned, and we can show it, you know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Let me ask this specific because maybe you can answer it here. The number of hours then, what you're projecting for next year, would be roughly a 13 percent decrease in the number of hours from 101 to 88. MS. KINZEL: Right, the 88 from 102 is 13. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The rate of pay we are told is roughly 11 percent -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- higher. MS. KINZEL: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and when you plug in those number of hours at 13 percent less times the rate of pay at 11 percent increase, it doesn't come out to a total number that is 50 some odd percent, 55 percent higher. MS. KINZEL: It does if you add in the benefits at 47 percent on top of the hours. We're just looking at base pay, and then if you add in the benefits on top of the hourly rate base pay, it's about 47 percent because remember our certified retirement alone is 27 percent, and you pay Social Security and retirement all on those hours. We were just looking hours to hours, and I think that makes up your difference -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ahh. MS. KINZEL: -- and what you're missing is that benefits portion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Were benefits not included in the past? MS. KINZEL: They were. They were inc -- they've always been -- they're in that number that we showed you as the 600,000, remember? It's overtime plus the benefits associated with that. So when we were giving you this 88,000 hours, that's hours to hours, base bay to base pay, and then on top of that -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Crystal, the 11 percent that you said the pay plan is increased by, does that 11 percent include benefits -- MS. KINZEL: No. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- or is it just strictly pay? MS. KINZEL: Pay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That answers his question. MS. KINZEL: That's the salary rate. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. KINZEL: And that's the missing piece. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it was included in the old number too, so, I mean, that's not a -- shouldn't be a new and additional charge over and above. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, it's not -- no. What she said -- what she's saying is that the -- the salary, the pay per hour, has gone up 11 percent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When you add the benefits to it at 47 percent, it has really gone up close to 16 percent. And if you run those numbers you'll -- you'll get yours -- yours to balance. The hours have gone down 13 percent. The actual compensation, benefits included, is sixteen or sixteen and a half percent based on what you're saying. MS. KINZEL: That's getting closer, right. I think it was that benefits chunk that we were missing when we kept saying that $88,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so number of hours minus 13 times rate of pay plus 16 equals plus 55 percent? Again '- MS. KINZEL: We can go over the hundreds with you, but I think that is the element in your -- if you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That does help. I just -- I don't know if the math still comes all the way to 55 percent, but it does help us a lot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It certainly gets us into the balipark anyway. I'm sure we have public speakers on this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have a letter from a Mr. Ruhl. I see he's back in the room. Do -- do you want to do this or just to put it in the record? Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: Hay I enter for just a moment? I understand -- do we have -- is it 7 or 7:30? Seven? I'm going to ask that Crystal be dismissed. She does have another appointment in the north end of town for a budget presentation as well there for a group of citizens, and I will remain with Jeannie, and we'll try to handle your questions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to dismiss Crystal. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Crystal, tell Naples Park I said hello, please. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one in the eastern part of the county at 7:30. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Public speakers. After our public speakers, Commissioner Hancock, I'm going to need a little summary from you because I still don't see the -- the math there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would like to wrap this up because we can sit here and talk about this hour and that hours and those hours and some new hours. We can do this till doomsday. We just need to wrap this up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it facilitate the public speakers for me to propose something, let's take a straw vote of the board, and the speakers can say, yeah, we go with it or no, we disagree with it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many public speakers do we have? MR. DORRILL: Six. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Six? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are they all sheriff's department employees? MR. DORRILL: Some. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me -- let me wrap this up then because I don't believe that I'm going to see a lot of -- I'm going to hear a lot that's going to be different from what I'm going for. What I'm suggesting is that we reduce the sheriff's budget by a total of $400,000. I've already discussed the 1.7. That's not an element. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reduce the sheriff's budget by a total of $400,000. And based on what the sheriff has told us, there will be a minimum of 4 new patrol positions coming on line at the October 15 academy. That -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's it in a nutshell. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And those four are in addition to the nine that are already in the -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say three, Mrs. Matthews, and we'll know we've got three. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm a third person on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me inquire. I mean, are we then -- for 250,000 bucks apiece we get new -- new deputies. I'm trying to figure out what else is different than last Thursday. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It leaves -- and -- and the reason I'm -- I'm willing to go with that is because, as Sheriff Hunter explained, that overtime doesn't consist of just those areas where you're filling a certified position that's on patrol or in the jail but consists of -- and I -- I know this. My brother's a detective. Every time he would go spend time in court, if it was outside of his workday, it was overtime pay. Yet it wasn't benefiting the community. You know, he wasn't out there doing his job, so to speak. He was in court and that kind of thing. So what I'm hearing is that most of their overtime are things that filled positions cannot eliminate or subsidize completely. So based on that and, again, based on the fact that he is the elected law enforcement official and that, you know, I'm gonna have to trust his judgment to some extent, I'm willing to believe that the 4 positions at a minimum are all he can do; yet we still take $400,000 out of his budget. And -- and that's what I've put on the table. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we already have three votes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris, to drag this thing when you're trying to bring it to a close. But it was just 20 minutes ago that one of your staff members showed up -- stood up and said, we need that million dollars just to get where we are. And so I've heard both sides now. I need to know on the record is that -- what's gonna -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, does the million dollars get you back where you were? The million dollars gets you new deputies? I mean, I've heard two or three different things now all with the same amount of money. SHERIFF HUNTER: I can -- I'll say it for the record. This sort of takes us all the way back. But we needed the 1.4 to keep us where we were. What we said we would do is trim a lot of different places and work with the actuary on the health program to try to cut monies from the health program. We'll try to cut monies from the overtime budget. I may be back to you again saying help me because we need the overtime to fund these positions. We had the following critical events or we had the following issues that we were confronted with, Crackle Barrel, whatever. We need the 1.4. We've agreed to one million to try to cut where we can, remove the dental plan. We think we can get there. What Commissioner Hancock has proposed is recognize some full-time equivalent positions in that overtime portion of that million dollars, reserve the nine positions. There will be some other things that you have to do there but try to get some full-time equivalent positions out of that million dollars. And I'm agreeing with him that we will do that. She's not wrong, and I'm not wrong, and you're not wrong. That million dollars is necessary to do what we're doing today whether we spend it for overtime or full-time equivalent positions seems to be the issue for a portion of it. And that -- that's pretty much I think where we're hung up right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're telling me the high -- SHERIFF HUNTER: But it is -- it is true. It's a necessary number. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the highest number you're comfortable with is four FTEs. SHERIFF HUNTER: That would be the highest, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're committing to the 4 FTEs and your goal is to get them on October 1. SHERIFF HUNTER: We're -- we're going to hire them October 1. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. SHERIFF HUNTER: That was the agreement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's let the record reflect then that what we're doing, the county commission has approved a 14.2 percent increase in the sheriff's budget for a total of 6.4 million. And only Bill Clinton would call that a cut, so I don't want to hear anybody in the press or in the -- anywhere else call this a cut. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got four more deputies coming on line. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. Plus we have four more deputies coming on line. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the nine that were already in the budget. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess we could speed things up by asking are there any speakers that want to object to what's been proposed? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those speakers who still want to object can please come forward now. SHERIFF HUNTER: Could I make one more point for the record while we're waiting for any speakers? The 1.7 million, I hate to bring it up again, but staff made one point about the 1.7 million that I should not permit myself to overlook. And I know, Commissioner Matthews, you're aware. Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm sure you are as well. The 1.7 million that we were talking about for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Attrition. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- attrition would be monies once again -- and I hate to bring this up for Commissioner Constantine. But if you don't have the body and we're talking about, say, a jail position or a dispatch position or a particularly critical road position on a particular shift and I have to spend overtime to make certain that that's there, while those four people are going through the academy, I have to spend money to make sure that I'm covering what we were going to spend overtime for. I may be back before you asking for some overtime as well out of that 1.7 that we were talking about as attrition recognizing attrition as attrition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they're -- if they're additional, though, they're new. And I'm not sure how you'd be spending overtime to cover them if they don't exist yet. SHERIFF HUNTER: Because the need is there. We just haven't put a person on that need. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. SHERIFF HUNTER: We're spending overtime on the need, and we're hoping to replace that under Commissioner Hancock's plan with a full-time equivalent position. So, therefore, until that's done, you have an overtime position. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's already included in here. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whether we had those four positions -- whether we had those four positions or not added, you'd be covering them in here. They're already in this budget somewhere. SHERIFF HUNTER: We're saying that we did budget some money for overtime. It's -- it's not as precise as you'd like it to be, plus there's an unfunded need of about 38 positions in the district, and I'm trying to hold that with what we have today. But I'm asking you to -- to have the latitude and at least entertain us, entertain the request when I come back before you perhaps next year if we need overtime monies to listen to our request and permit me to come before you for a budget amendment and recognizing that that 1.7 could be either attrition -- it's attrition vacancy numbers, but it's also overtime numbers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the commission understands that very well, sir. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was one gentleman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There was one gentleman who still wanted to speak and talk us out of this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to be on the microphone. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need to -- you need to be on the microphone. MR. LANDOLFI: My name is Tony Landolfi, year-round resident, displaced commissioner from that land up north. You have my utmost respect and deepest sympathy. What I want to do, you know, the numbers kind of threw me off. I'm lost on it, and I wasn't going to talk about numbers anyway. What I want to talk about or share with you is what these numbers may reflect. And so I'm talking about the pain that's out there, you know, pain of kidnapping, robbery -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I appreciate that, sir, but we've had hours of discussion on the budget -- MR. LANDOLFI: That's okay. But you asked me up here to speak, and I want to just say that much -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. MR. LANDOLFI: -- because something has to be said about it. You know, we talk about attrition. This -- we have to say something about the people who are experiencing this kind of stuff out there. You know, I had a bunch of high school seniors, and we had a seminar on the Ten Commandments. This is not a religious thing. And I said to them, now, look, you got 45 minutes to take 2 of them out and see what you could do. They couldn't agree on taking -- getting rid of ten -- of two of the ten. Let's take ten of the items of criminality here. Can you take two of them out? Can you take out rape, murder, in -- whatever it is? Can you say, Sheriff Hunter, let's take those two out, and we'll balance the budget or modify them? So I couldn't do it. So I'm just, you know, getting the point across there's more to this than numbers. And if you have to go to the population for more money -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's the numbers. MR. LANDOLFI: -- we gotta bite the bullet somewhere along the line. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- I think we agree with you, and that's why the board has gone ahead with a six and -- 6.4 million dollar increase which is a 14.2 percent increase because those are valid issues. And actually compliments to the sheriff and his staff because I think all those things you mentioned, kidnappings, rape, and murder and all those violent crimes, as statistics show are actually down in the last several years under him so -- MR. LANDOLFI: You know Los Angeles, 911, 80 percent of the calls were noncritical. Now, that's a burden. I'm sure we have a share of that here, but we have to make some distinction as to what's appropriate and where the priorities are for the people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dotrill, when do we talk about franchise fees and partial years -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tomorrow. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tomorrow? Then we decide how we fund this? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, that's the 16th, isn't it, the franchise fees? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tomorrow, isn't it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think it's on tomorrow's agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Franchise fees are the 16th. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. All right. MR. BENNETT: I'll be very brief. I always seem to come at the end of the day, don't I? But I'm Bob Bennett, and I'm a year-round resident. I've been here for 18 years. And seeing the community change, I won't dote on that, but we had two-lane roads then, and certainly crime has risen here. Things happen very quickly when they happen. I'm going to talk about the technology for a minute. The capital budget had been dramatically cut back as I understand it. And I also like to think of efficiency. If -- if the time that the deputies are spending on paperwork which is very significant -- the sheriff could speak to that better than I can but I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob, I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't think we've cut the capital budget dramatically here. I mean __ CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think we cut it at all, did we? MR. BENNETT: Well, that's what Crystal said. Is that true? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Over the past several years there's been -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we've -- we've added -- we've left -- put in computer-aided dispatch, and we've put in the 800 megahertz. We put in all that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In fairness, the capital budget's not up for discussion today. MR. BENNETT: Yeah, you've done -- as I understand it, you -- you're -- you -- the 911 has been supported but no money for computers. There's no money for -- I'll just touch on the things I'm -- I'm -- I'm aware of and interested in. There's a tremendous amount of paperwork that the -- that the deputies are involved in. If through efficiencies in technology that could be cut back, that would be a significant savings in money or time at least. And you'd have more -- more time for deputies on the road doing law enforcement. Second issue is safety. I'm aware of the fact that when a deputy stops a car it takes quite a -- quite a long time for the information to come through on the individual that they stop in detail. There are systems out there now -- in fact, I saw one last week over in Pompano. I sat in the car and watched it, listened to it -- they can plug in very quickly and get a total rundown on the individual in the matter of a minute, two minutes, seconds in many cases. I watched them. They said, well, let's -- let's test out a hit-and-run situation and give us the last three numbers of a -- of a -- of a car that you -- license you hypothetically saw that's just been a hit and run, so I gave them three numbers. They came up within a minute or two minutes with all the cars with those last 3 numbers in a 40-mile radius of Pompano where we were and the names, type of car, the whole -- the whole works. And then you could eliminate the colors, and there they had their cars to look for. Those are just some of the technological things that I believe the sheriff is being deprived of now in this budget. Am I right or wrong? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think any of those things were requested, and we certainly didn't cut them, and I think they have the technology to look up a vehicle by license plate number right now if I'm not mistaken. MR. BENNETT: Very slowly. Very slowly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyway, the point is they didn't request it, and we didn't cut it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So how much do you suggest we raise the sheriff's budget by instead of 14 percent? Do you want to go up 20 percent? Twenty-four? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fifty. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The capital budget is not on the agenda for today. MR. BENNETT: All right. That's it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. If that does it, we're outta here. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:55 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN 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: Barbara Donovan and Shelly Semmler