BCC Minutes 06/19/1996 B (Budget Workshop) BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 19, 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 9:14 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Michael Smykowski, Budget Director
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the budget hearings to order for
the 19th of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, we might as well start with an
invocation and a pledge, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this
morning. We give praise to you for the things that you allow us to
have and the things you allow us to be. We always give thanks for the
people in government of Collier County. We're especially thankful for
the hