Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/20/1996 B (Budget Workshop) BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 20, 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 9:20 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 Hanager David Weigel, County Attorney CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll convene the budget hearings for this 20th day of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, we might as well start with an invocation and pledge. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's do pray. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you for today, and we thank you especially for the dedication and progress of yesterday's meeting of the county commission. It's our prayer today that -- that the efforts would be equally fruitful and informative for the people of this community and that you would bless our time here together. We pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments before we start. One, yesterday at the end of the day what we did with Mr. Archibald I see as what our role is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have a particular amount. You let that manager decide what the priorities are within that department. That's just -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He knows what has to be done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've said that every year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other thing is this is just kind of exciting. You may remember my frustration last year at one point saying, gosh, we've been here eight hours, and we have done virtually nothing. It's kind of nice at the end of the day yesterday, even though there was a little tug of war along the way, to have a very productive day. Hopefully we'll have the same. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is our first item of the day? MS. GANSEL: The sheriff. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The sheriff has a presentation that they'd like to make on their budget proposal for FY '97, so I'll turn it over to June Myers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure after that we're going to do the two capital items? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The whole capital? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, capital. MR. DORRILL: For those of you who are interested, I was given this morning a copy of the Lee County Commission workshop package, which is 6 pages this year, and the entire county commission workshop took 53 minutes this year in order for them to review their budget. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to do that one year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are they resulting in a tax increase? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And their budget is twice ours? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they told me that they do is that they have a citizen committee -- that they have committees for each section of the budget, and they tell them you all come in and let us know if what they submitted to you is good and if you like it. This is their -- this is what they get when they get those books (indicated). I'm not sure, you know. I don't -- I'm not sure I think that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they can blame the citizens during an election year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. MYERS: Jean Myers, budget -- budget analyst for the sheriff's office. I'd like to take about ten minutes and go through some highlights of our budget. I hope everyone can see the overheads. If not, I'll try and get out of the way. A little information about our county. As you all know, 2,025 square miles, one of the largest counties east of the Mississippi River. Our permanent population unincorporated is about 165,899 unincorporated permanent, and about 20,600 is in the city is permanent population. That's from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research out of the University of Florida. Of course, we all know that that fluctuates during our season and tourist time. But as you can see, the sheriff's office is broken out -- down into six substation districts; 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. I don't know why they couldn't count, but North Naples, Golden Gate, East Naples, Marco, Everglades, and Immokalee. The crime rate in Collier County and the State of Florida and the City of Naples. The orange is the State of Florida, blue is Naples Police Department, and the green is the Collier County Sheriff's Office. As you can see from 1989, the sheriff's office crime rate has decreased and is still well below that of the City of Naples and the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The crime rate in the county is lower than the crime rate in the city? MS. MYERS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Based on, like, per capita or something? MS. MYERS: How that is figured is -- the crime rate is figured with part-one crimes, the worst of the worst, and population. And it is divided, the number -- the part-one incidents divided by population, and then it's per 100,000 population. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's a crime rate of really serious crimes, not breaking and entering, and not that domestic violence is not a very serious crime, but -- MS. MYERS: Domestic violence, no, is not a part-one crime. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. So this -- can you tell me what are -- that's just a shocking little number to me there that the City of Naples is -- has a higher crime rate than Collier County. But I'm sorry; I won't waste the board's time with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, you know those downtown metropolitan areas. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's tough. But we'll talk about that another time. MS. MYERS: Okay. It's also in your budget book -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. MYERS: The -- the part-one crimes, but that is one of the items that has been misconstrued in the county, that the sheriff's office crime rate is larger than the City of Naples, and that is not true. We are below that. We did -- well, I did want to point out, though, in 1995 the sheriff's office did have a slight increase in the crime rate in 1995. And this is all done on calendar year, not fiscal year. It's all on calendar year. But we are not looking at that as a bad thing because the largest area of increase -- and this may help Commissioner Mac'Kie -- is in the area of larcenies, which is a part-one crime, and that is the crime of the taking of anything of value from -- from someone else. And with our community policing program that has been implemented, we are getting a lot more feedback and -- from the community, and people are reporting those crimes, anything from fishing rod out of the back of a pickup truck or something out of some -- an open garage or a bicycle in a yard, and so that is a good thing. And you -- you will see an increase in those reported crimes; and, of course, with an increase in those reported crimes, you will see an increase in the crime rate, which we did see. So that's not always a bad thing. Our budget -- proposed budget for fiscal year '96-'97 is broken down by our three funds; the judicial fund, 2 percent; our court bailiffs, courtroom security; law enforcement, our largest fund. I'm sorry if you can't see all that. And that is the majority of our budget, 73 percent; and then corrections, almost 13 million dollars just in corrections, 25 percent, that is, to run our -- the two jails, the Immokalee Stockade and the -- the Naples jail here at the Collier County Government Complex, a total of 754-bed capacity between those two jails. And all these graphs are in your budget book or your handout, I hope. Our proposed budget, 52,004,200, is our current requested budget for fiscal year '96-'97, and that is the form that we have gone with with the budget office, and we are trying to conform with your policies, because you can see the next column is where we did take the 4 percent attrition on personal services. Current personal services, that's the 1,706,900, and then you see the expanded column, $573,600. That is the only expanded portion of our budget that we are asking for for the next fiscal year. So if you take the 52,004,200 less the 4 percent attrition plus the expanded, that's where we're coming up with the 50.8. And we did also -- excuse me -- the sheriff did ask for in his certification letter that that million seven be reserved for sheriff's office attrition just as you did this year. One major point, our budget is 81 percent personal services. We are a service industry, very manpower intensive. Operating expenses are only 16 percent, and capital is 3 percent. And you can see as opposed -- our capital is only a million five. That doesn't even come close to the million seven that we were asking in reserves and the 4 percent attrition, so all of our cars and computers, which is mainly what that is now, is only a million five. The expanded positions, the $573,600 is for 10 positions. Actually that -- the North Naples crossing guards will actually -- a half full-time equivalent. They show up there as 10 full positions, but it is a half FTE. Five youth relations deputies, the sheriff is targeting youth crime this year in our budget and the prevention of crime. He would like to put those youth relations deputies out to the elementary schools. They currently -- there's currently about three youth relations deputies that cover all 18 elementary schools, and it's very hard for them to even get to their elementary school one day a week. We would like to beef that up. We are seeing increases in disturbances or occurrences, and in the -- as far back as the elementary schools, and we would like to stop that crime early in a child's development and get them on the -- on the -- on the right path and to stay on that path. Two dispatchers, that is for the 800 megahertz reconfiguration. One crime prevention specialist. That is a civilian position, there again targeting crime prevention. As I had mentioned, the larcenies, that is a preventable crime. Even though we would -- we do encourage the reporting -- excuse me, the reporting of those crimes, we also want to educate the public on the prevention and how to lock your cars, lock your homes, and all those good things. Crime intelligence, data entry person position, this is for our crime intelligence bureau. What is happening is our analysts that should be analyzing the data that is put in by a data entry person, they are actually having to put the data in and do not have time to analyze the data. So this is for the entry of the data so that the analysts may analyze that and we may target those areas and grids where the crime is occurring. And then, of course, the North Naples crossing guard, as I had mentioned, is a half-time position. That is for the new Pelican Marsh Elementary School up on Airport Road. Our budget increases since 1993, the dollars have gone up, .68, 6.3, 6.2, 2.5, and 15.5. And everyone says why 15.5, and that is due to our pay plan implementation that the board approved back on November 21st. This was how our certified -- some of our positions, not just certified, stacked up against those counties that you would like us to compare to. And as you can see, we were in the bottom grid of all of those positions. We were 10 out of 11, 8 out of 10, 9 out of 11. And where we asked to implement -- with just the deputy position, we were down there at number 9, $20,571, starting salary for a deputy sheriff here in Collier County. When -- our -- now that we have implemented our pay plan, we asked to go up there about number 5, $24,890, first-year salary for a deputy sheriff in Collier County. As you can see, we are still well below Palm Beach, Cape Coral, Dade, and Sarasota; and we are about third in cost of living in the state. So we did not ask to go to the top. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a quick question on that. You may or may not have the answer. MS. MYERS: Certainly. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we pay for the academy for those individuals that are hired by the Collier County Sheriff's Office? MS. MYERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do the other agencies in the top ten all pay for the academy of law officers hired? MS. MYERS: If they are hired and are not certified, yes, they do -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: -- as far as I know. MS. MYERS: When we came to you with our pay plan back in November, our problem was vacancies. At that time we were running over 70 vacancies in the vacant -- in the agency of which 48 were certified positions, our road deputies that we need out there patrolling the county. Now that we have implemented that pay plan, November 21st when you approved our pay plan implementation, those positions were advertised again in the newspaper over the long Thanksgiving weekend, and Monday when personnel came back into the office, there were over 100 appli -- applications -- applicants wanting applications for positions. So as of May 1st we have conditional offers out to all but seven positions, and those are the -- those are the civilian positions like myself. The certifieds, there are conditional offers out to all positions. So as we had said, if we -- we needed the pay wage adjustment, and if we got that, we would be able to hire up, and that is looking favorable. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: You've hired 48 -- or offers out to 48 certified and to about 15 noncertified; is what that '- MS. MYERS: Right, but all -- at 7.5, and that fluctuates daily. I think at one time it was down to three, and for your -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You hired 48 certifieds or made offers to? MS. MYERS: Correct. And, as a matter of fact, personnel has told us that they have even begun stacking for positions. So if some of those people do end up falling out of the system, failing one of the other tests, that there are other applicants right in line that they're able to begin through the process. Positions in the agency broken down by certified corrections, law enforcement, and civilian. We have civilianized as many positions as we have -- as we are able to, and that has been another area where the sheriff has -- has tried to cut costs. 406 certified law enforcement is proposed for next year, 233 1/2 civilian and 175 corrections to run both jails. And I have a further breakdown, which is also in your budget book, but I don't need to bore you with that. Hajor areas of increase of our budget, personal services, of course, is the largest area. And what we're trying to show here with this chart, which this is in the handout that I just handed out to you this morning, the 35 million -- point 5 million dollars was our '96 personal service adopted budget. November 21st when you approved our pay plan, you approved another million two. That brought us to that new adjusted base of the 36.7 million. Next year's full-year pay plan costs is estimated to be 3.7 million dollars, and that does include the compounding effect of this year's cost of living raises that were given on anniversary date. Then we have the phasing in of our 28 road deputies that were approved by you last year at budget time, and those were phased in nine months and five months, so we have a full-year cost of those deputies for next year, approximately an additional $365,000. A Cop's Ahead match, our community policing match that was also approved by you, that is now nine positions. And this year we took the federal money in the first year, and our 25 percent match over three years then begins in year two and year three. Four career criminal positions is another grant that we've had for six years that is ending. That is the target of the adult career criminals, and we've been very successful with this program. The sheriff would like to keep those positions and -- and keep them on board and continue that -- that program. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long have we gotten grants for that? MS. MYERS: That's been a six-year grant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a history over that six years? MS. MYERS: Yes. The first three years was the juvenile -- after three years, I guess, the program focus has to change. the first three years it was juveniles, and then we focused on adults, and now we -- we have to start a different program, and we are trying to receive funds -- it's called SHOCAP, and that is the serious habitual offenders, the juvenile offenders, and that grant award is still pending, but that is a hopeful award for some -- some other funding for the sheriff's office. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a statistic track record, though, on the last three years? MS. MYERS: I can get you some of that information. Off the top of my head, they give some statistics on how many years that so many people have been sentenced to where they are not getting like two or three years. They are getting the 10 and 20 years and such like that. The overtime and benefits brings us back to our '95 actual level of overtime. If you remember, in last year's discussion at this time, we did cut our overtime budget to bring in those 28 people, and we are still experiencing overtime even though we're hiring people. Plus with our pay wage adjustment our hourly rates are higher, and we do need to increase our overtime. That brings us down to the 42.6 million dollars in personal services. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go into that, can you -- going back to overtime, can you explain that to me again, because last year it seemed the reason it was so much is because we had so many vacancies. Now we have zero vacancies, and I realize the price per hour of overtime has gone up, but I would think from 48 to 70 people to zero would have a remarkable impact on the overtime. MS. MYERS: Right. The other thing you have to remember on those positions for next year -- right now, until September till the end of the fiscal year they are on board, but they are in the training phase at the academy and training. But by October they will be on board, and even though they will be on board, last year, if you remember, we had cut our overtime budget by about four or five hundred thousand dollars asking for those 28. We are still experience -- experiencing that -- an overtime greater than what we had budgeted for this year; and, of course, we have the higher hourly rate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I can piggyback on that then, based on what you just said, we should expect in fiscal year '96-'97 a reduction in overtime. If they're going to be on board in October, we should expect to see in this budget a reduction in overtime. Do we see a substantial reduction in overtime in this budget? MS. MYERS: No, we don't, but you have to remember this is only going back to the '95 level. For the '96 our overtime is probably going to be even higher than our request for next year. if you compare to '95, we're actually comparing to our forecast for '96. It is going down from our forecast from '96, but it's an increase from our '95 level that we decreased last year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But when we were told if we do A, then B. In other words, we were told if you will appropriate these positions, we'll then see a reduction in overtime. The first part we did. The second part we expected to see. And what I'm hearing now is we're not going to see it, at least in this budget. MS. MYERS: Right. Now, based on our experience we have not because -- and, there again, the manpower is such that the availability is so little that they're going to call to call to call that they are still experiencing overtime even -- and we think that that's still going to happen even when we have those 48 people on board beginning next October. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have questions on the career criminal positions. You said the sheriff has made grant applications for another program, SHO something or other? MS. MYERS: Yes, SHOCAP. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Will that entail the hiring of other deputies or officers? MS. MYERS: Yes. If that grant is awarded, I believe it's three positions. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When will we know whether that grant is awarded or not? MS. MYERS: I can't answer that. Hopefully -- I would love to say before September when we come back to you with the hearings, and it could be any day, hopefully before September, and we'd have some more information for you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are we going to be looking to -- let me see if I can say -- phrase this properly. Are we going to be looking to move some of the new hirees just completing the academy into this new program, or are we going to be hiring new bodies for the program and then the program going down the road get shut down two, three years from now, and then we see this again? MS. MYERS: We cannot -- we have -- if we are awarded the grant, we have to physically hire new bodies for those positions when we are awarded the grant. So like you say, we can't take part of our 48 vacancies that we are hiring now and say, okay, now we got this grant, we're going to have you be covered under that SHOCAP grant. That's one of the rules of the grant. It has to be a new hire. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How many positions are in the grant? MS. MYERS: The SHOCAP grant is four. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four positions? MS. MYERS: Four positions. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And are you asking for ten more? MS. MYERS: Ten more, right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think you just got six, but that's the max I would do. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a question. We -- just before this particular discussion we were talking about overtime, and Commissioner Hancock's point is that while we -- we were, I guess, presented last fall the pay scale proposal under the assumption that we would reduce overtime. Then I heard you say that, no, we're not going to do that after all. And where can I see that on a line item in the budget? Where have you budgeted for overtime? MS. MYERS: There was an actual line item for overtime, and there was an overtime as in time and a half, and then there's an overtime straight in your budget book under each fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where is that? MS. MYERS: In the back of the -- and it's the tab that says fund detail. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. Page what? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page 116 it says 1.5 and O.T. straight. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Straight overtime and time and a half. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But that's just for the judicial fund. MS. MYERS: Page 116, correct, is the judicial fund. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then turn on to the next. MS. MYERS: Then it would be to page -- MS. GANSEL: Page 122 is the law enforcement, which is where the bulk of the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same thing for all three in the detail. MS. MYERS: And you do have to add those two lines together. We only budgeted in the line that's overtime time and a half, but we do experience overtime straight. That happens when a deputy does not physically work the 43 hours in a week. If he had a day off and then ended up working a 10 -- 12-hour shift or whatever the case may be, then that's straight time, not time and a half. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So it's a million-dollar figure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's also some on 132 if you're doing the math. MS. MYERS: And then in the corrections fund. That would -- right, page 132. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We were requested to add several positions to assist in adding patrol positions, not corrections positions; is that correct? MS. MYERS: Yes. As a matter of fact, in our -- in the expanded positions none of those positions are law enforcement positions. You saw that there were five youth relations deputies, and this may help Commissioner Hac'Kie. And the reason for that is -- if I may throw up another slide here -- there are 58 positions that we are hope -- hopefully, and some of these grants are still funding -- are pending the -- our application, 58 positions through grants, and this is where -- as you can see the Cop's Ahead, and there's a cop's domestic violence and our victim advocate, and there's the SHOCAP, and we also had the D.R.I.L.L. Academy. This is where the sheriff is trying to target the road patrol deputies. The grant money right now seems to be in road positions, so that's where we're targeting to try and get road deputies is with our grant money. That's why in our regular operating budget requests it was for the five youth relations deputies and the crime prevention data entry person. So that may help Commissioner Matthews with her question, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a phase-in schedule on all those grant positions? I know it's not in our budget, but as a function of the sheriff's office, do you have a phase-in schedule of what the cost to the taxpayer is going to be as those grant positions are terminated to keep the patrol force the same? I'm just asking, do you prepare that. Are you aware of that? MS. MYERS: I do not, but our grant coordinator does, and I could get you some -- are you on -- all the ones like that we have now in effect like say like the Cop's Ahead, when that's through with the three-year 25/75 match, what it would cost us, so we're talking three years down the road that they would be on board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just as a note of concern, we do approve -- the grants come through, and we approve them. And I think we know at that point that three years later there's going to be a payment due to keep the force level the same. On top of those grants ending and those positions being funded we then have additional officers that were requested and granted, and then to see overtime continue to go up on top of that, you can understand the level of concern. MS. MYERS: Yes. Any other questions back on the personal services increases in the budget, and I'll go on to operating and capital? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is for Mr. Dorrill. As I was looking through the minutes of the meeting where the pay plan implementation occurred, there was $619,000 that was appropriated as what I'll call hard cash, and then there was a portion left in reserves that was to be drawn from as needed. And that amount was up to -- I don't remember -- 700,000 or something like that, in other words, 900,000 in reserves, but the pay plan implementation was less than -- I have to -- I -- this number looks correct -- 1.2 million. Has any draw on those reserves been requested, or is any draw on those reserves anticipated to get you through this fiscal year? MR. DORRILL: None -- none has been approved. We heard yesterday -- or I know Ms. Gansel had talked to the budget director last week of the possibility of making a draw against those before the end of the year through the close of business in September. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you tell me what draw you anticipate to request from that -- that fund? MS. MYERS: I can clarify that a little bit. We have made -- back up. Back in November you appr -- we have the 9046 in reserves that was from last year's budget for attrition. We also had a million two in turnback of which six hundred thousand was budgeted turnback. So we -- there was like six hundred nineteen -- it was like a million two one nine so, anyway, round numbers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. MYERS: Of the -- over the budgeted turnback we requested that $600,000 also be granted to us for our pay wage implementation. You granted us half of that, 300,000. A budget amendment was approved by you, I believe, two weeks ago for that amount. So we have drawn that -- we haven't got the check yet from the clerk, but $300,000 we have asked for. As far as the 9046 in reserve, we have not drawn on that yet, because you have to remember the sheriff draws his budget 1/12th every month throughout the year, but in January we receive a 2/12ths draw, so we've already drawn -- we already have September's money in our bank account, so we are not money poor right now. We will not need to draw that money from your bank account probably until the end of August or into September. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me be -- try and be a little more specific with my question here. MS. MYERS: And we are planning to draw the whole amount. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you are planning to draw all of the 1.2 million dollars. MS. MYERS: All but $200,000, which is our budgeted turnback for this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All but how much? I'm sorry. MS. MYERS: Two hundred thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's 900,000 in reserves. We granted six nineteen, and then there's the -- all but two hundred thousand leaves seven hundred thousand, which that's actually one point three, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happened between whenever we did that and now? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. There was -- and, again, this is a policy decision. I understand you don't set policy in the sheriff's office, but in looking at the minutes of that meeting, there was a very specific comment made after the motion, and that was -- and I made it, and I -- and I'll read it: "But again the sheriff is going to have to implement it, and he's going to have to implement so that it doesn't cause his department to request a substantial increase next year. So I'm not going to sit here and make that decision for him." And the sheriff went on to talk about how sensitive he is to tax increases and so forth. The point that was made then is that the implementation of that pay plan had not been fully decided, and this board wasn't going to decide it for him. The suggestion then was that -- to implement a portion of the pay plan and phase it over a two-year period so that the priority positions were funded and the less priority were not the first year, funded the second year. And as I understand it, the sheriff, instead of doing that, just chose to delay a full implementation for a set period; is that correct? MS. MYERS: Its depends how you interpret full implementation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every position he was requesting a salary increase for received it. That's what I'm saying, a full implementation; is that correct? MS. MYERS: There was full -- I don't want to say full. There was implementation of the pay plan, and I'll try and explain this. Not all positions received an increase. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Now I -- I really don't want to go back and talk about the -- you know, the pay plan because that was all presented before, and we all sat through that and -- MS. MYERS: Our compromise was we asked for 80 percent funding of the pay plan, which we had already scaled back from the consultants. And if I could explain that a little bit real quickly, where we started we did not go from our old max to the new max as far as some deputies, say, that had been here 20 years. They were at step 8. They were maxed out. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: With all due respect, we had that discussion during the pay plan. I understand that. MS. MYERS: Okay. So we went to midpoint and back. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a yes-no question, and this may get to what you're trying to get there. Of all those positions regardless of what level, whether it was eighty percent or a hundred percent or whatever was requested, of all the positions that were requested to have some sort of increase, how many received no increase? I guess that's not a yes-no question. How many received no increase? MS. MYERS: I can't answer that fully. I can on the certified side. As you can -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, how many positions overall of what was presented to us and requested were any of those -- did they say, well, we're not going to give it to them after all? MS. MYERS: No. But some of them may have fell in that where they at the midpoint -- they were already above the midpoint, so they did not receive any compensation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So the pay plan was implemented as presented to us; is that correct? MS. MYERS: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: Operating expenses, these are major areas of increase. We have about $125,000 increase in liability insurance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. First, could you go back to the previous one? I'm sorry. I've gone to sleep up here. The next-to-the-bottom line, overtime and benefits, is this page you're showing us all personnel? MS. MYERS: Yes. This is -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Judicial -- MS. MYERS: -- law enforcement and corrections. This is __ CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Law enforcement and corrections. MS. MYERS: -- our total budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that number doesn't match what you have in your budget book. MS. MYERS: If you are in -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's off by a full million dollars, one million and twelve thousand dollars actually. MS. MYERS: Which number are you looking at, Commissioner Norris? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, your -- MS. MYERS: The -- the forty-two six seventy-one six matches the requested current personal services total agency, the second column on page 9 -- Roman numeral 9, excuse me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm talking about overtime. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You referred us to those three pages to total up the overtime budget in the detail. And now he's doing the math, and he's saying that overtime math doesn't -- MS. MYERS: Right. But it says overtime and benefits. You have to add on worker's comp., retirement, and those things to the overtime number. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well that makes my point even worse, because if you'll look on page 116 you'll see overtime in the amount of $16,000, which is insignificant. But on page 122, law enforcement overtime -- I'm sorry, yeah, law enforcement overtime is an even million dollars. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is only the increase. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you help us, Miss Gansel? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And on page 132, corrections is six, six eighteen. MS. GANSEL: It's the increase. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the request. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the request, not the increase. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But your point is still valid. If you look at the '96 budget line in that same column, it's 600,000 on page 122 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, this is fiscal year '96-'97. It can't be something that we've already done. It has to be a request. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Miss Gansel seems to have an answer. MS. GANSEL: This is the increase, I believe, from last year in the budget, not the total overtime budget, but the increase from last fiscal year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the top line is '95-'96 personal services adopted budget, so all of these are then -- MS. MYERS: Additions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- increases to that? MS. MYERS: Additions to that, yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because last year's overtime is already in that 35-million-dollar number, so -- so this year they're asking for $600,000 more overtime and benefits than in the '95-'96 adopted budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So -- all right. That's fine. Now, we still haven't gotten past the core question here, and that is when we were presented with the pay scale adjustment discussion, we were told that we were going to go out and hire a lot of new people so that we don't have to continue paying overtime. That was part of the reason why we were doing this. And the other part is, of course, to be able to hire people at all. And now we see that we are paying not only the same overtime we did last year, but $600,000 increase. Is that now -- do I have it right now? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MS. MYERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help us understand that. I've got trouble with that, too. That doesn't make sense. MS. MYERS: Even though we hired up to the 28 deputies that we -- that we phased in this year and said we hoped that would help alleviate some of our overtime problem, there are -- we are still not up to an availability that the sheriff feels comfortable in -- we still need more deputies, so there is still going to be some overtime to man those posts. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now let me ask another question that's related. MS. MYERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We authorized how many new positions total -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Last year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- since last fall? MS. MYERS: Since last fall, the 28 was what was approved last year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many vacancies did we have at that time? MS. MYERS: We had those -- the 48 certified positions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Forty-eight certified plus twenty-eight for a total of seventy-six; right? MS. MYERS: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. How many vacant positions do we have? MS. MYERS: Right now? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right now today. MS. MYERS: Certified, zero. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No -- now, I don't mean people that have been -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Offered. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- given an offer, but I mean people that are actually on the payroll -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Working. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- working today. MS. MYERS: Right now those conditional -- an academy just started Monday, and all of those positions are in the academy or in some sort of training phase, because some of the candidates that we are bringing on board -- now some of them are certified -- are coming from states that are certified -- certified in another state, so they don't have such a long academy time. What we're saying here is by October 1 we hope they'll all be trained and through their training and just about ready to be on the road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the first day of that fiscal year they will hopefully all be on the road? MS. MYERS: Correct. But you have to remember last year when we asked -- back to this overtime problem. We only asked for 28 deputies. Our manpower availability study said we needed like 66 to be at that 28 percent availability that was agreed on by a board years ago. So to say that we're not going to have any overtime is ludicrous. We will have some overtime. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But to say that you're going to have $600,000 more in overtime after the addition of 28 positions is the difficulty we find based on -- and I understand you didn't make the presentation, but we were told something that is now not coming true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I try to ask the question, because I just can't -- I don't understand the answer. This time last year 76 vacant positions that today are filled -- 76 more positions, yet $600,000 more overtime than when there were 76 vacancies. You see the -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a word there that says benefits. Benefits is, I presume, health, life, retirement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dental. MS. MYERS: Worker's comp., exactly. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All those things. If you go through here '- MS. MYERS: That's about 42 percent -- 42 to 45 percent on the certified officer, the benefits, so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you broke that out, maybe if you could tell us how much of that six hundred is new overtime and how much of that six hundred is new benefits. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: New benefits. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Because we're only talking about 28 new positions. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I doubt that the benefits on 28 positions '- MS. MYERS: No. Those 28 are up in that 28 road deputies annualized, three hundred sixty-five. This is agency-wide. This is agency-wide. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you break out that six hundred into how much of it is new overtime? MS. MYERS: About 45 percent is benefits, and 55 percent is actual overtime. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. MYERS: How's that? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two hundred seventy-five is benefits. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the question still is, you had 76 vacancies last year that are filled this year. MS. MYERS: Of which 48 were certified. You've got to take out those civilian, although they're eligible for overtime also. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But even -- whatever the number is, there are more filled positions this year than last year, yet you're going to need $300,000 more overtime than last year. MS. MYERS: Right. There's also a break-even point. If you remember last year with the sheriff, we had asked -- we would have liked to have asked for 66 new positions, and we asked for 28 due to the academy -- we knew we couldn't bring on board and hire 66 people. Right now we're trying to still hire the 28 because we phased them in to get up to that availability. So to bring that level of service and keep that level of service where the sheriff wants it and needs it in the districts, there is going to be some overtime, and we're only asking for that increase that takes us back to our '95 level and that we'll experience in '96. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of what the exact number you added this year was, there was a number beyond that that were vacant. You needed 66; you asked for 28. MS. MYERS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there was a big number that in order to provide the service you needed to fill. You filled a portion of that. MS. MYERS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that big number is smaller now than it was, and where that big number is smaller, you're still asking for more -- MS. MYERS: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- overtime, and that's the conclusion I think we all have. MS. MYERS: We could have asked for the moon, too. That number could be bigger but, there again -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It could be smaller. MS. MYERS: It turned out to be 600,000, so it could have been bigger also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I say let's -- the question is still on the table, and we don't understand it, but I guess we've asked it enough because I -- I still don't understand it, and if later there's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've all made some notes on this item. We can probably move on and then come back to it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question on the 28 road deputies annualized at 365,000. Where did that number come from? How did you get to it? MS. MYERS: Last year we had a phase-in schedule. Like I said, it was nine months and five months for those deputies and, there again, you have the annual cost and the phase-in cost. This is the -- that was the difference, the savings in '96. So that's why I'm showing that as the additional money for this year. It was like 993,000 was the phase-in cost, and it would have been like a million two. So there's the 365,000, next year's annualized cost of those 28. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they also have the 13,000 for deputies. Some came on earlier than others I guess is the reason. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I understand that. She gave me the number I was looking for, a million two. It's 42,000 per -- per deputy. MS. MYERS: Operating expenses, I think we were on to number 2. Liability insurance is pretty self-explanatory. The D.R.I.L.L. Academy match, $226,000 is in our operating budget. The domestic violence grant match, that's 20,000. Our software and agency-wide for the network security and some upgrades to our software that is in dire need of some upgrading is 40,000. Two-thirds of our fleet is currently out of warranty. We are keeping the cars longer trying to delay and save some capital costs so, there again, that line item for our -- the parts and the repairs and the outside repairs and body work and such is up about 48,200. Existing equipment maintenance is up a hundred thousand. Training and equipment and miscellaneous is 34,000; some building repairs, 28,000. The inmate food and medical contracts, those are the regular escalation clauses based on the cost of living that are built into the contract, and 4,500 is the increase in uniforms and accessories for increased personnel and price increase. So that brings us to the $684,100 increase in operating. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of questions, if I may. The D.R.I.L.L. Academy match, how long is the state reimbursement or state match available for that program? MS. MYERS: The state right now is only reimbursing us $75 a day, and it's costing us about 95, and we have petitioned to them for that extra money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And my question is, how long is the state going to pay us $75 a day or a set amount? Are we under contract for a period of so many years? In other words, is that cost -- is the full cost of the D.R.I.L.L. Academy going to fall into the laps of the county taxpayer -- MS. MYERS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in five years or seven years? MS. MYERS: No. I believe that's set for -- I don't know if it was a ten-year contract or -- I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Domestic violence grant match, same question. What's the time frame on that grant -- on the grant that is -- is funding a good portion of that? MS. MYERS: I believe that one is just a one-year -- that's just a one-year match. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: So there again -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- next year's budget may see MS. MYERS: More. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a jump in that. Okay. MS. MYERS: If I'm wrong on that when I check with the grant coordinator, if that's a three-year match, we'll clarify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be helpful. If anyone has any other questions ready, I've got a few other things I wanted to ask. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question. Mr. Dotrill, the portion of this budget that's the courts -- court security costs, $842,000, is that part of Article 5, in your estimation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is our attorney? MR. DORRILL: I think that's one of those things that is -- that is arguable. I just read an analysis that Dr. Biles had from an audit publication. And the sheriff's requirement to provide bailiffs, frankly, has more to do with the court than it does the sheriff's department, but the sheriff doesn't have any discretion. In fact, the county commission doesn't have any. You have to have the sheriff provide the bailiff services in the courthouse, and I think that's one of those arguable sort of issues with respect to Article 5. It's interesting; as I read this article, they did appoint during this session a study committee to do just that through the state controller's office to try and identify a uniform chart of accounts which all of the rest of us in local government are using for reporting and auditing purposes but that do not apply to the court system. And they're trying to develop a uniform state of -- chart of accounts for the court that would resolve some of those definition or interpretational items. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But this is -- this is one of those areas in the realm of court costs which is arguably -- MR. DORRILL: I think so. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Article 5. MR. DORRILL: I think so. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Maybe we should include it, too, in our questioning of whether we should be paying these costs at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A question I have on software agency-wide, is that something that confiscated trust funds would be available for if we made application to purchase software and so forth, computer equipment, things of that nature? MS. MYERS: They have to be -- the guidelines of that fund, which I'm not that familiar with, don't handle that fund. There again, that's in our grant section. But that has to be used -- it has very specific purposes, and it's mainly for like drug or crime prevention and -- and such like that. So if we had a certain program like -- like if we had -- were to get our SHOCAP grant, a lot of times that -- those grants only will cover the payroll costs. We would be able to maybe buy some computers and such from the confiscated trust fund for that program; but as far as agency-wide, we're not able to use that trust fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I be assured that individual items in your budget that can or may be applicable to confiscated trust fund has been reviewed, each and every item, to determine whether or not we could take it off the ad valorem responsibility this year and put it through confiscated trust funds? Can I be assured of that, or is that something that needs to be done? MS. MYERS: No. Yes, Commissioner. We had -- at the time that we prepared this budget -- and in your budget book is the budget for the confiscated trust fund also, but I believe that's in tomorrow's schedule. At the time we budgeted that, all of the eligible grant matches that were able to be paid out of there are paid out of there. And at the time we prepared this budget, we only had enough money in that trust fund to cover those grant matches, so we were not able to budget any equipment in there because we are not allowed to budget for revenue that we have not received yet in that fund. We have received some additional revenue into that fund because one month you may have a large amount, and then you may have months where we don't have any. So we try to buy anything and everything that we possibly can out of that fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Down towards the bottom of the list you have inmate food contract and inmate medical contract. Are -- are we into the corrections end of this now? MS. MYERS: Yes. There again, these increases are for agency-wide, our total budget. And those two are, yes, for jail inmate medical. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My question is probably aimed more at policy in the sheriff's department than anything, but I was hearing yesterday that Broward County is going to begin assessing their jail inmates room and board, and if we haven't considered that, I think we probably ought to. They're looking at $2 a day. I don't know. Maybe it costs a little more than that over here. I don't '- MS. MYERS: I'll have to look into that further. I don't know as far as the details. We'll have to get our -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's new. It's new, Broward County. They're also charging uniform fees of $10 or something like that so '- MS. MYERS: If they -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: New ways to raise funds, and if some are '- MS. MYERS: Great, we're all for that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then we ought to be doing it. MS. MYERS: Because as you know, Commissioner, we did implement where we're charging the inmates for medical services besides this contract where if they had money to buy cookies and chips and then they wanted aspirin or whatever, we are -- we did implement that and are charging inmate medical, and for like nonemergency nursing services or doctor services are being charged to the inmates. And they are able to go -- I mean, even if they had $10 and the charge was 15, we carry a negative balance with them, and so if they are released and arrested a month down the road, they come back in with a negative $5, and that stays on our books for I believe it's 12 months. So we are trying to collect some of those fees or generate some revenue. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some quick arithmetic of room and board at $2 a day, 550 inmates, 365 days a year, it's almost half a million dollars. So '- MS. MYERS: There again, I could -- I could give you an iljustration on another area where we tried to generate revenue -- and, of course, now I can't find it -- is our investigative costs that we are getting billed through the courts. There again, the collection rate is only about 19 percent because of the ability to pay. And, there again, you may have that same type of deal with the type of caliber of person you're dealing with. So, yes, we are trying all sorts of ways to generate revenue. The collection side is not very good. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Don't we -- don't we have to pay them if they do work around the jail or something like that? Don't we have some sort of minimum wage that we have to pay? MS. MYERS: The inmates that you see doing work around the jail that do like work in the kitchens and the laundry, they are sentenced inmates, and they volunteer to do that. There are some inmates that are compensated through the commissary where they are -- if they give -- we call it haircuts. They get 50 cents for a haircut if they -- I guess if the other person trusts them enough to give you a haircut, then we allow them 50 cents, and then they're able to spend that in the commissary which, by the way, is a contract. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. MYERS: Any other questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On page 122 I'm looking at the health costs, and I know when we separated out when you all decided a couple of years ago to get your own health insurance program, you had an opportunity to save some money. I notice this year it's up about 16 percent. I looked under corrections. I think it's a little less than that, but it's still up considerably. Obviously there are years where that goes up more than others, but are we still at a point where it's financially feasible to be in your own health program? That's a pretty big jump. It's up almost half a million dollars this year just on the -- in that one section alone. It's up in the others as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I guess to dovetail with that while you're on the subject, are the benefits in the sheriff's office similar to that offered by the Board of County Commissioners? Are they exceeded? Are they short of that? Do we know that? MS. MYERS: I can tell you what we have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: And one reason why that -- that line item is up this year. We are in the third year of our being pulled away and in our self insurance which we are seeing an increase in our health costs a little bit, but the good side of that is we have implemented a well-fitness test, and we -- with a screening, and we have identified, I believe it was, three cancers, two or three heart bypass that could have been major medical problems down the road. We identified them early, and so we have had a couple of large hits, but we are on to that preventative side, so we have seen a little bit of increase, and this year we also have -- we did implement a dental plan and a prescription card which I do believe that the board has. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are those optional or are those -- MS. MYERS: The dental is optional, yes, because it requires an employee contribution, and the prescription card then was part of the health -- health plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, in your opinion, it is -- still makes financial feasibility to -- MS. MYERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- keep it separate? MS. MYERS: Because we do have our agreement with Naples Community Hospital, and I believe that's what the county manager has just gone on board with here just within the last month. Help me out. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's your health -- what's your health benefits cost per employee? MS. MYERS: It's 3,000 for single and 6,000 for family. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How does that compare to ours? MR. DORRILL: You're twenty-three hundred for single and I think forty-eight or forty-nine hundred for family. His are about 20 percent higher, and you don't pay dental. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't pay dental? At all? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't pay dental either; you said the employee does? MS. MYERS: Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, wait. I think it's just the opposite. What we're saying, if our employees want dental, they pay it out of pocket; is that what you're saying? MR. DORRILL: There's no employer contribution to dental. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In the sheriff's plan is there a employer contribution to dental? MS. MYERS: To the single. We pay single, and this was the first year. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that $3,000, $6,000 number you gave me, does that include dental, or is that additional? MS. MYERS: Yes, that's additional. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that goes back to -- I asked the question: is it feasible and -- but if it's a 20 percent difference and you employ how many people there; seven or eight hundred, nine hundred? MS. MYERS: Eight hundred fourteen proposed for next year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- times seven hundred for singles or times -- what was the difference -- twelve hundred for families, that's a lot of money. I mean, that just sounds -- MS. MYERS: Well, you have to remember, there again, we're into our third year, and I guess as insurances go, you always seem to have a bump in that third year, and we have had a lot of large hits, so I guess that's just the chance you take, and that's what our actuarials say that we need to fund with these amounts so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point being if we combine -- there's savings potentially to the taxpayer regardless of whether you're in the sheriff's system or the board system. If the savings is to the taxpayer, so be it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's why the question on whether or not you all are getting the same benefits. I don't want to take something away from your employees, but if the deputies -- if the deputies are getting pretty much the same benefits and it can be done for twelve hundred bucks less per family or seven hundred bucks less per single, that sounds like something worth investigating. MS. MYERS: Well, like I said, we have our mandatory fitness for the certifieds, and that is where we have identified these potential cancers and hearts, and that will increase your costs if we're combined with you or not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, I'm under the assumption we might have somebody out of our 900 employees that has a heart condition or has been struck with cancer? MR. DORRILL: We have an identical proposal as part of our joint venture relationship with Naples Community Hospital. You know, part of your physical benefit is at zero costs to the employee. It is capped, and the front end of that includes the blood and urinalysis workup and EKG through the Wellness Center, and that's all part of that agreement at zero cost to the employee, and then there's -- you can either go through an acquired physician for the balance of the physical, or you can use your own physician, and I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a great idea, and I commend you all for doing it because in the long run it saves everybody money and, more importantly, saves lives. But I'm just looking if every single one was a single -- and obviously there are a number of family people here, but if every single employee was a single, that's $570,000 difference. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I got six hundred, but that's close. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And, you know, you mix the bigger savings for the family in there, and that's going to be probably three-quarters of a million bucks. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, to follow up on Commissioner Constantine's question on the new program, when we signed a contract to do that or instituted it, did it raise our average premium, so to speak, per employee? MR. DORRILL: No. I -- I think that Mr. Walker indicated to you yesterday your premiums are down from last year. I want to say they're down $200. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we've instituted a similar program, and it doesn't cost us a dime more? MR. DORRILL: The employer's cost went down this year. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The employer's cost went down, and we instituted the same program? MR. DORRILL: A similar program. I don't know what they allow for the physical benefit, but it's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does it -- does this board have the authority to merge the two into one? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think so. MR. DORRILL: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So if the sheriff doesn't agree to do it, then we're -- time to fish or cut bait. Okay. MS. MYERS: Commissioner Constantine, back to that -- we're in this third year; it is due to our mandatory fitness, but if you recall, the last two years we have returned -- two years ago it was $700,000 in health cost savings and $400,000 last year. But now that we're in that third year, we are seeing that -- that increase, but we have had savings in the last two years. And now that our actuarials -- that we've identified these cancers and hearts, our actuarials are bumped up in that third year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do recall that, but that was a question we had the very first year when you were going to separate out is, gosh, is there initial savings and then end up in the long run with a bump. So I don't know if the third year is just -- if you average out the three years, then it's -- you save money the first couple, you've lost this year, but I'm looking long term, not just this year. Does that bump continue from here? And that was the question we had a couple of years ago. You and I had a brief discussion on that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can -- we can ask the question. This is -- this is an answerable question. There are people who do this for a living who can give this advice to the sheriff on whether or not it's best to be in our program. I mean, he's sure not, as neither are we, anxious to spend extra money on insurance. So I think it's a real good point to raise, and -- and hopefully we'll get more quantifiable information before we finalize this budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One point to clarify, and it's important, is that it's a savings that the sheriff's office showed in their budget. Most of that was rolled back in for other items. the taxpayer did not see a reduction in dollars paid to the sheriff's office overall or the sheriff's agency overall, because most of those dollars were rolled back into other programs. So here we have a hit of four-hundred-and-some-odd-thousand dollars that we don't have real savings to fund with because those savings were used elsewhere. So I think that's -- not that I question that, because I think we were party to most of those decisions, but it's important to remember that the savings didn't go into -- you know, they weren't just thrown away. They were used -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But at the same time, though, in a high-growth county like we're talking about, it's reasonable to assume that costs of safety are going to continue to rise so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other questions. I have the same question for our manager which I will ask at a different time. But I see 62,000 in here, and it's down a little bit, 62,000 in here for cellular phone costs. I'm wondering as we get the 800 megahertz on line and some of the capabilities that has -- I don't know what options we did and didn't put in there, but some of those we could patch into phone lines and so on? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't do it? MS. MYERS: Too expensive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't choose those options. MS. MYERS: We are fortunate enough with the agreement that we do have with our cellular phone company that we do not pay for the phones. That is only for air time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then on a couple little items, minor office equipment, fourteen four -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait. Wait a minute. I can go get a GTE, too, for a penny and just pay for air time. I mean, that -- okay. I mean, that's a good comment, but I can do that, too. MR. DORRILL: You get a preferred rate for air time? MS. MYERS: Yes, we have a reduced rate also on the air time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you know what you pay per minute? MS. MYERS: Fourteen and twenty-two. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good rate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- a couple of small items: minor office equipment and minor office furniture, fourteen four and twenty-four four, thirty-nine thousand bucks. Do we have any idea what that new office furniture is? This was raised before. MS. MYERS: Office equipment and office furniture both? Office furniture is anything from -- usually it's not desks anymore, because we have -- are trying to go to the modular furniture, but it's chair replacements like in our com center and our jails and our 24-hour areas where people are sedentary and sitting a lot and anything from bookcases to file cabinets. Of course, with our expanding paper problem, we're always needing more space to store paper. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully that new software helps that, too. MS. MYERS: Hopefully. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the -- there's a big bump in data processing. It's up a quarter million bucks to 421,000. MS. MYERS: Are you into the capital line item? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we getting ahead of her presentation? MS. MYERS: I was just trying to follow where we were. I'll be glad to answer that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, 129. MS. MYERS: Are we through with anything in operating on this slide? Capital expenditure increases. There again, you see another part of that domestic violence grant match because this is for the cars for that match because, there again, the grant tends to pay for the personnel costs and the match part being the operating and capital expenses. Eight hundred megahertz maintenance equipment, 30,500, that is for those computerized testing equipment for when there is a problem with those when you plug it in and it tells you what's wrong with the radio. There's the data processing equipment, Commissioner Constantine, you're referring to. I do have a list of those, all of those increases that I can give you. It is for minimal PC and laptop replacement and for file servers, and I believe they're called 10-base T-hubs. We are needing more ports, more places for the computers to hook into. And the network expansion that's referred to there is to get all of these new -- this new technology, the software, out to our substations. Right now we are having that communication problem with getting it out to our remote sites. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hope you're getting a better deal on all that than we are. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got to ask because in our county manager budget it's a thousand bucks a pop to hook up a PC and 3,000 bucks a pop for the machines themselves. I'd love to know what your price is. MS. MYERS: I looked that up yesterday, Commissioner Mac'Kie. We budget 3,000 for a PC, but we don't have that thousand-dollar connection charge because we have our own data processing, and the laptops are about thirty-three hundred. I pulled an invoice recently that we had actually purchased some PCs but, there again, it depends on the memory and the gigabytes and, you know, whatever. And I think those were -- they were about twenty-five hundred -- it was like twenty-five hundred and thirty-three dollars so COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I've just got to say this because I was looking through the newspaper this morning, and there was a Sears ad. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did you see that ad? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Pentiums, $1,799, fully loaded, CD-ROM drive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you can just go to Sears and buy them from -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to have a great time with the I.T. budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leo's going, okay, just wait. MS. MYERS: I'd have to refer you to our data processing on that, too, because I don't know all the intricacies on the hookups and how it needs to hook into the main frame and C-net connections and all that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Neither do we. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We only know it costs money. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't cost a thousand bucks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you considering doing installation for us, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we can cut a thousand bucks per unit now. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I tell you for a thousand dollars a unit, I'll hook them up. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding. I can farm that out for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's see if we can -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to bid on the privatization of that. MS. MYERS: To continue down on our capital increases, $3,000 for records filing system; and fleet equipment, that's an antifreeze recovery system which is, there again, an environmental thing, $3,000. And then, of course, there's then the 127,500 for our expanded positions. That is -- with those five youth relations deputies, of course, you've got five cars and then computers for the civilian positions. And that brings you to the total, three twenty-four four increase in capital. Any other questions on capital? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm -- I have capital -- my concern that we don't do adequate reserves. I'm just concerned that -- that both in your budget and in the county manager's budget we just aren't reserving adequately for capital. And in my -- my suggestion for that is that we talk again about a law enforcement impact fee, because that's how the county manager's agency is paying for -- I mean, you still have all those operational costs, but -- but big capital expenditures can then get paid for out of the impact fees that -- I don't understand why -- I mean, I wasn't here, so I don't know why -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's ask the county manager. Neil, I mean, do we historically have a shortfall in our reserve fund annually? It seems to me our history has been pretty steady on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I'm sorry. Maybe I called it -- maybe I said the wrong thing. Maybe I called it -- gave it the wrong name. My concern is that we, for example, weren't -- didn't have money. We kept cutting and cutting on water management equipment. We didn't have any equipment adequate in water management. I'm -- I'm concerned that there are repetitions of those in other departments in the county manager's agency. And I worry about it in the sheriff's budget, too, because we're always so tight, and we always can wait one more year, and I'm just afraid we aren't -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just how I do it at home. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just like home, I know. MS. MYERS: I agree with you, Commissioner Hac'Kie, because, there again, we would love to -- now that the 800 megahertz is coming on line -- to be able to move to the mobile digital terminals in all the cars but, there again, you're talking a lot of money. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe that's an impact-fee expenditure. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we had a discussion on -- on a sheriff's impact fee a few years ago, and I think it -- it lost our interest when we began to see what the square footage costs were going to be for commercial property. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to talk about it again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, I have -- I'm sorry. I just wanted to kind of wrap up with -- I tried to hit what was up there as you went through it, and there are a few other things -- MS. MYERS: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'd like to get some answers to, if I may. On page 103 of your budget, in the sheriff's education trust fund, there's an increase in out-of-county travel from twenty-eight point six to forty thousand, if I'm reading that correctly. Yeah, you forecast 28,600 for 1996 for out-of-county travel under this budget, yet you're requesting 40,000. What's the reason for that significant jump? MS. MYERS: Are we on page 103 in the trust fund? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, we are. MS. MYERS: Okay. There again, that's a trust fund. That's the second-dollar trust fund, the $2 from all the citations, and that money is generally used for our travel and per diem, and that's -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What else -- what else can that money be used for? MS. MYERS: Well, you can see that we also use it for -- it's a law enforcement TV network at our training center. There again, there's very stringent rules on what can be used out of this trust fund, basically training. Then you can see there is also a defensive tactics suit -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not going to affect the ad valorem impact, but that is a substantial increase in out-of-county travel, and I -- I thought it was worth noting. And if there's a reason for it, you know -- MS. MYERS: There again, if the money's there, it's one of those where we hope that we project the revenues, and they may not be there, so the actual may not be that large. And if there are other things that can be paid out of there, they will be and diverted also from our travel budget in our operating. We try and use that money first. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. On page 111 in your revenue projections -- and I have to give credit to a citizen who's had the time to go through it and point out a lot of these things to me, and I appreciate that. Civil filing fees are dropping from 200,000 to 150,000. Can you give me a reason for that? In other words, your revenue is dropping 50,000 in civil filing fees. Why is that proposed? Is there -- is there a downward trend that I don't see here or -- MS. MYERS: In looking at that -- does that add up? It looks like a typo to me. I think that should be 200,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be happy to change it to 300,000 if you like since it's in revenues. MS. MYERS: I don't have a calculator. Anybody from budget office have a calculator? In looking at that, that looks like a typo to me because, no, we do not anticipate the civil filing fees to go down. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But if -- that column totals four hundred twenty-three right now. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four hundred forty-three is what it adds up to. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, it does add up. MS. MYERS: It does? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yup. Because you budgeted '95-'96, 160,000. And you're forecasting -- MS. MYERS: -- two hundred. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- two hundred thousand, yet you're only budging one fifty next year for revenues. And this is something I talked about in our budget is where we have a revenue area that we underestimate and causes us to overtax, in my opinion. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Underestimate revenues and overestimate expenses. It's a famous budget technique. I've been doing it for years. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And what we end up with is taxing at a higher level than we need to. I would like to see that number at 200,000 at least to -- to -- MS. MYERS: That looks fine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- reflect -- MS. MYERS: Should be two hundred. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Just made 50,000 bucks. Keep going. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Heck, let's just raise everything else in that column, and we can walk away from this. Okay. We've talked about the -- the overtime, and I think we're going to talk about it some more. Page 123, we saw that there's an increase in one area for -- for travel, out-of-county travel, yet the last line on page 123, per diem conferences -- and I assume this is ad valorem based, am I correct in that, everything on this page? MS. MYERS: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In per diem conference, 1994, 43,000; budgeted 73,000 for '95; '96 budget, 78,000; '97 total you're looking at 82,000. In a period from '94 to 1997 it almost doubles for per diem conference costs, yet your work force has not gone up two times. Again, another area that it's just a little line in the budget, and overall it may not be much, but that just seems like a substantial -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along with your point is '95; budget; seventy-three, actual, forty-five. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea what we spent to date this year? MS. MYERS: Well, our forecast there is 70,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why after an actual of forty-five would we forecast seventy-eight the next year? MS. MYERS: There again, that's supplemented with the second-dollar fund if there's money available. If not, we have to budget it in our operating. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're already taking 40,000 out '- MS. MYERS: That's why you can see the actuals go down, because that money is diverted to second dollar. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the issue that -- that Commissioner Hancock is rightfully raising -- I appreciate your continuing to bring it up -- is if we -- if we budget seventy, we're going to have to tax and collect for seventy. And if it's more realistic to think we're going to spend fifty, let's not tax people. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And even more so, a portion of that fifty is going to come out of the second dollar, heck, let's budget less, and you have to go to that fund in order to accomplish that travel instead of going to the taxpayer. I'm -- I'm -- I would prefer to see a reduction that could be applied to that line in the overall budget, because I think that's a little high. You've pretty much covered the corrections fund. You don't have a choice in the -- the increase, the jump in cost in contractual services. Those have all gone out to bid, but I need some clarification on page 133, contractual services, there's a substantial jump. MS. MYERS: Of the contractual services? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. MS. MYERS: That's the D.R.I.L.L. match, the D.R.I.L.L. amount; that's where that is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, that was like 236,000 '- MS. MYERS: That's the D.R.I.L.L. Academy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. And those are -- are the itemized areas, so I really saw two areas there. We kind up made up 50,000 on an error, and I'd like to see that other item changed by at least 30,000 to bring it down something closer in line, maybe even more than that. And then I think we probably still have some overtime discussions to have. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to also look at -- on page 123 the employee -- looks like the employee evaluations in two years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Page 123. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Employee evaluations, third line from the top, has also gone from low forties to eighty thousand dollars in two years. What's -- what's driving that number? MS. MYERS: There again, that was all the applications that we were receiving and having to put people through some of the evaluations, and then they were dropping out of the process. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But you've hired them all now. Why is it still so high for '97? MS. MYERS: We still anticipate having turnover and having that application process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we were going to have a lower turnover rate when we had the increase in salary levels. MS. MYERS: We certainly hope so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So do we, so that could probably be reduced. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And right above that, medical, physicals, what is that, from seven thousand to eighty-five? MS. MYERS: That's our mandatory fitness. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But you've just explained that earlier as being part of your medical health program. MS. MYERS: That's what's driving the actuarial costs up. This is the mandatory fitness for the certifieds that they are required every year to do. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not part of your program? MS. MYERS: Well, there's -- there's the medical screening part, and then there's the physical fitness testing part. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the point is that in 1994 you only spent 7,000, yet -- MS. MYERS: It wasn't implemented then. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Was it required? MS. MYERS: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who required it? MS. MYERS: That was only a part of a year. The sheriff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So this isn't a state mandate? This is an internal departmental requirement for physical fitness or whatever that they have to go through? MS. MYERS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is a policy change that took us from some seven -- I'm sorry, you were budgeted at 76,000 in '95. MS. MYERS: Right. We had planned for the implementation there, and we only got part of the year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- what do those costs go toward? I'm sorry. After spending time in the military, I know, you know, we -- we did a lot of physical fitness, and there wasn't a lot of extra cost with it. So help me understand the structure of this, because that looks like a big number. MS. MYERS: That's all the testing. I believe it's done through the Wellness Center through the hospital, and it's a set -- set fee by them. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems that should be dovetailed into health insurance in some way to me if you're requiring them to get annual -- is this like an annual test or physical? MS. MYERS: That part isn't in the health insurance cost. This is an actual physical fitness testing where these certified instructors or whatever they are come and actually perform the tests where you have to run or swim or bike or -- and do flexibility and strength. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And is this to pay for positions of people that administer that program, or are you paying the Wellness Center to administer it? MS. MYERS: The Wellness Center. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We always had a chief petty officer that held a stop watch. Just -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just don't understand why that's not part of your health program. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand what you're saying, that they have to perform a physical fitness test beyond the medical side of it, which there's usually a chart for age and weight, and you have to fall into a certain category to be deemed fit. You know, we always did that on our off-duty day and had one person who administered -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I promised I wouldn't speak. I'm Sheriff Don Hunter for the record. The -- the point here, Commissioner Hancock, is that unlike the military, which is U.S. Government, which you can't sue without their permission, the sheriff's office is subject to many suits, as you are. And what we're trying to do with the physical assessment before they actually test under my policy and the protocol with the Cooper Clinic in Texas, they have to be checked out physically to make certain that we aren't going to kill them on the track when they run around the track. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: And that way I don't have the family and the survivors coming back against the agency for liability. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You made dad run two miles and killed him. SHERIFF HUNTER: Hopefully not. A mile and a half under 12. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A mile and a half under 127 SHERIFF HUNTER: Under 12. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Atlanta wants to see him this year. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a fast walk. SHERIFF HUNTER: We can almost qualify. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we have any public speakers on this item for now. MR. DORRILL: I have one thus far, Mr. West. MR. WEST: Good morning. For the record my name is Eric West. I'm a year-round resident of Collier County since the beginning of the decade. One of my reasons for relocating to this area was because it's in the State of Florida, which has no income tax, so I would start out in confessing to you that I have a bias to low taxes. As I got into following the budgeting process and reading the local newspapers and realizing the dimensions of what you all are faced in terms of the numbers that you're taking -- taking a look at this are, you know, I was struck by the magnitude of the increase and the possible implications of that for the ad valorem taxes. So I made an effort as a personal individual taxpayer to start looking into some of this data and in particular the sheriff's office budget. The more I looked at it, the more I started questioning my own orientation towards taxes and saying that to the extent that this county has a relatively low, on a comparative basis, ad valorem tax or millage rate, I'm -- I'm beginning to question in my own mind whether maybe we've pushed that too far. And in particular on the -- on the budgets for the sheriff I look over some of the past years, and there are some individual years in there in which the percentage increase year over year wasn't even enough to cover inflation, never mind the implied growth in crime compared to what we know we're having in terms of population increases. So as I go into this budget and I start thinking maybe we've pushed it too far in terms of keeping the lid on it, in particular one or two years that I saw back there, that puts me as an individual taxpayer in a bit of -- who is interested in low taxes in a bit of a dilemma. It's time for me to sort of, if you will, put my money where my mouth is. I've come to a personal conclusion that I'm delighted we have a low ad valorem -- or low millage rate, but I'm willing to step up to some increase on that. The question comes to my mind in terms of reading the local newspapers, the editorials, and listening to the radio, letters to the editor. You know, sometimes I wonder about that process in terms of whether those individuals that you hear are, in fact, representative of our community. I notice on the call-in programs that some of the same names keep coming back. I notice on letters to the editor in particular in a newspaper that we're seeing some of the same names. That raises a question in my own mind whether what we hear in the media is representative or not. But I was struck by an article quite some time ago in the Naples Daily News that described the FOCUS effort; and that process was, in fact, a poll of the citizens of this county. We actually -- we're used to that at the national level. We have almost no polling that gets us to the question in Collier County as to whether what we're hearing anecdotally is, in fact, representative of our community as a whole. And I would just like to share with you some of the results that came out of that FOCUS. In the community and people services area, crime and drugs, there is a goal of a safety community, et cetera. But they come down to three specific strategies, and I do want to quickly read those because those were voted on by the -- on the sample basis of 1,100 citizens in this county. Two come to mind that were in fact. Of the choices that were presented to those who voted, they were presented with 50 choices. It's not an issue of an election where you have two or maybe three candidates. They were given a menu of 50 items to vote on. The number one and the number six biggest vote getters were related to the crime situation and ultimately the funding question. Let me just quickly read you -- the number one vote getter, number one out of the fifty was require strict enforcement and sentencing, establish discipline, work restitution and treatment programs and use convict earnings to pay back victims, the number one vote getter. The number six vote getter was increase funding, increase funding to enhance law enforcement, crime, and drug abuse prevention and public education. And that -- that one struck me particularly because it wasn't as if we have our citizens voting here and say, well, let's do something about crime, but then when it comes down to it, they don't want to pay for it. That was specifically confronted here, and the increased funding wasn't buried at the end of the paragraph. It's not clear at the end of the sentence. It's the first two words in that item that people voted on, number 6 out of 50. So as an individual taxpayer, you know, where I come out of this is I'm not interested in more taxes, but personally I'll step up on this one, and I think it's time for a little bit of relief here. This is a large budget increase for the sheriff, but personally I'm in favor of it. And if that means I'll pay more taxes, I'll do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. West. Nobody else? MR. DORRILL: Apparently not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No one else wants to speak on this issue? This young fella here. MR. McGILVRA: I can't write good today. Doug McGilvra, I live in Naples Park. The gentleman that just got done, that's why I wasn't thinking about talking. He said everything I had to say, so I didn't want to duplicate it. I, too, share -- I, too, agree with the sheriff's budget this year. I understand there are a few items that have been touched on by all you people up there this morning that perhaps there is a little thing here and there that can be adjusted and so forth like that. But I think in the main, the people of Collier County, at least the ones that I've talked to and everybody I know, are more -- the more important thing is let's have the sheriff's department up to staff doing the job that they're doing and doing a good job, but they can do a better job if they're up to staff and they can maintain that staff and train the people so that they don't keep moving out of the county to new jobs. Keep them here. We need the people. We need the training, and we certainly appreciate your help. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- I know that we've got a big increase sitting here, and I know each board member has identified some little area that they might want to pick at. It's going to be hard to -- for us as a completely separate board to sit down and nitpick the sheriff's operation, because we don't know enough about the operation. We're not in that organization. But there are some things, I think, that the board should look at with a little bit of scrutiny. And the first one that comes to mind is the request to -- from the board to -- for the sheriff to budget 4 percent attrition but yet for us to put that 4 percent into our budget to hold in reserve for the sheriff. I don't think we should do that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that what we did last year? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, 906,400 last year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For that half year. But I'm saying I don't think we should continue that as a permanent policy. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just help me. I always get stuck CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't do it for ourself or anyone else. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the only time we've ever done that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The discussion initially last year -- originally we're going to put some money aside specifically for the proposed pay raise which we anticipated coming. Then we decided that was going to be nine twenty-five or whatever it was. And we decided not to put that in reserves, but we would hold roughly the same amount in reserves for that and -- and for attrition. And, I mean, we were really substituting one for the other. But the discussion initiated, as I recall, around what we anticipated coming in a pay plan, and then we altered the item that was set aside for it. That had never been done. That's not regular practice. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I fully believe we can expect a level of attrition in the sheriff's office, and 4 percent is reasonable. And if his agency is fortunate enough, you know, nine months through the year to find that they're at 1 percent attrition, I think we would commend him and address his concerns, you know, at that time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm just saying I don't think we should do extra reserves. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. The other thing is we've all identified some things. It seemed like that overtime gave us all a little bit of concern. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've just heard three people say they agree on the reserves for the attrition. What's the dollar value? I mean, what's the cut? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Not in the budget. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not in the budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it is, right here, reserve for attrition, 1.7 million dollars. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. In his, the cut on the sheriff's budget would be -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One point seven million dollars. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: One point seven? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the numbers Neil gave us, that was not included; is that correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. The initial version where we had a shortfall of approximately 8 million dollars, that included the reserve. Per direction from the county manager, that was removed; and the budget that is presented before you today does not include the 1.7. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if I were trying to find a place -- we didn't just cut a million seven; that's what I guess I'm -- on my little tally sheet here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. If you wanted to fund that reserve, you would be adding a million seven back in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The overtime, I think -- I don't know what the feeling of the rest of the board is, but I don't think we've been given a sufficient justification to -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: As you mentioned, it's not -- you know, I'm not comfortable going in saying remove this position and change this position and take this out of there. But I think based on the presentation we've had, there are some areas that we feel are unnecessary, and we can address those dollar amounts; and how those dollar amounts are then applied is the sheriff's job, just as we did with George Archibald yesterday. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there was a $400,000 increase in -- in overtime over last year that I remain confused about. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going beyond that in that there's a $600,000 budget increase after, you know, doing 28 positions and being told what we're told, and my -- by the number I had kind of jotted down was 600,000 on that item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff, I have a question because -- a little frustrating, and I know you weren't here before. We were told a couple of things as part of that pay plan adjustment, which there's no debate on. Everybody's happy with that. We were told that if -- with that pay plan adjustment the increase in pay scale would dramatically lower the need for overtime. And we were also told that it would dramatically lower the turnover rate, because we could hold on to our people. But neither one of those are reflected in the budget; and that's, I think, what we're all struggling with. SHERIFF HUNTER: I understand that. And that is why I rose to speak. I would like to address that issue if I could. This overtime issue is a bit confusing, I admit. So is the attrition issue. We -- we don't believe that we're going to have the attrition that we've suffered for the last two years, last two fiscal years back, as a result of the pay adjustment that the board has approved and the fact that our recruitment efforts have improved dramatically. Our retention, we believe, will be -- will be excellent, and we won't see the kind of movement out of the agency that we've seen over the past several years. That's on -- that's just one issue, though. That's part of that attrition issue, part of that overtime issue. But when you have a law enforcement position or jail position, you need to have that posted. So if you have no full-time position sitting there, it's an overtime cost. So we try to predict that. But on the other hand, part of this overtime discussion should be things like unpredictable events, Cracker Barrel. I never would have thought we would have spent three days investigating a triple homicide at a Cracker Barrel plus investigators working around the clock for over a week and a half to try to solve it. We've gotten a partial reimbursement out of the Violent Crimes Council, and we're happy for that. But I can't predict those kinds of investigations. We're supposed to be hit by nine major storms this year according to NOAH. That's not my prediction; that's NOAH's. Do we include that in our budget, or do we ask you to reserve monies somewhere to help us make certain that when we work 48 hours or 72 hours straight that we have the monies necessary to handle that? And we've just been told, by the way -- I just received the bad news that we can't get some reimbursement -- we can't get reimbursement from FEMA for some of our costs that may be associated with these catastrophic events. So there's some -- there's some work we need to do in a lot of different areas. But I want to remind the board as part of overtime budget, these catastrophic events in the sense that they are unpredictable, extended period of time, that we can't possibly know are going to occur that will happen. Bayshore Drive just had a cult, we believe, of about 15. Happened two nights ago. We're out with it for several hours. That was un -- unknown, didn't know that was going to happen. You have to call in extra manpower sometimes to cover that if we have no additional manpower to redeploy in other districts to handle the District 3 calls that are continuing to come in. Those are the kind of issues that we're currently faced with that we're trying to stay in front of, and that's part of that overtime budget. So although we've had this discussion already, some face to face, some over the phone, I want to work on the overtime budget with you. We'll try to get it down to the last penny as best we can, but some of it's unpredictable. And this attrition issue is a very serious issue for me; one percent public safety under the board offices, four percent public safety over here. We can work on a number and come to an agreement, but I don't know that the 4 percent is a realistic number based on what we believe will be our experience. That's why we were asking you to reserve it. If you can -- we'll work on a number with you, and let's reserve a number just so the positions in public safety are covered. But I guess my point is I'll work with you on it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We were looking at the figures, board members, overtime. Actually I'm not proposing that we cut out overtime requests. What I would propose is that we look very scance at the increase, because we do have so many more new employees, an increase total of about $600,000. Plus we identified a number of other things. My little tally sheet that I'm looking at indicates about 1.4 million dollars that we looked at and discussed. I don't think we should get in and try to tell the sheriff how to run his organization and that -- that we want this line item cut out and that line item cut out. I believe I say that every -- well, we can tell him. I don't think that's our job, though. I think that's the sheriff's job. I think we should say that we feel that -- that -- that we should pass a budget of so many dollars and let the sheriff run his own organization. I don't think we should try to run his organization for him. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the key to that is that to look at a number that does not result in -- because this is normally the accusation -- taking deputies off the road, not funding positions and that kind of thing. I can go down my list of what I believe are reasonable figures and come to that approximately 1.4 million dollars without affecting patrol hours the way the budget's been presented to us. And, you know, we sat here yesterday and made decisions that eliminated positions of county employees. So I don't think we can be accused of making hard decisions on other budgets that we haven't made on ourselves in this type of year. So I -- I'm -- I'm in agreement to look at a total amount. And if the sheriff wants to sit down and talk about where I think those areas are as opposed to, you know, just leaving it out in the open, I'll be happy to do that individually. But I'm in agreement that I think there are some areas we can cut, and I think that total of 1.4 million is a worthwhile amount. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree particularly on your point; and, again, it's up to the sheriff to allocate them. But on your point of the overtime, we don't want to cut into that because you have situations like that. It's the increase, I think, that concerns the board. And obviously you mentioned the nine major storms predicted for this year. Obviously if any of those come here and we get into a situation, in my mind, that's what reserve for contingencies are for. It's for those emergencies. So I don't think you'll find any of us hesitating to release funds to take care of those type circumstances. And that's exactly -- in my mind anyway, that's exactly what reserves are for, is those unusual emergencies. I concur. I think if -- our items that we have picked here -- and they may be different -- the sheriff's items that he picks may be completely different, but I think that general tally is about the same. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No comment over there? You have to vote one way or another. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- I know. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you don't have to. You've already heard three. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: My tally sheet's up to 1.6, but being the accountant that I am, I took the overtime and added labor burden in with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'd factored in as a part of that looking at the things such as how much the sheriff's office pays in the dental plan that the BCC doesn't give its employees and so forth. But, again, I'm not going to itemize those and say this is where he has to go. But I think it's an amount that can be reached particularly in a difficult year such as this and put us in a better position next year to maybe help put more officers on the street. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we're in agreement then that we are not going to reinstitute the reserve for attrition and that we are going to approve the sheriff's budget less 1.4 million dollars; is that all in agreement then? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAI~ NORRIS: Thank you very much, sheriff. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Hmm. MS. MYERS: Mr. Chairman, could you clarify that again for us? The 1.7 million 4 percent attrition was already -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was -- that was presented as not in our budget to begin with, so we're not changing that. MS. MYERS: And you're coming up with another 1.4 million dollars in cuts out of our budget? CHAI~ NORRIS: Right. MS. MYERS: Anything -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Three point one million. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MS. MYERS: Three point one million dollars. CHAI~ NORRIS: Well, the 1.7 was never in your budget to begin with. That was never a request to be in your budget to begin with. That was a request for us to put it in our budget to hold in reserve for you, so that doesn't affect your budget. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you experience greater than 4 percent attrition, that 1.7 -- or if you experience 4 percent attrition, that 1.7 will never be seen or needed. SHERIFF HUNTER: And we would never need to go on down __ COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So the real impact that what we're talking -- the real impact to your budget is 1.4 million. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. I would like to talk to you a little bit about what items you have that you'd like to look at pertaining to the 1.4 million at some point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. That's fine. But, once again, you know, we have confidence in your ability to run your department. We don't want to run it for you so -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I appreciate your confidence. But at some point there would be a break point in my ability to operate the sheriff's office with less funds might become an issue and problematic, so perhaps we can -- we will come back and readdress this at some future point. I would like to make a couple comments before we -- we close the floor that I didn't comment on as we were going along. And let me assure Commissioner Matthews that the charging for room and board is currently being pursued. It was a change in law, and we are attempting to do likewise. We understand that it's only for sentenced prisoners, so we're only talking about 17 percent of the jail population. But we -- we will -- we do and we will continue to try to acquire revenue where we can. Remember that the sentenced inmates are currently court-imposed sentences, but with the sentence comes a fine for restitution back to the victim plus court costs, and usually they can't even pay the restitution and court costs, much less some figure for a daily cost in the jail. So it's nice, and it sounds good, but we don't believe it will have a dramatic impact on the budget of the Collier County Sheriff's Office regardless of what we charge per day. As far as the health insurance program, we've been in it for three years. Five years is recognized as a trend. Most of you know that as statistics go. We believe that we did have some unusual hits with cancer and heart conditions that were discovered as a result of the health fitness protocol that was imposed. This was an unusual year, we believe, and it was the implementation year for our full health fitness protocol. We don't believe that will maintain, and as a result of that I've made the decision to continue with the health program. But we certainly will discuss that again as we go back across and see what we can do. But again, I want you to be assured that we are right on top of -- of the health program, health benefits, the premiums, and that we're going to keep that in line. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it too early to ask if -- if the cuts that were just approved by this board are such that they might result in an appeal through the state process? Is it too early to ask that question? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, it is too early to ask that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't know what that is going to mean in terms of loss of services. I'll remind the board I have been very careful not to ask for additional people except those that were absolutely necessary. We have a need on road patrol that is going unanswered by the board, about 66 positions last year predicted. We funded 28. I'm just going to give you a number. I think it's more like 70 this year. I have this vision at some point in the future that we will have support to continue a road patrol program, to fund road patrol. This year with 15 percent increase coming right straight out of the blocks because of what we believe are going to hap -- things that we believe are going to happen, fuel adjustments and lubricants and the things that we don't control, that I was faced with asking you for a 15 percent adjustment. We need more than that, and what the board is suggesting now is we take 1.4 off of that 15 percent instead of funding the other direction. And I know it means a tax adjustment, but we've held and held and held for four years. I can remember those years, .68 percent one year, 6 percent one year, 6 percent the next year, 2 percent the year after that, and we've done what we could to work with you. I -- I can't overemphasize -- and I'm not exaggerating the threat to Collier County. It's right up the road, and it's just across the state. And we need to protect this county. And I've made my statement for the record. I've been a strong advocate of the board and of good law enforcement, and I've done my homework, and I've done what I could to control costs. I'm asking you to reflect on your decision today, and we will work with you as best we can, but I don't see 1.4 million at the moment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, I'd -- I'm sorry, but the warning flags were issued during the pay plan. We all sat here knowing full well that 100 percent implementation of that pay plan was going to result. And the statement at that time was a tax increase of two-tenths of a mill. Because of that statement on the record on at least six different occasions, it was said by me and by others that we reduced the total request with the hopes that you would implement it in such a way that a substantial tax increase would not fall upon the next year. The implementation of that pay plan was not directed by the board. The dollar amount was approved, and you directed the implementation yourself. That implementation has come home to roost on a given year. That's this year. So I understand you -- the need to make a statement for the record. But to place the onus of only requesting 28 deputies and getting 28 deputies from this board on us as if we are holding you back or to say that any increase in crime in this community is a direct result of -- of what we've proposed today, I think, is a little -- a little far stretched to place on this board. So -- you know, I understand your need to make those statements, and I understand that that's exactly how you feel. I obviously have a difference of opinion with you but, you know, this was all seen. This is nothing new, and -- and, I think, from the comments at that time, I mean, things such as creative approach, budgetary constraints, we talked about it. We knew it was going to happen, but not to the extent that it came forward, not at 15 percent. And I just think that any reduction in that is reasonable to look for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock, I -- I had the same question when I met, you know, my one on one before this meeting with the sheriff's staff. My question was exactly what you just said. If -- if you're coming to ask -- to ask us for this significant increase because you did a 100 percent implementation of a pay plan that was only funded about 70 percent, you know, we didn't give all of that money and did a whole lot of talking about heads up, heads up, don't -- please don't give them a hundred percent of what you'd like to give them, please give them less than that. But when I raised that as what I thought was the reason for this big increase this year, it was shown to me in great detail that they didn't do a 100 percent implementation. They did do a creative approach, that they did implement the pay plan in a way that you can't blame this year's increase on that pay plan increase. So if that's -- if that's what you -- if that's what causes you to feel like there's a million four that could be cut, I'd ask you to meet and look at that one on one with the staff there, because that's exactly what I came into this discussion with, and as I looked at it more carefully, it turned out not to be the case. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, I don't think we are saying that we're trying to cut this or we're trying to cut this specific item. And what we're looking at here is, I think, 3 of the 15 percent increase. So it will be a 12 percent increase. So I don't -- you know, I understand the sheriff's desire to -- excuse me -- to put as many people out there and do as much as he wants to do and -- and to do a great job for Collier County, but at the same time we have some responsibility to -- to work with the sheriff to try to come up with perhaps a compromise from time to time. And I'm sure that he will be able to do his job and -- with a 12 percent increase rather than a 15. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the procedure, Mr. Dotrill? Is this -- I mean, are we done talking about this, or is this something we can bring up again and wrap up? I mean, are we -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have polled the board, and three members at least have said -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize for extending the issue. I do take some exception that the board hasn't worked with the sheriff, and I wanted to make sure that was not what was being said, because it seems that we have worked with you at least in the time that I have been on this board. And I'm sorry that one action tends to negate all of that. I think that's unfortunate. SHERIFF HUNTER: Sometimes that does happen, Commissioner. I'm not suggesting the board has not worked with the sheriff's office for good law enforcement. I'm suggesting that the sheriff's office has worked with the board over the years and that I am faced now with a catchup year in order to try to preserve what we have. We're not extending -- you're not extending by this budget any additional patrol services. In fact, we're going in exactly the reverse direction. I'm trying to work with you in -- in reducing costs and maintaining costs as best we can. I'm trying to paint for you what the actual situation is. And to suggest that you know better would not be appropriate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wonder -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Now, the pay adjustment, if I may -- if I may address that issue. We did not adjust to the consultant's proposal. A reminder again is that we went to midpoint. We remain below many of our competitors. Many of the competitors are higher than we are for the same labor force, and we have a chart that shows exactly what our condition is today. We did not fully implement, whatever that means, whatever the board intends that to mean, as long as the public understands that we were not able to implement to the extent that the consultants suggested, that we had to adjust to the board's adopted money. And what we are trying to do is hold on to the people that we have and recruit those that we need in order to fill the positions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about as a suggestion if between now and the last budget hearing the members of the board who support a million four in cuts meet individually with sheriff's staff to get a clear picture of what would be cut? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this kind of like Hedicare -- Hedicaid only approving a 12 percent increase as a million four cut? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess so, but characterize it however you want. The members of the board who approve of a 12 percent instead of a 15 percent increase, I would suggest let's find out what the result of that on the street is going to be before we finalize the budget. MR. DORRILL: Before you -- you all punish yourselves, I think you need to -- you need to keep in -- in mind overall exactly what you told me yesterday and exactly what you told Mr. Archibald yesterday. You need to give yourselves a little credit that you're spending $231 per capita for the law enforcement, which is, to the best that we can find, the highest rate of appropriation of any community in the state. And if you look at Lee County and Charlotte County and Sarasota County, they're not even -- they're half that amount. And so the point you ought to be making is that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neil, they have municipalities in there that -- MR. DORRILL: If you look at unincorporated areas -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Mr. Dotrill does you a great disservice in not doing his homework. This does not include municipalities, and it does not include the full law enforcement capability for every county. We have one municipality of 12.9 square miles. The remainder of the county is unprotected except for sheriff's office services. Sarasota County has Longboat Key, Sarasota Police Department, North Port, Venice, and we can go on. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree. I think -- just the initial point of that I think we got off track. Crystal or actually Sherry showed me the numbers, and they are like the sheriff just said. There's some dispute on these numbers. I don't know if we're right or not. But the point is we asked Mr. Archibald to come up with how he would prioritize those items, and we had a specific dollar amount. We've asked the sheriff to do the same. It's no different than asking our staff people. We can have those discussions, but we have the four votes. We had thorough discussion. I'd just as soon we move on to the next item at this point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As would I, and take a break. (A short break was held.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's get cracking. Capital area. Everybody got your axes? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pages, please. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Before you get your axes, just let me provide a little overview. On page 4 of your summary booklet -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Summary -- say that again. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Summary booklet, page 4. I'm just going to quickly repeat my summary from a year -- from yesterday. The adopted budget policy was based on allocation of $7,038,700 for transfers to support capital projects. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 4 of the summary booklet. I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You'll note it's in the middle section of that page. It's under transfers to capital, slash, debt. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have property tax rights or something. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. You want to flip to the general fund tab. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ahh. General -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Page 4 of the -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was on the first page 4. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, me, too. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 4, it identifies under the subtotal in FY '96 there was 7,038,700 available to support capital, and the budget policy called for a like amount this year. As a function of the campus parking lot debt being paid off -- that is the debt service fund 214, which is $1,034,300, that went away. We do still have the 800 megahertz debt that's slightly over a million five. The net result is at this point we have an increase in available money to fund capital projects of approximately $850,000. Well, just -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had indicated, you know, a concern about on the capital side and equipment purchases, et cetera. Just as a -- a walk down memory lane, in FY '91 the capital allocation from the general fund was approximately 12.8 million dollars, so it was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Opposed to the seven -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- seven that is currently proposed. So over time that has decreased. We've tightened our belts already. Obviously, you know, you'll have some tough decisions to make. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What year was that 127 MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was in FY '91, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: '917 MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Five years ago or I guess six years ago. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, we had actually levied 1 mill, a full mill. And we levied a constant 1 mill, so as property value grew, the available pot of dollars grew each year, but that since FY '91 has -- has been shrinking down to the current level. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And does it have a fixed mill? Do we have a fixed millage anymore for capital? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, we do not. It's just a component of the general fund. At least as a starting point this year we assumed we would not reduce that any further. Obviously that is what we're here about today, to look at the potential project list, and make those -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, I like this way better because we're making a decision on projects as opposed to saying we've got 1 mill, here's X number of money, how are we going to spend it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. In response to Commissioner Hac'Kie's expressed concern, there was 5 million dollars available in the not too distant past that we had available for capital projects. And I think you'll also see Mr. Dotrill goes through an annual exercise of looking at 40 million dollars' worth of projects when we have 7 million dollars of available funding. And you'll also see Mr. Tindall's going to walk us through those projects in each of the respective capital funds. You'll also note on those lists there will be projects that were requested but not recommended as part of the budget cut -- cutting process and prioritization that the county manager had to undergo. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those are that are requested -- those that show up as requested but not recommended are not included in our total dollars, so if we were to choose -- try one more time -- if we were to choose to put them back in, then that would be an addition to the existing numbers? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. You would either have to increase the available pot or reduce another project to -- of a like dollar amount to have a net zero impact to the general fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the last fiscal year we -- we are projecting a realized difference from budget to actual of $850,000; is that correct? You mentioned 850,000 -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. Let me explain. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Between -- you see the line that says 800 megahertz debt, fund 299, a million three fifty? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I do. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the next line down is a million thirty-four three hundred. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Combined they're about 2.4 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see. So the next two combined, the difference is $850,000? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask this, if I may, then. Under adopted budget '95-'96, we have 7,038,000. Under forecasted expenditures we have 6,878,000 for that same year. Where is that difference going into the next year? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That -- that just rolls to available carryforward revenue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Available carryforward. So that 7,038,000, has that anticipated that difference rolling into it, and when we -- when we look at our -- our ad valorem rate, or is that not showing up? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. That has been -- that -- that savings has been factored in. That shows up -- if we spend less than was budgeted, that rolls to available carryforward revenue and is available for appropriation in the subsequent year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So our proposed millage based on what budget was presented initially incorporated that and will roll over into this account? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. The actual -- what is proposed as carryforward revenue for next year is actually the sum of the grand total of all the forecast revenues less all the forecast expenses for the entire general fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple more years I'll stop asking these kinds of questions, but thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's okay. They're good questions. Just off the top, of the 7,038,000 obviously coverage on debt service is -- again, just comes right off the top in terms of what is available. We have the 800 megahertz debt of a million five thirty-one. The debt service 214, there's $5,000 budgeted that the finance department has requested. They anticipate receipt of an arbitrage rebate from previously paid of approximately $200,000. they're assuming that $5,000 of work at some point will leverage $200,000. And the rest of the respective capital funds, your -- your facilities management 301 fund, the dollar amounts reflected are the ad valorem support of the projects within each of those respective funds. If you look at -- we'll look at our facilities management 301 first; parks capital, library capital, water management capital, and then airport authority capital. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we're going to review each of those individually? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, correct. I'm just about ready to turn it over to Mr. Tindall, and we'll begin looking at the project lists, and they are in your detail books, because we're going to actually walk down project by project. And the staff from OCPH as well as facilities management and the park staff is here. And I'll just ask them to be ready to respond and explain what the nature of each of those projects is and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just to get us in the mood, I just did my tally again on the 12.4-million-dollar goal. We are at 2-1/2. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That doesn't count, the two two eight eights? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if both of those happen to work out, then we're up to like 3.15. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're getting there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you want to reduce that if we look at the sheriff's budget again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Moving on, I'm going to turn it over to Phil Tindall -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. That was inappropriate on my part. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- and he can steer us to the right page, and look at the project list in fund 301. MR. TINDALL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Phil Tindall, and I work in the budget office. And where we're going to be going is in the big binder under the general fund tab, page 146. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. One more time. Forty-six? MR. TINDALL: One forty-six under the general fund tab. That's in the large binder. And as Mr. Smykowski indicated, our plan today is to start off by covering all of the capital improvements that are funded by ad valorem taxes. So if it appears that we're jumping around through funds a little bit, it's really because we're only starting off the discussion with the tax-supported capital. The first fund we'll be talking about is the countywide facilities management or facilities capital, fund 301. As you can see on page 146, there's a total proposed project request expenses of twenty-nine -- almost 29.5 million, and we're requesting 4,311,000 from the general fund. And the first item -- just by way of orientation -- is we basically have the spreadsheet that has the project list broken into five sections. Starting from the left, the first section has the project identification to include the responsible departments for project management, project number and name, the FY '96 budget information, and then -- then in the middle of the page, basically information you'd be concentrating on today, is the proposed funding and the summary of the funding sources. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It also identifies the -- a number of the reductions that the county manager had to make to arrive at the budgeted level that is proposed currently. MR. TINDALL: Okay. The first project is the PC modernization program. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You'll recall last year you approved phase one of what was at that point a two-year implementation plan. The county manager as part of his reductions has shifted that to a three-year implementation plan in the efforts of cost savings and limited available capital dollars for the upcoming year. Mr. Coakley is here from the I.T. department for questions. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Pam, now is your turn. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. Thousand bucks a pop to monitor computers. MR. OCHS: Okay. Well, let me start on that one, if I might. The thousand-dollar annual charge that you're seeing in -- in many of the operating budgets doesn't relate to the capital acquisition. The operating budget of information technology is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll get there, I know. MR. OCHS: -- an internal service fund. So the only way they get revenues to operate is through chargebacks just like -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they're charging too much. I'm sorry, because that was the wrong question to ask because we're in the wrong place, but how about 3,000 bucks a pop? MR. OCHS: We can talk to you about the capital costs -- we'll talk to you about anything you want but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are we getting for 450,000 bucks? And then we'll break it down from there. MR. OCHS: Good. Let me go ahead and hand these out, and then Bill kind of run you through the proposal -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I almost brought the Daily News for that ad at Sears with Pentiums fully loaded -- MR. COAKLEY: Sure. And I think we can address that right here on this sheet -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is your Pentium fully loaded? MR. COAKLEY: -- because we monitor those costs closely, too, Commissioner. MR. OCHS: Just as a preamble, I left copies of letters from the productivity committee regarding their review of the information technology program and -- and the productivity committee's endorsement on moving ahead with the program as the board had originally planned. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First question, base PC-type computer for seventeen hundred bucks and the state contract pricing. We're talking Pentiums? MR. COAKLEY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With CDs? MR. COAKLEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And everybody gets CDs? MR. COAKLEY: Yes, they do, because part of our training program -- you'll recall from last year perhaps to set the stage, training uses CDs that are what's called Just In Time training software, and it requires a CD drive for it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To run it? To run the training software? MR. COAKLEY: Yes, that's correct. That's the second-stage training. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But state contract pricing is seventeen hundred bucks for that. I thought that when you buy that many you get a, you know, deal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that Sears' contract price? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the Sears price. MR. COAKLEY: No, the Sears price, I think, is seventeen ninety-nine, and it doesn't include -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. COAKLEY: It doesn't include Office 95; it has home entertainment software instead. But this essentially is pretty much equivalent to what you can buy locally. This is Gateway, and it's on the state contract pricing, which I've reported to you before on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why is that? I mean, who do I fuss at about state contract pricing being equal to the ad for Sears? I mean, it must -- I understand it's not you, but who do I talk to about that? MR. COAKLEY: The state bids it out every year, and there's a clause on it that says they have to update it every month. That's the way it works. It's already bid out in quantity at the state level. I don't know that I can compare it one for one with the Sears computer. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the line -- what page are we COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Line one -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Starting at the top. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Going back to my question then, what exactly are we getting for $450,0007 MR. COAKLEY: We're getting our second year of the modernization program split in half. We're going to be rolling out the universal county workstations. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many? MR. COAKLEY: Probably it's going to be about 60 in the reduced program. It would have been over a hundred. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's 117. MR. COAKLEY: Not in the reduced program it's not, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then if we're rolling out, you said, about sixty and we're going to multiply that by thirty-six seventy-two, okay, that's two hundred twenty thousand. MR. COAKLEY: Commissioner. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I did it just the opposite. I took four thirty-two and divided it. MR. COAKLEY: The thirty-six seventy-two represents the cost of a universal county workstation with the cost to connect from the backbone network to that workstation. It does not include the cost of expanding the backbone network, which we are doing on this campus, and out to our remote locations in the coming year. We are planning to hook up to the parks and rec's locations, the libraries, and various other locations out there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's a part of the additional cost is trying to hook up the remote locations as well? MR. COAKLEY: That's correct. That's correct. And as a result of reduction, instead of -- let me back up to step one. What we think is the right way to go long term is to leverage the investment in the 800 megahertz trunking system because tower-to-tower communications underneath the 800 megahertz have excess capacity that we can use for data in the county. But there's a front-end purchase cost for that that takes about four or five years to amortize if you bring it back at present value versus -- if you bring back the recurring costs leasing lines from United at present value. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what -- let's don't get off the subject, though, because the question right now was what do we get for our $450,000. We get 60 workstations. Even though I'm going to argue about this price -- I think this price is too high -- thirty-six seventy-two, if you multiply that by sixty, I'm still not there. So what do we get -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You get the key MSW with this. MR. COAKLEY: You know, it's for the workstation without all of these components. They're all necessary, and I can explain the reason for each one of these that add to the cost of the home PC equivalent price. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sound card with headphones, 250 bucks a pop; why? MR. COAKLEY: Because you can't listen to the CD-ROM software to Just In Time training without some kind of sound device. And rather than put speakers out in the county, we've opted for headphones. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But every -- but they're not all going to be trained at the same time. Everybody's got to have the headphones at the same time? MR. COAKLEY: Well, that's part of the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move them around. MR. OCHS: Part of the concept of Just In Time training is that people can get that training in a particular software application when they need it. They don't have to wait till the course is scheduled or when the seminar is held. If they've got a spreadsheet and they need help on that, they can put their -- their training CD in, put their headphones on, and get it right there and get assistance as they need it. That's the whole concept behind it. It would be very expensive to try and pull out the sound card. You'd have to open up the case on a floor-mount PC, pull out the sound card, open up another case, install it. It would be very labor intensive to do that. In addition, I'm not sure hygienically you'd want to have people sharing headphones. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I am. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The sound card, how long do they use it? They use it for training, and then they're done with it? MR. COAKLEY: No, sir. It's available for training on an as-needed basis. That's to say when they need to know how to do a new function in say Microsoft Office in Word, they can plug in the CD, and it will teach them on the spot just what they need to know at that time. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I would answer that question differently. The answer would be, yes, once they know how to use everything they've got, they don't need it anymore. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because there are two things on here that concern me. One was the sound card, and you've confirmed my understanding of the purpose of the sound card. And the second is foundation training of $310 for Windows 95, Word, Excel. I'm sorry, but the people we hired probably in the last two to three years are coming in with Word under their belt. If they're not, there's something wrong in our hiring practices. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Excel and Windows 95, that's just turn it on. I mean, it tells you how to do it. MR. OCHS: But if I might, Commissioner, just bear with me one minute. You've got to remember where we're coming from and where we're going to. Where we're coming from is eight years of a system that -- that was an office automation package that was not PC based called All-In-1 that was pretty much a proprietary product of the vendor that sold the hardware. And the problem is not the new people, Commissioner, having familiarity with these PC products. The problem is we had an installed base of over 360 employees that were all trained on the old technology, the old system, that hadn't been exposed to the PC products. That's why there's such an intensive training component built in here in the first couple of years of the program, because we've got over 360 of your people that had not been exposed to, believe it or not, Word and Excel and some of these things, the mail functions in the PC. They are really getting exposed to the PC for the first time versus a -- what I call a dumb terminal sitting on their desktop -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What planet have they been living on if they're being exposed to the PC for the first time? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on, Commissioner -- MR. OCHS: We're doing you a disservice if we stick it on their desk and don't show them how to use the thing. That's our belief -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness, we ran into that with our own staff. I mean, a couple of our folks were doing wonderful work -- MR. OCHS: Ask your staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on All-In-1 struggled when they first started on the new system. And then -- my question, though, I agree wholeheartedly with your earlier comment on the training. And that is, I think, once they're trained -- I mean, I use -- we use four people back here, and once they're up, I don't see them two, three times a year going back and trying to learn new things. And I'm just wondering if it isn't more cost effective -- it's a great feature, but I don't know how many of these we're going to overall, and 215 times 500 or 300 or whatever it is is a lot of money. MR. COAKLEY: The -- the -- Commissioners, the training program is an ongoing one because the foundation training for the three hundred and -- I'm sorry, what was it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten. MR. COAKLEY: Three hundred and ten, right -- just the basics of using those packages. Once you know the basics, there's a lot more beyond that. To fully use the power of Microsoft Office, it takes far more than just the basic training, and we've outlined a training program that has the basic training to get them going, the Just In Time to fill the gaps, and then advanced training taught in a classroom environment beyond that, and then a fourth level which runs in parallel which is teaching people how to use it in the county business, which is all part of the training program. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Admirable, but realistically how many of these -- so I'm working with a particular number, how many of these are we going to buy overall? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Total, full program, not this year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five hundred? MR. OCHS: Five hundred is probably -- MR. COAKLEY: Probably around 500 altogether including the non -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically are 500 people going to continue to upgrade to four different levels of education? I don't think so. I think there will be certain people that need to do that along the way, but I don't think every single user is going to continually go back and do that. That's what I'm saying. It's a great goal. It's an admirable attempt, but I'm thinking that it is overkill. MR. COAKLEY: I think you're right, and that's why the third-level training is optional. We're not planning to make that mandatory at all. MR. OCHS: Excuse me. The level three and four training is not built into this start-up number. We've got foundation training, which is the $310. The other advanced levels are going to be done by our own staff. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But there's $765 worth of training in this. There's $215 for sound card with headphones, 310 for foundation, and 250 for Just in Time second stage; $765 per station associated with training. MR. OCHS: If -- and if the board does not want us to buy sound cards -- I don't even know if we can buy these things without sound cards anymore. They come so packaged up with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's $382,500. I bet we can beat that price if you privatized training. MR. OCHS: We have privatized training. We have contract training through ExecuTrain out of Tampa. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five times a hundred thousand bucks over five hundred units. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three hundred eighty-two thousand dollars for training. That sounds like bureaucracy. That's not how private business would do it. MR. OCHS: We've tried to do it the most cost effectively by farming it out, not bringing full-time staff in to do it. But if we stick a PC, again, on these people's desks, 365 people who haven't been exposed to it, and say there it is, good luck, we don't think we're doing -- MR. COAKLEY: It's not really a good investment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- you know -- MR. COAKLEY: I mean, it's just putting a -- in a sense you put a PC on somebody's desk, and some people just plain panic without the training. We've seen that already. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Look, let's understand no one is talking about elimination of all training programs. Okay. So let's just stop the put it on their desk and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- let them look at it. Okay, no more of those comments, because no one is talking about that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's tutorials in the software, in the first place. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're talking about is that you're charging $310 for every unit for training on Windows 95, Word and Excel, and we don't even know if it's necessary for every single unit. We don't know if that person has to have the training. If they've been hired in the last couple of years, my guess is they don't need it, but my guess is they're getting it anyway. You are mandating every time one of these hits somebody's desk that training, aren't you? MR. COAKLEY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Regardless of their experience and ability with Windows 95 and Excel and so forth, you're mandating the training. So we're putting the money in here, and we're going to spend it whether they need it or not. That's the problem. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three hundred eighty-two thousand five hundred dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, I don't mind. As I've said, we have back here -- who've been doing a wonderful job for years on the All-In-1 system. They weren't familiar with this. They did need the training, and it worked very effectively. Don't argue with that. But you mentioned, Leo, the sound cards. And the sound card with headphones for every single unit was my point. I don't think once they're trained all 500 of those people are going to go back continually and do upgrade, upgrade, upgrade on their training. They're going to use whatever they need to do in their everyday job, and they're going to have the vast majority of that knowledge as they use it. And every four months they're not going to go back for training again. And it just seems to me a little bit of overkill having that sound card and headphones on every single unit. Admirable goal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the CDs, I haven't even added the CDs. The purpose of the CDs is for training. If you get CDs without -- I mean, I use them every day because you get Florida statutes and stuff on your CDs. But my secretaries don't have CDs because they don't need them. So -- and you -- I mean, what would that take, Commissioner Matthews? What does that take off the price of a computer? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: About $150. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So another -- so add that to my seven sixty-five, and we're up to -- you know, we're getting in the neighborhood of a thousand bucks of this thirty-six hundred bucks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you outline for me what you're saying is the seven sixty-five? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh, the sound card with headphones is two fifteen. Foundation training is three ten. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't mind that one as much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But I don't think everybody needs it. And where does it take into account that these programs come with tutorials? And that's what I do with my staff is I get them in there for a Saturday, and they -- you know, I buy lunch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the other item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, two fifty for Just in Time second-stage training, class act, and then one fifty for CDs -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was in the base price. That's included in the base price. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's in the seventeen twenty-eight. And then my next question is going to be what is the five twenty-five admin building differential cost, because I think there's a half million dollars in here that is not how the real world would -- would upgrade its computer system. It's how bureaucracy would upgrade. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, if I may, you know, just as we did with Mr. Archibald, what I'm seeing is that we are not offering a Chinese menu. We're saying you're going to take a Chinese menu every time we buy a PC. I think that we can put 60 terminals on desks cheaper than this thirty-six seventy-two per terminal, and I think it's probably our job to determine a fair reduction of that four hundred thirty-two thousand dollars and set the target of put those 60 terminals on there, do the best training you can with the dollars we give you, and let's cut off the top of that four thirty-two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- and then I don't understand the math, because if we're doing 60 terminals -- well, let me just do it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While you're doing your math, let me just suggest that as Commissioner Constantine's pointed out, we've got four people that work in our office. And, sure, it -- it -- to get them going on the program, it would be nice to have headphones and CDs and the training and all that. But once they're up and running in that whole office, it would be probably only necessary to have one of those PCs have a CD and the headphone that you could listen to, and they could share that. They all have their own headphones. MR. COAKLEY: There's something else I'd like to say about the CDs, though, Commissioners. We're trying to buy PCs that will have some longevity here, and almost all new software coming out is now coming out on CDs. There are other ways to distribute it, but CDs are becoming pretty much standard with PCs. I'm sure if you look at the Sears PC, it comes standard with it. I don't think anyone is selling them without CDs. And if -- for that reason or because of that the software people that manufacture software are coming out with it on CDs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But even with -- even if we weren't arguing with the $3,672 a station, for 60 stations that's half of this capital budget. MR. COAKLEY: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what's the other half? MR. COAKLEY: It's the network backbone primarily. This is the cost of the PC. The five twenty-five you were asking about is the cost of running from the backbone, the computer network backbone, to the PC. But the backbone itself has additional costs; and when we go out beyond this campus, it becomes much more expensive. And that's where we wanted to leverage the investment in the 800 megahertz, but that requires a high front-end cost. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem, frankly, with that. I think that would be stupid not to do that, not to -- to use the backbone, if that's the way you said it. My question is, because once I have so much distrust of a set of numbers as I have about these, then I wonder -- and I don't want to. Mr. Dotrill, it's not my job but to tell you is $525 really what that costs, because this isn't what a computer should cost. And is the backbone really what it should cost? Because what I remember from last year is that we're getting whatever Sarasota got, whether we need it or not. And, you know, I just -- I just hate that we are lifting what they did and moving it over here instead of seeing what we can really do, you know. I just think -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While we're -- we're going to let Mr. Coakley have an opportunity to sort all this out, we're going to take a lunch break, and he'll have all these answers for us at one o'clock. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask one question before we break? And it deals with the CD-ROM and the sound cards and all that stuff. Why can't we use a portable exterior component with the 232 connector and move this thing around? MR. OCHS: We can. But -- yeah, you can. Again, you're not moving it necessarily in -- in one office or even one building when you're talking about an organization with a thousand people, you know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not saying one for the county. MR. OCHS: I understand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We wouldn't suggest -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I make one final comment? I think the point is -- and then you'll kick this around at lunch, and we'll probably kick it around ourselves, but the point is there may be more efficient ways to do it, and you all can help us figure out how that is. Like John said, you know, you may only need -- if there are four people in an office, you may only need one hookup on all that. MR. DORRILL: We'll have some options for you when you get back at one o'clock. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. (A lunch break was held from 12:08 p.m. to 1:19 p.m.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our budget hearings this afternoon. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good afternoon. I believe we're in the midst of the PC modernization discussion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And Mr. Coakley has some new and exciting answers for us after the lunch break. MR. DORRILL: We -- We met until 12:35 and ruined my lunch, and so I'll tell you what we -- what we did. For the time being, we're -- we're taking and keeping the -- the base state contract price, and as the state contract comes down a little every month, we -- you know, we're only going to buy whatever the base price for the state contract is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. Are you required to buy -- I mean, if you can get them cheaper at Sears, can you get them at Sears? MR. DORRILL: We're required to -- to buy them -- For purposes of whatever stock inventory parts that we may maintain from my perspective as we're trying to go to PCs, it -- I think for the moment we're -- you know, our second year of installation, it behooves me to be able to try and stay with -- with one brand name as opposed to doing compacts or whatever other IBM compatibles or -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: There -- There's always one that -- Which is the one you always tell me never to buy at OfficeMax, the one everybody runs on special, and everybody says don't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bell. MR. DORRILL: -- buy this one? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Packard Bell. MR. COAKLEY: Packard Bell. MR. DORRILL: Packard Bell. MR. OCHS: I didn't say it. He said it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We heard that that's not a good One '- MR. DORRILL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but for the record we don't endorse -- MR. DORRILL: No. So let me -- let me tell you what we did. We did -- We started all over with the -- the unit cost. We -- We've taken out the sound card and headphones, $215. We have taken out the Class Act Associated software training at $250. We have taken out the Key Term software at $147. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was that going to do? MR. DORRILL: Key Term is an interim software, as I understand it, to allow access to certain existing financial management information that not every employee needs to have. I think that was one of the points you were making, is -- is the Board of County Commissioners' executive secretary need to have that particular access when she might otherwise get it from some other source, and so I've made the decision. The answer is no. So we took out those three elements, and then took out $61 of associated cost to network those computers, and we are networking them by groups of 24. There's a device called a hub that has 24 ports on it. There's the associated connectors and wiring costs that are all part of that. We took $61 or about 12 percent out of the connection cost. That was a total reduction of $673. So your unit cost is now twenty-nine ninety-nine. So that -- that's part A of this budget. Then I looked at part B which was the other $226,000 to be able to then tie in remote sites via either T-1 lines or through some step process the 800-megahertz system at some point. We had 18 off-site locations that were scheduled next year, and we've cut that down to 12, and we went from $226,000 to $170,000 in the -- the linkage aspect of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who -- Who doesn't get connected then? MR. DORRILL: I -- That schedule I didn't have during lunch, and we'll just go from 18, and we'll reprioritize. MR. COAKLEY: We can reprior -- Okay. We have that list if you'd like to see it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Developed in advance, but we're just going to cut down on the amount of -- of that initial capital. That was a combined reduction in this budget of $98,000. So we went from $448,000 to $350,000 for what I think is a drastically reduced program and unit cost for the next year. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm supportive of that total amount. The one point I'd like to make is that you -- you've been very careful to itemize what areas you feel can be cut in specific line items. You know, there may be some areas that, you know, a sound card is appropriate here when training isn't and so forth. MR. DORRILL: We -- And we discussed that and -- and -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: -- I've told them the board is not micromanaging where or -- We talked specifically about we may want to buy one sound card and training package per department, and the way that I will handle that is a field purchase order. And -- And, frankly, if I'm cutting field purchase orders for $250 a pop per department, that's not something I don't think the board is really interested in trying to monitoring. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Then you understand completely. So we're talking about 98,000 total cost reduction in that line item, and I'm supportive of that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Without reducing the number of terminals, we're still at 60? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. MR. DORRILL: We still will do 60 for next year. We will do some additional ones for the enterprise funds. This is your property tax capital fund, but all of the unit costs will be adjusted by a similar amount so that if the utility division is buying PCs, we'll be going from 3,700 to twenty-nine ninety-nine for those as well. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's wonderful as far as I'm concerned. My only other just in the heads-up department for future is that when we get to talking about that $1,000 a unit annual cost, if that stays at $1,000 a unit, then I've told the manager I want quickly some privatization bids out because I can beat that. MR. DORRILL: You made that abundantly clear to me yesterday, and we'll be discussing that budget on Monday. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All seven times. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski. MR. TINDALL: Okay. The next item is a PC-based human resource information system, the total request expenditure of 273,500. There's also a recurring operating impact starting in FY '98 of 28,400 per year for a support service contract from the vendor. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've -- I've seen a full presentation on this particular item in addition to receiving a favorable recommendation from the productivity committee. If you've -- I did a workday down in human resources and saw the big packages of green and white, you know, green bar paper they have to use to look up reports and so forth. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stupid. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The county manager has reduced this significantly from what was requested. I -- I'm supportive of the balance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. (Commissioner Constantine entered the board room.) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why was it reduced? What -- What's the rationale? MR. DORRILL: There -- There was another element that they wanted to buy and -- and I just -- MR. OCHS: We were looking -- I'm sorry, Neil. MR. DORRILL: Go ahead. MR. OCHS: We had a -- originally also programmed in a scanner and a -- what we call a kiosk so that we could actually do outreach to let the public fill in an application on a dedicated kiosk on line and also use a scanner with an H.R. to scan some of these paper documents so we would have them for the personnel files in an imaging and automated fashion, and those elements were you cut out. We would hope maybe in subsequent years we could come back in -- in a phased approach and -- and get that equipment on line eventually. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, is it your intention to -- to do that -- that portion next year? MR. DORRILL: It is. I -- I think it's obvious that I made some strong commitments to modernize human resources this year, and we made some organizational and some management changes, but we need some -- we need some automation there where, frankly, none exists, and that's -- I'm very hopeful that we'll be able to afford or -- or look at the balance of this next year. We just couldn't do it all this year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Gottcha. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next. MR. TINDALL: Next item is the Collier Naples Stave 90 median -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- MR. TINDALL: -- project for 52,000. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We just approved that so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the Davis project; right? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. Yeah. Let's keep moving. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This one we just -- The next one, the medical examiner facility, we just -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just approved that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- approved two days ago. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. TINDALL: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick comment on that, and I don't want to get off because I understand since yesterday they had the -- or since Tuesday, they had the conversation with the sheriff's department on trying to combine that, and -- and there's already been some architectural work done, and -- and they were kind of blowing it off as though -- well, not our -- not our folks. I think the H.E. was blowing it off, saying it couldn't be done. I hope we will look at that in depth because I think long term it's going to save some money. MR. OLLIFF: We -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For what it's worth, I don't want to waste time today. MR. OLLIFF: We are, but just -- just so the board's aware of what -- what we were talking about yesterday was a small operation. What -- What's being requested is a 5,000-square-foot building space, and I'm just not sure on the property that we're even talking about that they will physically fit on the same property. But we are -- and I talked to OCPH staff talking about at least trying everything that we can to try and sit down and work with them so that even if it's not this year, that there's an expansion possibility to the building that we're building, like a dead-end hallway you could then add onto with the sheriff's lab facility. So we will do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public works maintenance complex. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are we doing there that's only 25 percent of the request? MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. Next year, Commission, we'll be doing all of the site infrastructure for that project, the 60 acres. We're going to put in the roads, the utilities, the perimeter security fencing, all the -- Everything that goes other than the buildings will be done next year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And then the year after that you're planning to come back and build the building? Is that it? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So Mr. Dorrill -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What if we -- Excuse me. Let -- Let me ask one more question. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What if we -- What if we didn't put in the infrastructure next year? The year after that could we come in with the whole facility instead? Could we do it that way, or is there a timing problem? MR. GONZALEZ: No. We could do that also. It's a question of getting some facility in there as soon as possible; for instance, aquatic plant. They -- They really need a new facility soon. We could have the facility available by end of next summer. Possibly some of the operating departments could use that facility for storing equipment, vehicles, things of that nature in advance of the buildings going up, but it can all be done as part of one contract. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You also have a potential funding issue. At this point there's $7 million available in the pot on an annual basis. As we make reductions to that, that pot shrinks. We have the 800-megahertz debt already a million five per year. The medical examiner facility is shown as 50 percent debt funded. The ability to fund 4.6 million in one -- in one lump sum may be difficult. We would perhaps have to borrow on commercial paper or something to enable us to construct that entire project in one year, just so you're aware of that. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Now, is the $1.7 million -- any debt involved in that or is that -- MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a cash out? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Didn't we just recently take some action to consolidate some of our rolling debt and put it on a note of some sort? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we did. We -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And doesn't that then free up some of our rotating lines of credit? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You had taken, I thought, commercial paper and eliminated balloons. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought we did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mmm-hmm. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Didn't we just do that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So my point is that I think we will have some -- some short-term line of credit or commercial paper freed up by that time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like your idea, and I'd like us to defer the item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If it doesn't cause a hardship to OCPM, this may be $1.7 million that we could shift out a year. MR. GONZALEZ: We have the monies this year for the design of that facility. We just selected an architect and a civil engineer for that. I'm -- I'm almost certain that we have all the monies we need for the design of the facility. That 1.7 was the cost -- construction management and capital improvement cost for the site infrastructure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And you -- and I -- If I understood you right, you -- you are saying that shifting that out to the -- the -- the next fiscal year beyond this, '97/'98, would not cause a hardship in the program? MR. GONZALEZ: No. Not -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Undue hardship. Undue hardship. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. As long as the buildings can then be constructed at the same time. That's really the hardship, is to get the buildings in place so that the -- our customers can move into it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we put off a million seven this year, you want -- want to be trusting that you're going to get 6.3 next year to do the whole job next year. MR. GONZALEZ: You will most likely be 6.3 plus whatever building construction inflation -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. GONZALEZ: -- number we adjust it to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, you'd need that inflation in any case because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- it's going to be the same. MR. GONZALEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Can we -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like that idea. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You all right with that, Bettye? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Just one -- one little caution. We're -- We're levying about $4 million this year in ad valorem taxes, and if you take essentially half of that out, your -- you know, your original one mill fund that would have given you 18 million this year is going to be down to 2 million, and it gets real hard to add millage back in for -- for capital improvements. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is why you staged it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, but -- but at the same time we're really looking at overall millage. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're looking at aggregate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. We're looking at aggregate, and I think we all understand that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep -- So noted. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Okay. All right. Reroofing projects. That -- I don't think we're going to have a problem with that one. New -- New air conditioners. Where -- Where are those for, quickly? MR. CAMP: Those are for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your -- Your name is? MR. CAMP: I'm sorry. For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. The worst AC problems we're having currently are in building A. Those units are 35 to 40 years old. And also your entire air conditioning system for the entire campus is on a chilled closed water loop, and one pump that we don't have a back up for is $11,000. If that pump goes down, then we lose air conditioning for up to 48 hours. That pump is $11,000. It's the weak link in the chilled water system. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think we're going to have a problem with that one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Building J repairs. MR. CAMP: That was reduced from ninety-three to twenty-eight at this point. The -- The three projects that are left in there are Building J, the jail, boiler retubing. Host of the items in there have to do with the boiler, the cooking, and that kind of thing, and -- and also to replace the iron steam lines that's associated with that. The last one, Commissioners, is we have a -- we have a muffin monster that is a grinder at the end of the building, and everything that goes through that system goes through this muffin monster or this grinder. The problem is, the teeth are worn out, and every time an inmate flushes either shoes or a sheet -- this happens two or three times a day -- if it doesnwt grind it up properly, it gets to the lift station, and then we have raw material out in this little street here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So thatws part of this? MR. CAMP: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: These are all -- These are all necessary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The boiler is the only way we can make hot water in the jail, and -- and they use lots of hot water. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- What would be the cost if we eliminated sheets and shoes? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I really think that all the rest of these are probably pretty necessary until we get down to -- Item number 21 is one where we need a quick discussion, the $24,500,000 worth of jail. MR. DORRILL: A meeting was held this morning to update the cost and propose to you this coming Tuesday what the current program cost for the jail and/or sheriffws administration and/or work restitution center are and show you what portion of a penny sales tax and for how long are necessary if you choose to put any of those on the ballot. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The sheriff has an opinion as to penny sales tax versus a bond referendum or -- Wewre going to have that discussion on Tuesday so -- Iwm sorry. Maybe -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are? MR. DORRILL: I donlt -- I donlt know. showing it here as some sort of bond proceeds, but obviously if -- if you use cash and you collect it all in one year, you can collect about 25 million Iim told in one year sales tax. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This 24 -- 24 million includes the work-release restitution? MR. DORRILL: Does not. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It does not? MR. DORRILL: No. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So thatls what? Another -- MR. DORRILL: Two million eight hundred thousand was the number that welve been working off of. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Did -- Did I miss this discussion? Because I was curious whatls the difference between Building J repairs and Building J improvements which is line 27 and eight. MR. CAMP: Building J repairs are the items we talked about, the retubing of the boiler and the grinder. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And improvements, line 27, 5,000 bucks, wanted 65,000. MR. CAMP: Thatls a sheriffls request. MR. TINDALL: I can give you a little bit of information on that. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Okay. MR. TINDALL: Phil Tindall, budget office. Includes furniture, interior construction at the substations and headquarters, carpeting and locks. It was reduced to $5,000 which was -- basically amounted to some acoustical padding in some of the interior walls of the building. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Just curious. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go back. I think we skipped over line 24 which is the computer-aided dispatch. The sheriff's been asking for this. Mr. Nind has a big grin on his face over there because he -- he knows what's coming on this one he thinks, but I -- I think we've delayed this one long enough -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've delayed it long enough. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- should put it in. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He walked me through there, and it is amazing the differences it's going to make. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. I -- I've been through it myself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was a painful withdrawal last year, and I'd rather not go through it again this year. So I'm -- I'm all for leaving that in. MR. DORRILL: This is one of those proposed as a phase-in deal, and -- and I asked some specific questions about, you know, can you get substantially started and then completed in the following year, and I was told that -- that we could. But I felt strongly, as you did, that we needed to do it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we go back to item 13 for a minute? We snuck by there. The paint plan, just what do we do? I don't necessarily object. I don't know how that works. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's time to paint our buildings. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we rotate? Do we do some buildings every so many years? MR. OCHS: Skip has a total schedule of both exterior and interior painting, and I'll let him itemize that for you. MR. CAMP: Commissioners, we have a paint schedule plan. We paint all the exteriors every seven years and the interiors every ten years. The -- The interiors of any -- of all the buildings have been deleted this year. This year we'll only do exteriors for 79,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I believe that finishes up our 301. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we cut 1.7. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, we did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Plus -- Plus the modernization. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Plus ninety-eight. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we cut two point -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ninety-eight in IT. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 2.7 mill -- 2.65 million. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For a total so far of $4,341,700, not counting the 2 two eighty-eights. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right about 4.9. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's progress, kids. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Making some progress. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, on -- on our grounds -- this may show up somewhere. I couldn't seem to find it -- we have flowers, beautification. Once this year I think we even had City of Naples smelling mulch and -- what -- How much do we spend a year? Where will I find that in here, general groundskeeping, beautification? Because when we pull flowers -- MR. DORRILL: Countywide -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- replant flowers -- MR. DORRILL: We have -- We have different contracts. But just here at the -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On campus. MR. DORRILL: -- government center, what's your private contract for grounds maintenance? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And aren't the little tree worms extra? MR. DORRILL: Silk worms are part of the base bid. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're only for mulberry trees, aren't they? MR. DORRILL: Black olives. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, black olives. MR. CAMP: That is approximately 257,000 for the main campus and all the peripheral -- all the libraries, all the EMS stations, sheriff's stations, development services, the ag center, all the properties we have countywide. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's our next one? 306? MR. TINDALL: Yes, Commissioner. That's fund 306, the main parks construction fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The only -- The only one I really have any concern about is item number five, the Naples Pier. What's this extra fifty grand now for that? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And are we actually going to be able to get to the beach and use it? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You just can't park there. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are -- Are county residents going to be able to use it? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what bothers me a little is we went through the exercise two or three years ago where we all got together and said we need to work together more. We'll share in the cost of these projects, and the whole community benefits. And then this year the discussion, I think, is still ongoing. Maybe it's changed. You can help me but -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think -- I think that of the -- of the seven-member council, I only hear one person who's talking about this limited access, and I don't hear anybody in the management at city hall talking about it. I think it's -- it's been in the newspaper but that it's not very seriously considered to be a real concern. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. What are we doing with the 50,000 this time? MR. DORRILL: It's an expansion of their decking. The renovation project that you see only took the deck replacement halfway or out to where the concession building is, and they'd like to do some additional decking. And in fairness, while they had made an additional request for the Naples Landing project, as a result of the meeting that the chairman and I had with the city manager and the school people the other day, they -- they told us that honestly they had reevaluated that, and they didn't need it, so we've taken that out. We left in just the 50,000 to do additional decking. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The entire decking project will be two eighty-three, is what I read here? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. That was the previous. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was a different -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. What -- What is the entire project going to cost for them to deck the rest of it? MR. DORRILL: I don't know. I don't know what -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is -- MR. TINDALL: They said the general -- The entire project expense was 100,000, and they're asking for a 50/50 match from the county. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, our -- our previous match -- Our previous amount of two eighty-three, was that 50 percent of the project cost? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It was? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's the only one I had any questions on really. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I'm fine based on -- on Commissioner Mac'Kie's explanation. I -- I -- I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I have several snappy retorts to that discussion if it ever comes up so -- MR. DORRILL: The chairman put a tongue lashing on the city manager that same meeting that I just -- MR. OLLIFF: You -- You're currently in the third year of our interlocal agreement on beach parking, so we'll know a little more hopefully as we go in and try to renegotiate that agreement this year. I would assume the board wants to extend that same agreement that we have. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My discussions with individual council members seems to be that this is a minority opinion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm happy with that. MR. TINDALL: Next item, page 150, is library capital, fund 307, with the request of $250,000 for capital outlay which is about a third decrease from -- from the adopted budget last -- for this year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are they going to do with that? MR. TINDALL: It -- It's broken down at the bottom of the page there. There's 55,000 requested for publications and periodicals; 20,000 for audiovisual and non-book purchases; 5,000 for microforms; and 170,000 for books, publications, and materials. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't look like there's a lot you can take out from there based on our Growth Management Plan requirement and what we've committed to in the past increasing the per-capita circulation or collection. MR. OLLIFF: And this -- this is the other budget where we told you that -- that John had reduced his budget by $125,000 from last year to -- to bring in his total ad valorem cost for library services down to a 2 percent increase, and so that's where this decrease is here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, we -- we -- we briefly discussed this yesterday, and I -- I think we're all pretty happy with it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a question I missed on the last page. And, Commissioner Matthews, maybe you can help me with this. The -- Item three, Immokalee Rec Center renovation, what point are we at that? I know we've done stepped work. We did the pool. We did -- and we're -- we're doing different things. What does that one sixty-eight include? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Most of it's finished but -- MR. OLLIFF: This is the last portion of it, and actually this is the renovation of an existing building that is on site, and it is an old shop building that is currently sitting on the county's facility. It was always designed to be a place for a meeting room space there in Immokalee. Right now it just -- it sits vacant and idle with basically some old shop shelving in it. It is on our site and one of the things we had originally intended to do, and this is the last phase of that -- that project. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're always in need up there for meeting space. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The fund 314 I don't think we need to spend any time on. 325, the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Makes it tough to take anything out of that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mmm-hmm. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wonder if that one's high enough. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. CONRECODE: We have -- For the record, Tom Conrecode, public works. We've already cut 556,500 based on the manager's recommendations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm suggesting that I wonder if we want to leave that cut, if I -- if I might disagree with the manager's assessment on that recommendation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil, you must have had some sort of rationale. MR. DORRILL: Trying to hold down the general fund transfer. I -- I can tell you, I think the real meat here is under the heavy equipment line item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. DORRILL: I will be the first to tell you I was there the day they demonstrated that -- that in-ditch excavator. It is a highly efficient machine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would it cost to put it back in? MR. DORRILL: $265,000. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two sixty-five. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to put it back in. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would too. I'd like to put it back in, and the reason to put it back in, because we still have a lot of drainage work to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we've got serious drainage problems. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode just two weeks ago was telling us that we're only 40 percent better off than last year, and so we're going to have to pray for 60 percent less rain -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- but -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and hopefully that will happen but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it should happen since we had twice -- 100 percent more than is normal last year but -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, our normal is 55. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- If we increased -- and which we did. I mean, you look up here -- Even with that reduction, we're at a 20 -- a 30 percent budget increase over last year. We increased work crews, equipment, and materials during the past 12 months, and -- and in one year made a 40 percent improvement. With the same materials or, as it's proposed here, an increase in that amount, I'm confident we can get more than 40 percent done in the next year and -- and get up to 60 or 70 percent improvement. And as much as I agree that that piece of equipment you're talking about is -- is -- is a great piece and I'd like to have it, you know, let's all do our anti-rain dance and -- and push it off for 12 months. I -- I just -- I'm not ready to plug it back in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my -- My question about it is, what work can we not do without it. I mean, what -- what canals CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- that's -- that's the -- That's the question. If we -- what -- we -- We've got some major projects in the development stage and the planning stage and -- and engineering stage sort of, but -- but are we going to be able to use the equipment? If we bought it today, do we have work that we can use it for that -- that would be in advance of having this project all set to go? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir, we do. This equipment is for existing canal systems in most cases that are 15, 20, 30 years old. Those canal systems suffer from not having adequate access. In other words, we have homes or improvements built right up to the edge of the bank -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. Yes. MR. CONRECODE: -- and we have a problem getting in there and hauling material out. We can't get our trucks in and so -- MR. DORRILL: Good physical examples would be -- What is the rear yard ditch in Naples Park that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 91st, 92nd Avenue. MR. DORRILL: That's one example. Another example would be Trade Center Way or portions of the Lely canal that go up past our ability to get a piece of dragline or excavator, long-reach excavator. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to -- I've got to concur with Commissioner Hancock. I mean, if we're -- Yes, we have been deficient in past years, and, yes, we need to correct that, but you can't do all of that at the same time, and I think we're taking a giant step now, and then we need to take another giant step for a couple of years to come to make sure we get back on line, but I'm not sure we can take that big of a chunk all in one year. We're already increasing 30 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think, though, that taxpayers would be surprised to learn that their county government is not even able to -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I think we've got three yeses. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've got three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes! COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we've got three yeses. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've got three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's back in. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we've got to take two sixty-five off of our list. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I'm doing it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sorry. I don't have minus on my calculator for that. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. It's a plus. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that -- Does that conclude our capital? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. We have the airport authority which would be on the subsequent page after water management. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't have that page. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. It should be page 154 in your detail book. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't have it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't exist. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What is this? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It does not exist. Mr. Drury is going to hand-carry us a copy of it, I would assume. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll get right to it. I have a question on that muck monster. If one of our problems has been getting trucks in to haul the material out, this muck monster digs it and does what with it? Piles it on the bank. So when it rains, shwoooo, right back in. MR. DORRILL: In the smallest canals, you -- you can spread it across the top of the ditch bank. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I saw that done down on -- actually, on my street. They -- They pulled it out, set it on the side, and graded it. MR. DORRILL: I -- I can see on occasion where you would have to get one of the small utility vehicles with a tip bed on it and then haul it laterally back out someplace, but that's the exception. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure we aren't fixing one problem and creating another. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for my own information, that -- that last item that we approved, how much will we have to spend in training and insurance and maintenance and liability and all COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And hookup? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- those various things -- yeah, and a $1,000 hookup fee -- for that $265,000 piece of machinery? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Will they come in and teach us how to use it? MR. DORRILL: Yes. The -- The same way that we get some -- some training and delivery as -- as part of our Kimotzu long-reach excavator which is a fairly sophisticated machine as well. MR. CONRECODE: And it operates under very similar hydraulic principles as a backhoe, long-reach excavator so our -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't anticipate any additional costs? MR. CONRECODE: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What about Dan Pucher's fleet maintenance -- Dan Pucher's fleet maintenance group? Has anyone asked him? MR. DORRILL: We need somebody to volunteer to go to Switzerland to monitor the manufacture of it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Liechtenstein. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did we have five volunteers for that? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got three votes for it, guys. We've got three votes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's go. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Airport. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's a small island country, I'll go but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: John Drury, executive director for the Collier County Airport Authority. The airport authority wanted me to ask you to consider three changes to what's before you that's been worked with the county manager's office, and I'd like to present those. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're offering cuts? MR. DRURY: Excuse me? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're offering cuts of their own? MR. DRURY: Offering cuts of their own? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never mind. Just go ahead. MR. DRURY: I guess you will -- you will -- you will tell me, and I will tell them. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. MR. DRURY: The first change is a -- is a minor one. Under the Marco Island -- there -- there -- There are three changes, two to Marco Island capital program and one to the Immokalee Airport capital program. The Marco Island program, we have a title there that says T hangars at a cost of two twenty-nine. We'd just like to change that to aircraft hangar. The reason is, is that there's a big demand for aircraft hangars down there, and we don't -- Because of the amount of land that we have to work with, we may end up having to build a bulk storage hangar in lieu of a T hangar. That's the only change for that one. It's just a name change from T hangar to aircraft hangar. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the other change? MR. DRURY: The other change is we had budgeted $465,000 for the terminal rehabilitation project this current year, and we received a 90 percent grant to do that, and we received $418,000, an airport grant, and our match was $46,000. We contracted out with our engineering and architectural team. They went down there to evaluate and to begin the design. They found some serious problems with that old terminal building, about $150,000 more problems than we had budgeted for in the area of septic tanks which is unacceptable for a commercial building, sewer lines that need to be connected to that sewer plant down there, installation of grounded pipes. It doesn't meet any handicap codes. No fire protection system currently exists there. The air condition system -- Skip Camp will attest to this -- is just caputz, even has been for a long time; water line problems. The telephone system looks like spaghetti. All of -- And it's a lot of residential construction. What it -- What it boils down to is we're $150,000 short to rehabilitate that terminal building and relocate the administrative offices. I went up to Tallahassee and discussed with the airport grant folks of our problem. They agreed that it's -- it's necessary to do something to that old terminal building because it's leaking and dilapidated. They've agreed to give us an 80 percent grant of the additional 150,000 that we need. So what we would need -- That's about $128,000 that they would contribute to the budget, and we would need to come up with a $32,000 match. This would be a straight-out grant, not a prequalified grant. What that means is it would be budgeted in current -- in -- in -- in -- beginning October 1. And I guess what I'm saying is we need a $150,000 increase to the terminal building project, but we would show a $128,000 grant revenue, and we would require a $32,000 grant match. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Twenty-two. MR. DRURY: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 22,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A hundred twenty-eight plus 22 would equal one fifty. MR. DRURY: Did I say one fifty? I'm sorry. One sixty. A hundred sixty thousand dollars which would be 128,000 plus 32,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be the first to admit that, John, you and I haven't sat down, and my -- my -- really my understanding of the airport authority in total is probably not as good as some of my colleagues, and I'm reminded each year at budget of something Mr. Dotrill has brought up several times about, you know, the -- the course of development is such that we're standing behind something solidly so that it can get on its feet, and at that point it then becomes self, you know, sufficient and goes from there, and I guess I don't have a clear picture of that window. When is that supposed to happen? Has it been delayed? Are we getting beyond where we initially thought we would get in the form of ad valorem funding in these areas? I just don't have a real good feel for that. MR. DRURY: Sure. That's a good question. I guess the quick answer is in the operational account you'll see a 43 percent decrease to the fund 001 ad valorem tax requirement. Our goal is to keep that trend going down. Now, this year it's a big decrease. We're -- We're requesting 43 percent less money from the county to operate our airport, primarily because everything you've built is a revenue producer like this terminal building and the fuel farm. we're -- we're -- we're incurring more revenues which is offsetting the cost that y'all used to -- The goal and the business plan was to have us -- these airports self-sufficient within ten years, and that -- that business plan was developed in 1994 so -- and -- And if everything works out as we have all planned and Immokalee takes off as we hope it will, your airport authority should be self-sufficient ten years from the date that business plan was adopted and that's -- My goal and the authority's goal is to see that break-even need or that the fund 001 transfer continually go down. This year it's down 43 percent. I think that's one of the biggest budget cuts you'll see before you, and I hope every year we get it down, down, down, down, down, and then my personal goal is within five years we begin paying back the county its investment plus interest what you all have put into these airports. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I apologize for taking that time. I just -- I needed to hear that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- So you're looking at starting the pay-back in 19997 MR. DRURY: That -- That's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Personally. MR. DRURY: -- what I would like to see. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DRURY: And -- And things are looking pretty good. Every hangar wewve built is full. The only area that wewre having a hard time with right now is the Immokalee industrial park and foreign trade zone. It took a long time to get our foreign trade zone, and building the confidence of the private sector in foreign countries and around the United States to invest in facilities in Immokalee is a very tough job for -- for us and the Economic Development Council and the airport authority, and thatws my third change recommendation that the authority wanted me to express at Immokalee. That is, they believe that the development of a bulk storage commercial maintenance hangar, if we were to construct that and have that out there, we could attract our first commercial facility operator there, and then the credibility of doing business at that airport will raise because we will have an entity there that is conducting business. Wewre having a heck of a time getting pe -- a lot of people interested, a lot of phone calls from Germany and to Japan to all over the place saying, "We hear about the Immokalee Airport. We want to look at it." When you drive out there and you show what we have to offer -- we were in the development stages -- itws very hard for these people to invest a large capital item. For -- We can construct a 10,000-square foot bulk storage hangar for about $200,000, and I can get a 50 percent grant from the Florida Department of Transportation aviation office which would mean we would need a $100,000 grant match. The benefits of doing that are, number one, itws a revenue producer. When that hangar is built, wewre going to be getting a lot of rent from whoever goes in there. The other benefit is half of that is going to be covered with a grant. The third most important benefit is it will be the catalyst, I believe, for attracting somebody there, building credibility, and starting that synergism of getting that airport industrial park going. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically youlre looking for an anchor tenant? MR. DRURY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Yeah. Somebodyls got to start it and that -- I mean, thatls exactly what the countyls role has been in this whole process, is to start the ball rolling, and -- and I think this sounds like one more time where we ought to do that because we fought so hard to get that FTZ. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Another thing, though, the board did just -- what -- a couple of months ago, I guess, Neil, we advanced the beautification program $200,000 to get that off the ground next year as well. So all of this is coming together now at one time. MR. DRURY: Thatls for the Main Street? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mmm-hmm. MR. DRURY: Thatls -- Thatls, like, critical -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. DRURY: -- because when people walk into that community -- I can hear them in the back of the car when I drive them and we go in there and we try to sell the community. Thatls going to be a critical part to making them feel comfortable about investing millions of dollars and relocating their facilities. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: So the total capital request, then, with that change would go to how much? MR. DRURY: Welre asking for $160,000 for the terminal building at Marco. Eighty percent of that will be covered under a grant. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: So out of ours -- So out of -- MR. DRURY: You would need to contribute -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 32,000. MR. DRURY: -- $32,000. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 32,000 more. MR. DRURY: And the Immokalee bulk storage hangar will cost about 200,000. We can get a grant for 100,000, and we would need 100,000 contribution to that. Now, that would be under the same terms and conditions as we previously have. That would be a long-term loan that we would add to the debt that the authority's incurred. And when the authority becomes self-sufficient, that would be paid back with interest. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- Let me ask you something here. I'm looking at the -- the line item that says debt service principal and debt service interest. Is that debt service back to the county? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. That's the repayment of the commercial paper loan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: For each of Mr. Drury's projects, he borrows up front because they are reimbursement grants. As those grants come in, the debt is repaid. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So it's not back to the county? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm trying to look at someplace to dig up this $100,000 out of this budget. Is there something that you can shift until the -- In other words, I'm asking you to -- to make a decision to prioritize here. What -- What can you -- MR. DRURY: I would say the runway lighting system at Marco, as much as I hate to do this, could wait one year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But that doesn't help us with the $100,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's only 40,000 of our match; is that correct? MR. DRURY: That's correct. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Between the two, he needs 132,000 if you were to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- fund both projects. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're -- we're going from 244,000 out of 001 to 376,000 without removing anything. And as much as you make an excellent case, Mr. Drury, right idea, wrong year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What else could we reprioritize? The Marco Island lights is a good one, but that's 40,000 of -- We need another ninety. MR. DRURY: I think the -- the apron at Immokalee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- That's only -- MR. DRURY: -- would be a lower priority than the hangar. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how much is that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twenty. MR. DRURY: That looks like a $20,000 match. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What did -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, he's -- he's looking for $132,000, and -- and he's only got two hundred forty-four available from which to shift. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The bulk of which is in reserves and debt service -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- interest at this point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyway can't be moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask about -- Do we have a mandated minimum reserve amount that we cannot reduce? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. But traditionally we budget 5 percent. Obviously these are estimate -- estimated project costs, not bid project costs so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what I'm thinking is that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good idea. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm thinking is that leave the reserve amount in. If we get a couple of bids and take maybe runway lighting out, if we get a couple of bids that come in a little bit lower and free up the funds, come back for a transfer from reserves, and you can get the project done that way. That way we're not taxing up here -- not having to increase the taxes, and the money's still there. I -- I'd be willing to look at using reserves for one or both of those ideas, depending on how your other projects do. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or how about reducing reserves right now? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's only 44,000 in reserve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the point, is he's pointed to two items that total $60,000. The balance of reserves would get that -- the big hangar built, but then there's nothing left during the year. How have your reserves been used over the last couple of years? MR. DRURY: We've been pretty fortunate. Of the 22 projects I'm managing right now, 2 ran into problems where we had to go in reserves. Having gone through a full two years of construction down here and trying to anticipate the problems I was not fully aware of in the budgeting, I feel pretty comfortable that the plan I just heard might very well work because we've got fewer projects than we've had in the future -- in -- in the past. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I'd like to do is go ahead and approve the amount presented here with the flexibility of the two projects you've cited, consider those and a mixed bag of these other projects, and whichever ones you prioritize are -- are your decision. I don't think we're excluding any of the projects. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two votes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's still $20,000 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- short though. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's done. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he's going to have to bring something in 20,000 under budget to do everything you want. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise, you set the priorities. MR. DRURY: Keep -- Keep the funding the way it is, use reserves, set the priorities. MR. SHYKOWSKI: General -- MR. DRURY: I'm clear. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- fund support remains -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- the same, and we'll work it out as to the details -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- to the priority -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Clear? MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- of the project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Clear. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Clear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Clear? MR. DRURY: Clear. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Drury. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That concludes the ad valorem-supported capital. At -- At this point, a year from now after debt service we would have approximately $4 million available for funding projects, whereas this year prior to these changes we had 5 1/2 million so -- but thems the breaks, just so you're aware of where we stand for next year. That pot gets squeezed a little tighter every year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can't always build everything we want. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. While Mr. Drury's here, he did indicate we -- yesterday we were supposed to go through his operating budget. I guess the highlight he has hit upon, the general fund subsidy of the airport, the three airport operations goes from $351,600 to 199,300. It would be 43.3 percent decrease in general fund support that he alluded to. I -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep it up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Keep it up? I say fine; lower it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep lowering it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I see. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continue to lower it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Drury. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep up the good work. MR. TINDALL: Commissioners, to continue on with the capital improvement program, we'd like to go to the tab in the big book marked capital. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mike, what page? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 2 in the detail book. MR. TINDALL: Under the capital tab. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And do we have a corresponding page in our summary book? MR. TINDALL: No, Commissioners. Only in the big book. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Depending on how far we get, I need to give the board one little disclaimer. There was one project that I had initially not recommended, and we've had some subsequent discussions in the utility wastewater side, and I wasn't sure how far we would get today. There are some residents from Lakewood who want to be here and speak, and I told them that I didn't think that that would be until Monday. So we may have to hold out that one capital project of -- of their otherwise list, but you can blame that on me. I just mistakenly told the people -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: -- to be here on Monday. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We were actually hoping to do the enterprise capital with the enterprise funds on Monday. If that would work better for everyone, that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- that's fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's -- Let's get moving. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The one now we're going to walk through are the non-ad valorem-supported capital funds. Essentially your impact fee funds will -- Phil will identify the revenue sources as we walk -- walk through each of the respective funds and/or the project requests. But, again, these are non-ad valorem. MR. TINDALL: The first two funds, Wiggins Pass dredging and Marco Beach renourishment, are essentially inactive for '97. The only expenses are indirect service reimbursements to the general fund. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. MR. TINDALL: Impact fee-funded parks capital, fund 345 and 368. As you can see on page 4, 345 would be the regional park impact fee fund, and 368 is the Naples urban, Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are we seeing happening at the East Naples park? Because it needs some significant work. I see the roller rink and then just -- I see a general 50,000 for East Naples park. What are they going to get finally? MR. OLLIFF: Actually, in this year's budget, there is money to construct a skateboard park which is under design. We are also probably going to try and do the landscape enhancements that you've heard about out of this year's budget. And, in fact, I've authorized to have to prepare the executive summary and the budget amendment out of our own fund, to go ahead and do that. And basically some of the landscaping improvements are simply just fairly minor in nature, what -- what East Naples Civic is looking for. And so you should see that on a consent agenda within the first week or two when you get back from your vacation. The project that's here for East Naples is actually lighting the existing roller hockey rink that was built this year, and for us that actually, you know, creates about four to five more court hours that we don't have today because it's not lit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, if I may, I notice two things. The first roller hockey rink that went in went in East Naples. The first skateboard park's going in in East Naples. I'm getting a lot of -- lot of flack from North Naples. They have to drive all the way to the other end of town if they want to strap a pair of skates on. MR. OLLIFF: You've got an executive summary that will be on Tuesday's agenda to talk about building two new roller hockey rinks at Veterans' Community Park. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That a boy. MR. OLLIFF: And -- and -- and, frankly, what -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want our trees before they get their -- MR. OLLIFF: What we're -- what -- What we're doing -- and this is a great project, but I will talk more about it on Tuesday -- is the Naples Roller Hockey League is actually trying to accelerate our construction of those, so they're contributing almost a quarter of a million dollars towards the construction of those two rinks -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We love that. MR. OLLIFF: -- and we've been able to get them to donate not only the -- the money but to actually manage their own portion of the construction project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Love that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let me get this straight. In North Naples it's being subsidized by private entities, but the East Naples is built all by county tax funds? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just giving credit where credit's due. MR. OLLIFF: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, what -- what -- now, those -- There are other areas in the county, though, where there are a lot of children and young people who rollerskate too. When's the next one come along? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right after we get this $500,000 item off of this page. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was mainly thinking about Golden Gate City, not so much the estates area, but the city needs one too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They've got a pool. Let them swim. MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. Unfortunately Golden Gate -- and -- and we're starting to see that in most of our community parks. They are becoming built out. The existing land that we have, there just is no land available to do anymore. In fact, Golden Gate Community Park is completely built out. We -- We can't squeeze anything else on that site. If there's an opportunity with part of that sports complex that comes along, there was a discussion about some additional park land as part of that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I received a phone call from one of the -- not the Gators, but there -- there's the Gators, the Hurricanes, and another -- MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- football league, and they're willing to build their own field. Is there any park land that -- and what you just said concerns me because they're willing to do similar to what we heard about the hockey rink -- pay for the building and maintenance, but the land acquisition is what's holding them back from actually doing their own field. Are there any parks where we have what we would see as uncommitted land that -- you know, that an agreement can be worked out there? I mean, I'm asking very general questions now, but I just wanted to put it on the table since we're kind of all over the county with this. MR. OLLIFF: We currently have two locations where they could accommodate an additional football/soccer field. And, in fact, the Max A. Hasse Park is -- is one of those sites and -- and one of the projects that you see here is the Golden Gate Estates Park. That money is actually the construction of a football/soccer field, unlit football/soccer field but a football/soccer field. That's the one that's built on the school's property. The other option that we have is the new South Naples Community Park land in front of Naples Manor. And that's one thing I wanted to point out for the board. There are certain things that I want to make sure that you're aware of in this -- this particular budget, is -- is there is no construction at the South Naples Community Park planned as part of this budget. The reason is, is basically there -- there aren't enough funds to build the park. The staff originally proposed the budget with a draw down on a line of credit to accelerate the construction, but in a budget year when we're in the middle of making operating cuts left and right on -- on the parks' maintenance side and -- and other places, we didn't feel like it made much sense for us to recommend accelerating the construction of a project that also accelerated the -- the need for the operating cost associated with that, so we didn't propose it. We do have -- You'll see in the far right-hand column, the bottom is the reserve numbers and impact fees, and that's what we have retained and I have available for future construction of that park. You've got about $1.2 million, and as the impacts fees come in, we will try and generate enough so that we have cash on hand to build before we actually build that park. But that -- that helped us to reduce your need for operating maintenance dollars by $250,000 this year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even though we have $1.2 million in impact fee reserves that we could be using to build the south park, we're not going to because of the $200,000 it would cost us in operating? MR. OLLIFF: No, because the park actually costs you about 3 1/2 to $4 million to build from start to finish. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But how much -- What could you build with the million two? MR. OLLIFF: The -- The crying need in East Naples right now is a baseball field, and that is the one thing that's also not shown here but that we would like to -- to try and find a way to get built. We didn't put it in this budget because there are two different options on where it could be built, either at the existing East Naples Community Park or at the South Naples Community Park. If you build it at the South Naples Community Park, just to get the baseball field built, you have to build the associated parking lots, the underground utilities, and all of the associated rest room-type facilities that go along with that. So the cost of -- The benefit that you get is a single baseball field. Your cost is going to be about a million two. So if I can build that same baseball field at East Naples Community Park that already has all that infrastructure in place, the cost is about a half a million dollars so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then why don't we spend that -- half million of that million two on a baseball field at East Naples Park? MR. OLLIFF: We're trying to, and -- and Commissioner Norris and the manager and myself had some meetings with the school board because the property that we actually are targeting to build that on is -- is school board property that they don't intend to use adjacent to the East Naples Community Park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I -- I do want to -- Mr. Olliff has been very careful to caution me when we've talked about parks and so forth that we have to be careful. We have a lot of parks coming on line, including the Golden Gate Estates Community Park -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Operating. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or Max -- I guess the Max Hasse Community Park. You know, we've got to -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Operating costs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- fund the operation of those, and we don't want to put ourselves in a hole again. MR. OLLIFF: And Sugden Regional Park -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. OLLIFF: -- we just saw the budget for that yesterday, and that's $258,000 in operating costs, and -- and we showed you we did that on a pretty thin manpower budget, you know, even at that cost so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And speaking of the Sugden, I see we have five twenty-two in this budget for Sugden. Are we delaying anything out there? Are we going ahead with what we planned out there? What -- What is the status? MR. OLLIFF: The status is it's -- it's currently under design. Again, that's the -- the strangest project I've ever been involved in. All the -- the design work is currently being donated. So we're working with local design professionals who are donating their time and doing the -- all of the -- the design -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Take that, Commissioner Hancock. MR. OLLIFF: To -- To get us to the point of construction bids, they have donated all that to that point. We expect to be out to bid hopefully late summer, early fall. The money that you see here is actually two things. There's $300,000 to finish the construction as planned on -- on phase one and two of that park, and there's also $226,000 which is our annual debt service payment for the property itself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I can interrupt, Sue was just in to tell me that someone has lost their wallet in this room, if people would take a look around and see if they locate it. MR. DORRILL: The obvious question is, has it got any money in it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. I didn't ask that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It goes to the general fund. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't ask that, but if -- if you would take a look around your seat, see if it's in the area. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: All funds left in this room shall be applied to the county's general debt service. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that conclude our 345 and 368 then? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question on the -- on the -- on the parks with the Max Hasse Park and the East Naples Park. I'm hearing the ball fields are going to be built on school property, and it's a question I continue to ask but -- MR. OLLIFF: Recreation easements. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Easements? You know, what -- what assurances do we have after committing a half a million dollars to each of those parks? MR. OLLIFF: We can -- We can talk about this if you want to at a commission meeting, but the response we got from the attorney's office from David Weigel -- he felt comfortable that the existing interlocal agreement between the city, the school board, and the county protected our interests in that regard -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: -- and our ability to be able to build things on school sites. But I'll -- I'll send you a copy of that specifically so that you can look at it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm comfortable with it as long as our attorney feels comfortable with it. That's the first I've heard that there was a comfort level high enough. MR. OLLIFF: I'll send you a copy of his -- his memo as well. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's -- let's move along then. MR. TINDALL: The next three pages are -- are fund summaries for the funds having to do with parks' impact fees. The next topic would be EMS impact fee-funded capital which would be page 7, and I believe Diane Flagg is standing in the hallway there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on EMS stuff so -- Diane's coming in? Great. Actually, this is a question that was passed on to me by a constituent from yesterday. Let me see if I can find it. Yeah. Just on the -- on the principle of what -- what Mr. Olliff talks about, some flexibility in -- in personnel because of winter numbers being higher than summer numbers, is it possible for EMS to have that same kind of flexibility since our population shifts so significantly in the season, in the off season? MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, for the record, Diane Flagg, emergency services director. The -- As to the chart that we showed you yesterday, you see that, you know, six, seven years ago there was a tremendous fluctuation in the months, but we're not from an EMS perspective experiencing that kind of fluctuation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the population is shifting, and the sick people stay here in the summer? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the well people go back North. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Too sick to go home. MS. FLAGG: Certainly there's -- there's a variation but it's -- in that chart -- I didn't bring it with me today, but that big table it showed by month what the call volume was by month. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it something you can send me a copy of? MS. FLAGG: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That'd be great. MS. FLAGG: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the answer is peaks and valleys are not as far apart as they are in the general population numbers? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. It used to be -- Several years ago we used to get dramatic peaks and valleys, but I guess if they're not feeling well, they stay here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. No more questions. The library impact fee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None from me on library. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Marco Island improvements are long overdue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The building broke in half. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I hate when the building breaks in half on you. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did it really? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It finally did, huh? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mmm-hmm. Sort of. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's too bad we let it-- let it get that bad. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Earthquake. Earthquake damage. Transportation planning. MR. TINDALL: Pages 9 through 14 reflect the 5-year road plan, and I'll just turn it over to Mr. Gonzalez. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are any the same road plan we already adopted? No? MR. GONZALEZ: No. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We make changes year to year. MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez with OCPH. Let me just highlight the changes to you, Commissioner. And the changes are really based on when a road segment is expected to go -- to be deficient, and that's what we do every year, is after we get that data from HPO, we then rebalance your funds to make sure we can pay for it when we need to have those roads. The changes are County Barn Road. We were planning on having construction start at the end of this year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have a line number somewhere so I can follow you? MR. GONZALEZ: Number 12 on page 9. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got it. MR. GONZALEZ: It's now expected to go deficient in the year 2000. We shifted that out a couple of years in time to, again, balance the funds. Another example is Goodlette-Frank Road. The opposite happened. Last year we thought it was going to go deficient 2001. Now it's expected to go deficient 1998. So we brought it on -- in time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What line? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: On your number 27, line number 27. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the section from Golden Gate north taken from -- Creek into Pine Ridge. MR. GONZALEZ: To the new Vanderbilt Beach Road alignment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. GONZALEZ: The next page, line 45, lllth Avenue. Just last year we had some funds in the year 2000, I think, for some preliminary construction. Now it's expected to go deficient even further on in time. So we just took it out of the plan completely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good answer. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good answer. MR. GONZALEZ: Those were the major highlights, major changes that we did this year. Everything else was really just updating construction cost estimates for your projects. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Going back to the County Barn Road project, the -- assuming for the moment that we go forward with the major Lely basin improvements out there, isn't it true, though, that the County Barn drainage improvements that go along with the County Barn Road project have a major interaction with that whole project? So what do we do about that? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir, it is. We were planning on doing the portion of the district six improvements that were along the County Barn Road east right-of-way line with the County Barn Road construction. Because we're moving it out in time, John Boldt also thought that was a good idea because if we would have put that segment in next year -- the downstream improvements haven't occurred yet -- all of a sudden we would have one very efficient conveyance canal down to the -- at Rattlesnake Hammock -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not good. MR. GONZALEZ: -- and still a plug. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's a good enough answer. Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question on Golden Gate Boulevard, item number 20 on page 9. I see that there's a substantial amount of money in '97. Does that mean we're going to get that project under way now in late '97? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. That is currently under design. We'd like to start construction in '97. Host of that money, though, is for right-of-way acquisition and environmental permitting. The bulk of the construction will occur in FY '98 or the end of calendar year '97. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. That -- That's a year sooner than we've been looking at. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Needs it. MR. GONZALEZ: Traffic counts justify it, yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next. MR. TINDALL: Okay. Page 14-H shows a summary for FY '97 of all the roads capital, and then the following pages break it down by all the individual funds. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're carrying -- Looking at page 14-B, looking at carry-forward, looking at 26,400, does that mean that we have used up all of our carry-forward and are now balanced? We don't have anything in reserve? MR. GONZALEZ: Just a little bit. When we balance the funds, we go through three iterations. First we determine when the road is going to be deficient. Then we balance it on all the revenues available, and then we balance it by fund. That's the tricky part, and when we balanced it by fund, essentially we've -- we've run out of reserves this year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: In this particular fund, in 313. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Or in this particular fund. And my question really relates to our overall picture. Back in early part of '93, we went through a long drawn-out exercise to balance our road project without bonding, and we made projections and -- and I'd -- just sort of while we're here, to have a quick update on how we look. Are we holding our -- Are we holding level? Do we have -- Do we have some excess funds? Are we ahead of ourselves, or are we actually getting behind in our road projects? How are we looking? MR. GONZALEZ: We're still balanced for the -- the next three years. Unfortunately from last -- Last year we had a balanced fund for the five-year window. Now, if you look on page 14, the FY 00 column and FY 01 column were actually showing a deficit in those years; however, it's not that bad because in the following year that it's currently out, the six year of your five-year window, we don't have as many projects planned as in the current window. So we expect to be whole again by the time we get to the year 2000 without any additional funds right now. Unfortunately what -- what really trips up the balancing is when traffic counts change, traffic patterns change, and we have to now rebalance everything -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. MR. GONZALEZ: -- based on the roads -- on the road needs. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But we're still looking pretty good. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. MR. CONRECODE: But to answer your question, out of a $104 million program, we are 1.4 million in the red based on our best estimates. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: At three years from now? MR. CONRECODE: Over our five-year plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Over our five-year plan? MR. CONRECODE: Over the five-year plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Essentially for planning purposes, we're balanced? MR. CONRECODE: For all intensive purposes, we're balanced. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good. Great. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's great. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I apologize, and I -- I missed when you were back on the page, but the -- we don't need to have a full-blown discussion today, but just be aware by July 16 or whenever we need to have this discussion for our budgeting purposes, we'll -- I'll have all the information put together for you. I had mentioned Livingston Road and some possibilities with that, and I'll have all that ready for the whole board's review at that time. I just see the dollar amounts here, and it may alter that or alter the years on that so -- in the for-what-it's-worth category. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one more question, Mr. Conrecode. I'm going through this, and -- and I may be asking about a road that's not on your schedule, but Wilson Boulevard from Immokalee to Golden Gate Boulevard, that -- that road seems to be getting heavier and heavier truck traffic, namely from Apac, going to the east instead of to the west of the county, and it's getting -- it's getting in real bad shape. It's like the sides of the road are falling into the ditches. MR. ARCHIBALD: The improvements to Wilson are in the reconstruction program of your fund 313, so it's listed. Matter of fact, there's improvements planned for both this year and next year, but there will not be capacity improvements, just we're re -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Road surface. That's all? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's all I'm -- I'm looking for right now, is just take -- take this road and make it this. Okay. Thanks. (indicating) MR. TINDALL: Okay. Pages 14-C through 14-I show fund summaries for all the road impact fee funds. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there anything in particular that you need to tell us about any of those? Otherwise, they're pretty cut and dried. MR. TINDALL: No, sir. Fourteen-J, fund 341 is the assessments receivable. Basically all it's showing is reserves which are base -- for '97 which are basically seed money for any possible future projects. So no real active in that fund. And that's all we have for you today for capital. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That finishes all of our capital? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We -- We will do enterprise fund capital with the utilities staff on Monday as part of the enterprise discussion with Mr. Newman and Mr. Clemons. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that mean we're finished for the day? MR. DORRILL: Aside from -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, sir. MR. DORRILL: -- telling you that -- two things. First is that our count for those who are keeping count, we have you at $4.12 million in cuts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have 4,076,000. Did you put back in the two fifty? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two sixty-five. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Two sixty-five. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two sixty-five for their machine? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This would be a good opportunity for any member of the public that -- that is registered to speak or would like to speak on the capital items to come forward and do so. Do we have anyone registered? MR. DORRILL: You don't. I have one more just quick comment there, is that -- Were the TRIM notices to go out as a result of where your tentative budget is at the moment, we would have a 4.1 percent increase in ad valorem taxes over the rollback rate. That contemplates your utility franchise tax and the first-year service fee. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Staying intact. MR. DORRILL: Yes. Now, remember, if you don't do those, then you have to add an additional 7 percent in property taxes. So we -- we're a 4 percent tax increase over the rollback for purposes of the TRIM bills. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we also adopt the other two new taxes. MR. DORRILL: You would be at 11.1 percent -- 11.2 percent without those two. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we're making headway. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Rome wasn't built in a day. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You don't eat an elephant in a day in one chunk either. MR. DORRILL: We -- We are scheduled unless you tell us otherwise -- we did want to go through the special revenue funds, community development. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where would we find that one? MR. DORRILL: They're tab number -- special revenue, I believe, aren't they? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. There's -- Within your summary booklets -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I got it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 2 and 3 is the community development fund. Some of these we may be able to move through fairly quickly. Like the beautification districts are essentially a function of what the advisory committee recommendations are. While there are tax implications to those funds, we'll point those out. We have summary information available as well as, again, full detail if and when we need to have those discussions. With that I'll turn it over to Mr. Kukulski and Mr. Cautero on the community development fund. What I'd like to do in this area too is identify up front as we go through each of these separate funds what the funding source is so you're clear. In this case we are talking about the fund that is principally supported by building permit fees, no ad valorem impact here, just so you're clear as to the nature of the funding source of the department in question. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except for the only ad valorem impact would be if we could shift some of what's currently being paid for out of ad valorem into more fee-supported services in that division. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. And I spoke with Mr. Weigel on the lunch break, and I believe he will be prepared to address that issue on Monday at our wrap-up when we would conclude with our regular agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because my question on this on the revenue side was, can you tell me if we had -- well, sure you can -- if we hadn't cut those fees that we did by about a third a pop, what would the revenues have been in this -- in this fund. MR. SHYKOWSKI: A little -- a year ago actual receipts -- you see in the actual column on page 3 we're about 4.1 million. At this point we're projecting roughly 3.5 this year, so in the neighborhood of six hundred, $700,000 in additional fees. MR. CAUTERO: The fees were cut 15 percent, most of them, Commissioner, not one-third, and not all the fees were cut 15 percent. The development services advisory committee ordinance states that the -- the committee, in conjunction with staff, will re -- will look at those fees once a year, and we're going to do that. So in order to effectuate some change that you had spoken about yesterday, my recommendation would be not only would those fees have to go back up to 15 percent but a large portion above that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. MR. CAUTERO: And that's something we're -- we're going to be looking at. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have to justify doing that, don't we? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. And that's what -- MR. CAUTERO: That's what you asked for yesterday. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't quite follow you, Mike, on the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You showed me, I think, the building permits line from last year at almost 4.1. Is that what you were referring me to? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. The actual revenue received was $4.1 million. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- So in that building permits line, that really includes everything like PUD applications -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. No, ma'am. That is building permits for Naples, Immokalee, and the permit application fee that was instituted a few yours ago, the sum of those three. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- So where are those things like PUD applications? How much is that? MR. CAUTERO: That's also on -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That would be under your -- probably your planning-related fees. MR. CAUTERO: Planning-related fees. Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- So that 6,600,000 actual '94/'95 is all of the fees paid by -- paid by developers? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Developers and builders. Correct. MR. CAUTERO: Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And builders. And now -- I didn't say that. And now -- now we expect that to be down by a million bucks. That's what the forecast line is? MR. CAUTERO: Roughly. Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's -- that's going to be for two reasons; one, because applications are down, and the other, because fees are cut. MR. CAUTERO: Applications really aren't down. The numbers are very comparable and -- For example, in the month of June, I look for over half a million dollars permit fees because of one condominium project that came in that's going to pay just under a quarter of million dollars. So even if permit numbers are down, you could see revenues comparable to last year, even with the fee decrease, depending on the nature of the permit that you get in. you're point is well taken. It's really because of the 15 percent decrease, not necessarily because permit numbers are down. If they're down, they're down slightly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there's -- I -- I keep -- going to say, one, last time there's a million dollars that we cut, that I think we ought to put back in and let it support more of this division. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What do you mean that we cut? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we reduced those fees by 15 percent -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. Oh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we reduced the revenues -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not disagreeing with you, but we can't settle that today is the point -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- you know. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can't settle it during the budget discussions. We have to go through all the procedures to do it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think the core of that -- the core issue there is whether or not like long-range planning functions are the general government, or do you consider them building-related, and Mr. Weigel will address that on Monday. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can't -- We can't settle that question during the budget hearings. So, you know, we -- we've spent probably an hour total at different times talking about it, and we just need to -- to recognize that -- Let's get a discussion on a regular commission agenda and talk about it because I'm in favor of it too, but let's don't talk about it anymore in the budget hearings. MR. CAUTERO: In the community development fund overall, the appropriations were down 19 percent, and revenues were up 10 percent. We do have an expanded service request in the building review and permitting area which is to provide on-call building inspections to customers after normal working hours, and if you look on the revenue side, it's going to generate $175,000 in revenues. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's going to cost how much? MR. CAUTERO: It's $100,000. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. Essentially it's a special service for those demanding above and beyond the call of duty type inspections. If you want it now, you're going to have to pay a little extra and -- MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I bet you -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: They will pay -- They will pay for the convenience. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet your revenues in that will be as high as you're willing to staff. I bet you could sell a lot of that service. MR. CAUTERO: That's what we're intending to do with it, and we're going to be coming to the board with a proposed fee adjustment prior to your adopting the budget to -- to do -- to do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. MR. CAUTERO: We just have in the -- In the major departments, we just have a slight increase in planning services and work reception. Most of those are related to the pay plan increase and a slight reduction in building review. And if you want specifics, we do have the corresponding detail pages starting on page 4 of the special revenue section for the individual departments in the community development, fund 113. And as Mr. Smykowski mentioned earlier, these are all fee-related from the building services. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: There will be a large ad valorem impact. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Fine. Anything else? MR. CAUTERO: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Next we'll discuss the pollution control funds that's on page 4 -- page 16 -- excuse me -- in your summary book. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sixteen? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. How much -- Is this the last thing we're going to look at? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have some -- some of the small HSTUs like the road -- the road resurfacing districts, some of these small beautification districts and debt service which is not a whole lot to talk about there. I think we can probably wrap this up fairly quickly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My page 16 says road and bridge department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So does mine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mine says community development -- Are you under special revenue? Oh, blue book, blue book. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Blue book. Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This book? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. SHYKOWSKI: There is a summary of the two pollution-control funds within your summary book. Fund 108 is the pollution cleanup fund. That's down nine-tenths of 1 percent, and that's essentially where we do petroleum site cleanup work with -- with state funding essentially next year. The reason for the decrease, we're anticipating $1,005,000 in DEP contracts which would fund $5,000 for the -- some administrative overhead and a million dollars in actual contract work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why do we have $317,000 of carry-forward? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is actually from your pollution control fund 114. That's Mr. Yilmaz's fund. There are two -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can only be used for -- It can only be used for this function, and that's why it stays there? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. Essentially your -- your pollution control fund is a countywide tax that was enacted by -- by referendum up to one-tenth of a mill. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's currently assessed at a tenth? MR. YILHAZ: No, ma'am. MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, ma'am. We're -- MR. YILHAZ: It's 53.4 percent. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're point -- .0499. So we're -- we're about half of where that could potententially be. Increase over the rollback rate within this fund is 1 percent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: And this -- this fund -- the principal reason is the pay plan adjustment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Let me ask a question here, Hike. The -- the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- first adopted for last year was almost $860,000. Forecast -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of property tax? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. From ad valorem. Forecast for actual expenditure is less than that. It's eight hundred twenty-six and some change, and then we're asking for a 5 percent increase over what was budgeted, and it's probably another point or three-quarters of a point for what was actually forecast to be spent this year, and I'm wondering what the bump is there. MR. YILHAZ: Page 61 on the large book, Hike. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. In the pollution control fund '- I'm sorry. I lost my -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 16, little summary book. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under revenue, very first line, ad valorem taxes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. We typically collect roughly 96 1/2 percent of the ad valorem levy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ninety -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- six and a half percent. We do not collect 100 percent. We lose some money due to nonpayment. You also -- There are also -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Early discounts. MR. SHYKOWSKI: People pay in the early discount period obviously. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's not his question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. The question is, the adopted budget last year was one thing. The actual forecast is less than that, and yet what's being asked for this year is a big bump. It's 5 percent. It's over -- That's 5 percent over what was adopted. It's more than that over -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what we're forecasting to actually spend. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So why do we do that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is why. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Why? Essentially we may want to look in your detail book then -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- on page 60 and 61 in your special -- special revenue section. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Special revenue. No expanded service. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. Essentially the pay plan adjustment and associated benefits within this fund amounted to $55,800. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- but -- but this is a -- this is a fund where if we -- I mean, this is a direct cost of benefit, guys. What we ought to be looking at on page 60 is, are all of those functions something that, you know, we think our taxpayers are willing to pay for, because they are -- you know, they have a millage specifically tied to this that they agreed to do up to a tenth, and we're assessing about half of that or all of those. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This was a funding area that a year ago you did make some reductions. MR. YILHAZ: Yes. About four -- four step numbers, Hike, to -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. Go ahead, George. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hike, what is limnological inland surface water quality monitoring? Isn't that something like what we just cut? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That word's much too big for me. I'll let Mr. Yilmaz address that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Limnological. MR. YILHAZ: Yesterday was my birthday so -- For the record, George Yilmaz. That was -- That was a -- That was a great birthday. So today is my second day, see what happens. I'm one -- one day wiser here so -- Surface water monitoring and investigations consists of in 114 both coastal zone pollution control activities and inland surface water monitoring activities. So to directly answer your question, number one, growth management specifically requires that we monitor our inland water resources and report data to citizens on an annual basis. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this is Bettye's Lake Trafford fund. MR. YILHAZ: Included. Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's freshwater -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is his -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and what we caught -- what we caught yesterday is saltwater. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we've got one FTE at -- to the tune of 40,000 bucks on surface water on page 60 of the big book, and I'm just pointing out that that includes the freshwater that we didn't want to cut. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 143,000 for lab construction, 20,000 in office furniture -- again, I find that hard to believe there's no desks or chairs but -- and 43,000 in lab equipment, seventy-five five for PC-based data processing equipment for conversion -- it seems like for two hundred fifty, $300,000 we ought to be able to use a private lab out there for several years. I don't -- I don't -- It just seems like an awful lot of money for the numbers that show up here, what we're -- what we're doing annually. MR. YILMAZ: In terms of those dollars, $143,000 worth of construction is about 90 percent complete. We have our atomic absorption laboratory running and as well as our gas chromatography which deals with hydrocarbons. So currently we do have organics, metals, and nutrients lab up and running. In terms of -- in terms -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you -- Before you go on -- MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in -- in that type of activity -- I mean, is that a daily activity? That's something you go in twice a month and you need to be doing -- Give me a little idea. MR. YILMAZ: In terms of laboratory -- in terms of laboratory activities -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. YILMAZ: -- we're talking about per year 400 samples for metal analysis; 800 organics which is BTX, benzene, toluene, and pHs; 400 environmental, includes all nutrients and like total nitrogens and phosphorus which deals with nutrification; and then 6,000 microbiological analysis per year. In addition to that, we have about 300 composite samples being done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we -- So that's four a day plus the 6,000 on average? If we did something every day of the week all year long, four a day plus the 6,0007 MR. YILMAZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, does -- do you come in -- Do those samples come in one at a time? Do they come in in groups? You go out and take samples, and you may have 100 in a sample and they run -- MR. YILMAZ: All of the above. Depending on the program, it can happen one sample, one parameter. It can sample multiple samples, multiple parameters, and it varies depending on the program frequency. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Yilmaz -- MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- the thrust of his question is, could you do this cheaper if you hired an outside lab to do it for you. MR. YILMAZ: We did have analysts about three years ago. We simply operate under what we call fixed cost and resource optimization curve. Once you have your fixed cost fixed in terms of laboratory operations, then every time you add samples to it, your rate of return -- marginal rate of return is significant. So your cost benefit analysis are exponential. What that means is that in a nutshell -- let's say my fixed cost is $100,000 hypothetically to operate a lab, but my -- my limitations are by human resources and by instruments. The instruments we have selected has high-volume capacity; therefore, our limitations are human resources, meaning that we have -- the capacity far exceeds break-even point for each parameter group for giving state benchmarks and statewide averages. MR. CAUTERO: Yes or no. Just tell him yes or no. MR. YILMAZ: And the answer is yes. You see, that's -- that's the difference between scientists and managers. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we sell some of the service? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was going to be one of my next questions. Is -- Is there a need in the private community out there for some of these services, and can we get back some of that money by offering those services? MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. Currently we provide services to state HRS, and we generate about $6,000 -- $50,000 revenues. We do sampling for Pelican Bay, solid waste operations. We have not reached the general public yet, but we're at the point we will be able to because we have received our HRS certification for both drinking and environmental. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that -- You said we're at the point now where that -- we'll be able to pursue that? MR. YILHAZ: Yes. I would say effective next month we would be able to do it with your authority. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we figure in any revenue here from -- MR. YILHAZ: Not at this time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any anticipated revenue? I just hate to cut ourselves short if we think we'll bring in $20,000 that ought to be included here. MR. YILHAZ: It will -- Since it's a brand new program, estimate is going to be a rough one, but I could -- I could foresee ten to $15,000 and feel comfortable with that kind of revenue stream, but there is a great potential to increase that, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that might be ten or $15,000 less we'd need to have under the ad valorem requirement here. MR. YILHAZ: Actually, when you go to page 59 under analytical services, the coast is ninety-two thousand dollar nine hundred dollars, and currently that group is able to generate non-ad valorem revenues according to seventy-five, $80,000. And assuming that we not have revenue margin ten or $15,000 more, that group in terms of human resources will be breaking even, and everything we do for fund 114, growth management, and for this board will be below -- I mean, above that break-even, meaning we're talking about that marginal rate of return which turns out to be exponential cash flow as a positive which -- which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you okay cutting ten to fifteen? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. And I also have another question. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Increasing the revenue ten or fifteen, you say? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, increasing the revenue ten or fifteen and cutting -- taking that out of the ad valorem portion. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They ought to be able to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's $75,500 to convert to the PC system? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was last year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It says forecast '95/'96. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is the year -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's this year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the balance -- the balance of this fiscal year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But $75,000 to convert? MR. YILMAZ: That, again, goes back to new IT department standards and technology client server -- MR. CAUTERO: Say no more. MR. YILMAZ: -- and -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what they charged you for what you got? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. The fifty is to purchase -- purchase hardware, computer equipment that meets the current standard, I know. MR. YILHAZ: And we have -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have a smattering of old Apple computers that are not compatible with the new network. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, let's -- let's remember to talk one at a time in deference to our court reporter, please. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you remember -- You said three years ago we were contracting that -- these type services out. Do we have any -- Do you have any recollection of what the cost annually of doing that was at the time? MR. YILHAZ: What service that was, sir? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you just ran through the 400 samples of this and 400 samples of that, roughly 4 a day plus the 6,000 word I can't say. When we contracted that out, do you have any idea what we spent annually doing that? MR. YILHAZ: I don't have specific numbers in front of me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ball park? MR. YILHAZ: I will say we are -- for all parameter groups, 5 to 10 percent less than lowest we have received currently because every 2 years we have new bids coming in, so those numbers goes up and down, but we have been so far consistently lower than those numbers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not my question though. The question is, do you have any idea ball park what the sum total we expended was on those type services back prior to being able to do any -- any of it in-house. MR. YILHAZ: Sure. When I came on board, I think we were talking about close to $280,000 going to outside laboratory which -- which were providing -- which was providing about 70 percent of what we do currently in-house. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We also had problems with the outside labs in terms of the quality of the sampling. We were sending out samples for multiple retests, and we were also subject to the whims of the marketplace as well where we had problems and actually had defaults on contracts and had to teaward to the next bidder, et cetera. That was part of the reason for going in-house in the first place. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And so what I heard the board say was to add $15,000 to anticipated revenues and deduct 15,000 from -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ad valorem. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- appropriation. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Ad valorem. And that will also get you below the rollback rate within this fund. As it was proposed, it was about $10,000 above. It will be $5,000 below with that change. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Beautiful country. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Thank you. MR. YILHAZ: Thank you, sir. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where did that come from? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a short break. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Reconvene our budget hearings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask if we can go ahead and do -- as long as we're doing the taxing district, the Golden Gate Community Center item at the front end. I understand Mr. Olliff -- that's the only reason he's still here. Coincidentally I might have to leave early as well. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's only trying to help you, Tom. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, if you're leaving, we'll hold the Golden Gate issues until later. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, Bettye -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you might want to do that when he's gone, considering what happened while you were gone to Immokalee yesterday. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. You guys got rid of $250,000 of ambulance, EMS fees. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are -- Are you applauding our -- our effort -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to cut? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just going to say when -- when I hear about it, I'm going to give them four phone numbers -- or three phone numbers? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Three numbers. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Three phone numbers. Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, if that's all right with you, I'll go to fund 130 to accommodate Commissioner Constantine. Overall just the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm on the summary -- I'm actually on page 4, just discussing the tax rate for the Golden Gate Community Center. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Summary page 47 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Property tax rates. The proposed millage rate is .3136 which is 18.2 percent decrease, and that is principally a function -- This year we made the final debt service payment which went for the initial construction of the Golden Gate Community Center. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry. We still haven't got the page. What pad? MR. DORRILL: 82. Special revenue 82. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Special revenue in the big book. MR. DORRILL: And 83. He's actually on 83. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Got it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Sorry about that. Proposed millage rate, again, will decrease 18.2 percent below the rollback rate for taxpayers within that unit, essentially saving them approximately $8 per 100,000 of value, and that's principally a function of the Golden Gate Community Center now being debt free. In FY '96 we made the final installment on the initial bond payment that was utilized to construct the facility. You'll note under debt service forecast is 44,000. Budgeted and current service is zero. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is the reason for the increase in transfer from general fund? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was principally a function of the expanded servicer, but yesterday that was cut. That was the playground equipment that we agreed to move to impact fee funds, so that will be taken care of. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's out of there. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That has already been -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It was removed yesterday as part of the general fund discussion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: If there's no further questions -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None by me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bye. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Tom. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, Tom. Now you can go. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Now, we'll move in your summary booklet COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, I need to see you in the hall. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- under the special revenue tab. There's a number of small taxing districts. Under public works on page 6 is the summary, and pages 7 -- 7 to 9 identify proposed expanded services within those districts. For the MSTD road districts -- those are the first four on your page -- those are transportation for the road resurfacing. I would like to comment on the proposed millage impact within each of those districts, and then if there are any questions, I'll have Mr. Kukulski walk through the expanded services that are proposed within each of those districts District 102, there's a -- the millage will decrease 5.7 percent below the rollback rate. District -- district two which is fund 103 is an increase of 50.9 percent above the rollback rate. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How much? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 50.9. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 50.9? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: District three is an increase of 170.3 percent above the rollback rate, essentially going from $10.06 per 100,000 to twenty-six sixty-five. And, again, that's principally a function of the expanded services that are proposed, and we'll walk through those shortly. District four, fund 106 has an increase above the rollback rate of 344.7 percent going from $5.23 per 100,000 to $22.77. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where is district four? I see one, two, three, and five on page 6. MR. ARCHIBALD: District four is the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is that one? MR. ARCHIBALD: It's not included. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. Then if it's not included, why did we just talk about an increase in district four? Did you mean district five, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: District five. Excuse me. Fund 106. Pardon me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There ain't no four. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you tell us where these different districts are roughly? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'll defer to Mr. Archibald for that. Even better, pictures. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. MR. CONRECODE: (Tendering documents to the commissioners.) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I just knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're the 170 percent increase, aren't you? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why is it I'm surprised? MR. ARCHIBALD: These district boundaries date back to 1978, and obviously the funds themselves reflect both the road resurfacing dollars and also much of the road material dollars that are needed for special maintenance in each and every district. So to a great degree where there's an expanded service, people in that district benefitting are, in fact, being asked to subsidize that added cost. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, I see that 106 includes the south blocks. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And in view of the -- the board changing its Growth Management Plan and removing goal -- goal two, does this increase reflect that change? MR. ARCHIBALD: The county manager has already removed those dollars that represented the increases in those areas, so those dollars have already been removed from the budget that's before you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this 344 percent increase does not reflect any significant maintenance in south blocks? MR. ARCHIBALD: It does not. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. KUKULSKI: And on page 7 in your summary book, we have the -- as Mr. Smykowski indicated, the -- we have a listing of the expanded service requests by -- by road district in district one, and let me mention up front that part of the expanded requests in each of these districts is to fund proportionate share of positions in the -- in the transportation admin. area. In road district one, they -- they're -- they're funding a proportionate share of a fiscal clerk and the project manager and transportation admin. In addition, there's landscaping services, upgrading Bayshore Drive in East Naples, its new plants, irrigation repairs, tree trimming, and herbicide applications. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While we're on that particular subject, Mr. Archibald, are we going back into that beautification area with more xeriscape-type plants? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. We plan on maintaining what is there, but there is a requirement or there is a need to remove some of the plant material and replace it. It's been there a number of years. So the program that's been outlined here is roughly -- of the $19,000 of an increase, about $7,000 of that is for new plant material. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just -- and I don't know if you -- if the difference is important to you, but xeriscape is kind of a brand and approach that is unsightly and ugly. What they approach now, I believe, is drought-tolerant. You know, it's -- it's -- they use low water, but xeriscape was that junk they put on that triangular median at Goodlette-Frank and Airport that was all ugly and had to be replaced. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Goodlette-Frank and Airport. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Yeah. Those -- No. I'm sorry. Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Goodlette-Frank and Airport don't come together. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I pretty much realize that by now. That's why I changed it to Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Pine Ridge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They do intersect. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They do. I hope we're almost done -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Please continue. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because we're -- MR. KUKULSKI: These districts can also be found on page 14 under special revenue in the -- in the gray -- in the large book. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 147 MR. KUKULSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on any of these, or shall we just move on? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I've got some questions on the -- on the road districts, frankly districts two, three, and five as to what -- what's going to be undertaken for the increase in millage. MR. ARCHIBALD: Let me run through those very quickly if I can. In district two, which includes primarily North Naples, we've got two large expenditures. One is taking over the maintenance of the Immokalee Road medians. As the board recalls, the developer installed those. He agreed to maintain them for one year. We're taking those over. So that cost which is a relatively low cost of 60 cents per square foot, our contract cost is typically around 80 cents to 90 cents per square foot. So we're planning on -- and we're bidding that out right now. We're planning on 123,000 square feet at 60 cents a square foot to come up with a total of $74,150. That's the biggest item that's represented in the increase. The other item involves the extra mowing of the water management area that goes along with the four-laning of Immokalee Road and, in addition, mowing of a special retention ditch and the landscaping maintenance of that which is in the same area. Again, those two items add up to $98,450. That's the bulk of the increase. And, again, that's driven primarily by maintenance of the medians. In HSTD three this involves most of the Golden Gate Estates, particularly the road system that's north of the interstate and runs all the way up to 858. That's the area that's currently growing. It involves approximately 10 miles of -- what we -- what we're going to be referring to as mechanical vegetation control. It's where we're going in with a combination of a grove trimmer and herbicides to cut back the roadways and begin to open up some of the roadways where people are moving onto roads that had not been maintained before and also maintaining the right-of-way for the major roads out there. The dollar cost of that is $50,000. For the limerock road improvement out there, we're looking at improving 7 miles which is a continuation of the program that was started this year. We're going to average putting about 3,200 tons of limerock on each of the 7 miles. That represents about $12,500 per mile. The total for those 7 miles is $85,000. Again, that's an effort to build up roadways to keep up with the growth that's occurring in that area. The last item and the largest deals with the landscaping mowing and the median work on Airport Road, not only the north two miles that have just been accepted by the county and will be included in our maintenance, and that represents a cost of over $130,000, but also it provides for all the materials, not only mulch, fertilization, plant material, but also a lot of the contract services, electric, water, pesticides, herbicides for the remainder of Airport-Pulling Road. Again, those three items represent over $420,000. That's where the increase is coming from. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We discussed a couple of days ago letting out private contracts on -- on may -- the median maintenance issues. I assume on that $130,000 item minus electric and water which we would probably have to pay anyway, are we going to be going out to private bids for maintenance on that, or are we just going to assume it as a county task? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. That's being bid as we speak. We're going to be opening bids this month, and the results of those bids will be brought back to the board. We foresee that either the bids will reflect an advantage to the county and will approve them and do that work under contract, or for one reason or another, it may be cost-effective for the county to expand to continue this work, but we're looking at how we're going to maintain and add two miles of medians. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, this is kind of a worst-case scenario? This is what it would take for the county to do the work, and we're hoping the private bids come in lower? MR. ARCHIBALD: Actually, we're averaging about 90 cents a square foot. That's about what the other contracts from the private sector are running. So when we get those bids in and bring back that report to -- to the board, I think those dollars -- those facts will speak for themselves. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, the -- the list you gave us, 50,000, 85,000, and 132,000, is only about -- just over half of the four fifty-five. MR. ARCHIBALD: Let me just run through those numbers again. The vegetation control was 50,000. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. ARCHIBALD: The limerock work was 85,000. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. ARCHIBALD: The new segment of Airport Road was 130,000. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hmm-hmm. MR. ARCHIBALD: And the remaining segment of Airport Road, roughly two -- 200,000 square feet -- that came in at 95,000. That all should add up with the personnel cost to that $420,000. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Three sixty. Close though. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One point that -- to remember, if you would, please, Mr. Archibald, is that 90 cents a square foot may be a good standard, but we've done some things that were not anticipated, such as replacing grass with mulch that was not intended when we landscaped those medians. So we may be doing it at a cost, but if what we're doing is not very attractive, then -- and that needs to be a part of -- of the maintenance schedule. I mean, if we can maintain grass at 90 cents a square foot in certain areas, then we should be able to do it, and Pine Ridge Road showed me that apparently we can't. So when those bids come back, I would like to see some performance criteria that both the county and the private bidders had to agree to. MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe that not only have we prepared the specs to reflect that, but I think the report that will come back to the board will -- will -- will show the comparables, not only comparables in terms of service but all of the other related support relative to irrigation and the pesticide, herbicide support services. Keep in mind, even on that short segment of Immokalee Road, our water bills represent one of the larger costs. The developer up there is paying in the neighborhood of $1,000 a month in water. So on all of these, water is one of the items that -- anything we can do to reduce that, particularly going from sod to plant material, and if we can add color and make our medians more attractive and reduce the amount of water, that's the direction we're attempting to head in. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't want mulch to define this plant material. MR. CONRECODE: In answer to Commissioner Matthews', page two -- I'm sorry -- page 19 of the detail book, in the expanded area there it defines what those unit costs are that you had asked about. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Page 197 MR. CONRECODE: Page 19 in the detail book. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then if we're ready to -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I -- I've got one other question dealing with 106, and that -- that is that we have a millage cost going from -- I thought I heard $5.23 to $22.77? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But there's only a 4 1/2 percent budget change? MR. ARCHIBALD: What's happening there is that -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How? MR. ARCHIBALD: -- the -- the expenditure side is staying approximately the same. As you look at the expenditures, they've been level over a number of years. They haven't changed drastically. As a matter of fact, they're probably within, as we show there, 4 to 6 percent. What's changing there is we had a large carry-forward two years ago. We utilized that carry-forward which dropped the millage for that one individual year. In terms of millage, you're talking about five-hundreds of a mill last year and about a quarter of a mill this year. So that was a one-year event. And when you take a look at the percentages, the percentages are very, very high, but the actual millage change is relatively small. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we used most of that money last year. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we did. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's -- If there's no further questions on those districts, then we'll move forward. MR. KUKULSKI: The next items would be the beautification districts and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no questions on those specifically, we can go forward. MR. KUKULSKI: We have the street lighting districts. There's no expanded service requested. Are there any questions on the street lighting districts? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we can move forward. MR. KUKULSKI: Okay. In the beautification districts, for the most part we have expanded service requests, but those are funding a share of positions in the transportation admin. area. There is one exception in Golden Gate. There's a request for trash removal and mowing for an additional 10 miles proposed to be added to the boundary of the MSTU. They want to expand the boundary, and doing the work for the mowing and the trash removal would involve 63,000 for the expanded areas, and that's an expanded service request. MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe in every single beautification district we have, your committees have elected to maintain the millage, and in so doing, the budget that's been prepared reflects exactly that. They're attempting to keep their program dollars, and in most cases those dollars are for operating costs. As was outlined in the case of Immokalee, we're putting money aside for a capital program. In the case of Marco, we're putting money into new plant material. In the case of Golden Gate, we're looking at going ahead and doing some work on other roadways other than Golden Gate Parkway if, in fact, the board amends the current ordinance. Other than that, all of the beautification districts are substantially status quo in terms of millage. MR. KUKULSKI: And if you look at page 4 on the property tax rate, you'll notice that the tax rates for Marc -- for the four districts for Marco, Golden Gate, Lely, and Immokalee are the same as last year's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. KUKULSKI: -- proposed millage. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Move forward, please. MR. KUKULSKI: The next group are the storm water drainage and roadway improvements. There's basically no expanded service requests. Are there any questions on any of those? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Apparently not. Move forward. MR. KUKULSKI: Then that concludes the public works section of the special revenue funds. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. (Commissioner Constantine exited the board room.) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have one -- one quick question on the Immokalee beautification. I -- I thought we were going to start the Main Street project expense -- expenditures in '96/'97. Is that what this 151,000 -- or I guess we're starting it at the end of the year? MR. ARCHIBALD: We're still looking at whether or not the funds will be available for transfer. At this point in time, those funds have not shown up in fund 111. So that -- that project may continue to be deferred, deferred beyond FY'96/'97. MR. DORRILL: I think what we said was that we would -- we would try to do it and it's our desire to do it in'96. We wanted to get a little closer to the end of this year because -- Is that the project, the Main Street project -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's the Main Street project. MR. DORRILL: -- that needs to be advanced from 1117 MR. ARCHIBALD: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: That's -- There's an executive summary that's floating back and forth between our office. I think we'd like to see it done next year, but we need to wait and see what the 111 cash carry-forward is going to be at the end of this year. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Because it -- it -- it -- that project should be moving forward with the airport project. If they don't tag along, you're going to miss some opportunities on both of them. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, we're somewhat in a holding pattern in regards to either funding or being able to borrow funds from fund 111. MR. DORRILL: How much money are we talking about? Is it $150,0007 MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two hundred. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yeah. The -- The amount that we'll need is in the neighborhood of 285,000. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a 50,000 FDOT grant coming too. MR. ARCHIBALD: But the two eighty-five is what we're going to end up having to borrow. Because of the increases in fund 106 MSTD five, we did not include any transfer dollars in there this year. So we would, again, be looking at fund 111 in being able to borrow that money and pay it back over a period of years. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: The 800 meg? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. Tourist development, page 11 in your summary book. Miss Gansel will discuss those. MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. The tourist development funds for the most part on the expenditure side, what we do is we budget it into -- in reserves until the TDC reviews it and makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. On the expenditures side, I would like to point out that I guess I was a little overly optimistic last year in -- in making our revenue projections. This year we found that on the off season we're continuing to show some growth, but during season this year, January and February, which is obviously where we collect the largest amount of money, we had some decreases, so we've revised those estimates. I understand from the tourist industry that because of the bad weather up North people couldn't get down here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And you said, though, that this year -- talking about -- MS. GANSEL: Fiscal '96. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fiscal '96. Our off-season collections are -- are up substantially? MS. GANSEL: They're -- they are -- They continue to show growth. The -- The percentage increase is label -- is leveled off a little bit since we started the tourist tax, but we've been seeing 10, 15 percent increase in the off season. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So I -- I -- Our efforts at -- at improving our off-season tourism appear to be paying dividends? Is that what you're saying -- MS. GANSEL: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- in our category C type promotions? MS. GANSEL: In the -- the -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So noted. MS. GANSEL: The bottom line doesn't look quite as good as what we're projecting now because the bigger dollars are coming in CHAIRNAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. The -- The in-season is not doing as well as the -- MS. GANSEL: This -- This year it didn't. We had been showing you that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, perhaps we should put all our money into category C events then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, boy. MS. GANSEL: I -- I -- just as a. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we opened enough can of worms today? MS. GANSEL: As -- As a side note, I -- I understand from yesterday's discussion that you all would like to see the TDC review the -- the plan to make some adjustments to that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I had spoken with you about that. I'll speak to you after the budget hearing. MS. GANSEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I was planning to do that soon, and then perhaps we can gather all that up and bring it before the board at some point in time. MS. GANSEL: Sure will. Okay. Thank you, Commissioners CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mmm-hmm. MS. GANSEL: -- if there's no other questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 12 in your summary booklet. Under special revenue there's some -- the fire districts, the 800-megahertz budget, and the ADA improvement budget. I'll turn it over to Ms. Leith. MS. LEITH: Sheila Leith, budget office. There's one request for an expanded service in the 800-megahertz, and it's $6,500 for post-installation software that will allow the county to program radios in-house rather than having them done outside. The fire districts are basically level to last year, no increases or decrease in appropriations. And unless you have some specific questions -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 6,500 allows us to in-house programming. Had we budgeted for doing it outside and -- In other words, are we adding an item, or are we adding an item in lieu of taking it away from somewhere else? MS. LEITH: I'll let Mr. Daly answer that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Daly is here. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess Mr. Daly will tell us. MR. DALY: Good afternoon. John Daly, radio communications manager. We hadn't budgeted to do it outside. It would become after the installation period that we'd be responsible for, you know, paying for radio reprogramming if we had changes in features or functionality that a user wanted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So rather than seeing a couple thousand dollars for the first few years, you're just going to take this up front, and then we cannot -- we won't have to see that back for -- MR. DALY: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- several years? MR. DALY: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And this fund is supported by the surcharge on moving traffic violations, so it is not ad valorem. It is COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need more people to go speed and -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we need more -- more of our deputies, though, to catch them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys, never mind. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A few miscellaneous funds on page 14, the state housing, the SHIP program, the guardianship program, and the sheriff's E-911. There are no expanded services proposed. And if there's any specific questions, I will -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 911 revenues come from where? MS. GANSEL: That's from -- There's a surcharge on the telephone bills. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: I believe it's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. MS. GANSEL: -- 20, 30 cents a month. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Any questions on this page? Next, please. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the special revenue fund. The only thing left that was scheduled for today -- and I see Ms. O'Connell has been waiting patiently, is in your summary section for debt service, there's a summary of all our debt service funds. These are obligations for outstanding bond issues. On page 1 it shows a summary of the fund two -- essentially 201 through 299. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is just simply almost pass-through stuff, isn't it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. We -- Obviously we have to cover debt service first before we utilize funds for -- for other things. These are our annual outstanding obligations on those issues. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We are required to fund them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a lot of flexibility there. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, there isn't. In fact, that was part of the reason for the summary format here. There is not a lot of policy-making discretion the board has in this area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent presentation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Let me ask -- If there's any member of the public that would like to speak, we're about to wrap up here for today. Any member of the public, this is your -- a good opportunity for you to come up here and tell us how to do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last call for all public. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- What will we be doing, then, on Monday? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Monday we have the enterprise funds, essentially your utility funds -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Solid waste. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- your solid waste funds, and your internal service funds, your risk management funds, and the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wrap-up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- IT, DOR, fleet management, trust funds, and wrap-up. MS. LEITH: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Actually, there's a -- there's a few more small grant funds that there's not a whole lot of real -- real discussion items, but while we have people in the room here, we might want to dispatch with those. MS. LEITH: Sheila Leith. There's an emergency services grant fund which you can find on page 5 of the grants and trust sections of your big book, and there is -- are requests for an expanded service within that grant fund, and it's for a part-time recap, emergency management technician to assist the director in nursing home plan reviews, critical facility management, and development of the comprehensive emergency management plan, and the cost of that would be $15,600. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that is a grant '- MS. LEITH: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- grant fund -- funded '- MS. LEITH: This is -- Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- position? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the term of the grant, and when do we have to pick it up if we want to keep the position? MS. LEITH: Annual. It's an annual grant -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's why we're using a recap position? MS. LEITH: -- so it would have to be reviewed -- Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So if we don't get it, we don't '- MS. LEITH: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- have to fill it? MS. LEITH: It would be reviewed annually. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Very good. That did it? MR. KUKULSKI: There is one more expanded service request in the section H HUD. It's $54,000. That's to be used to fund an expanded service request in the housing and urban -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the economic development MR. KUKULSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- coordinator position? MR. KUKULSKI: That's the other -- That's the other part of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. MS. LEITH: One more grant on page 15, the EHS grant, and this is $50,000, and it's 100 percent state -- 100 percent state-funded grant for medical emergency equipment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Purchase of medical equipment without recurring cost? MS. LEITH: Yes. MS. FLAGG: Other than maintenance, 100 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than maintenance. Next. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That concludes our workshop for today, and we'll see you bright and early on Monday morning. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Anything further? Any comments from any of the board? If not, we're adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:57 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 A. Donovan Christine E. Whitfield, RPR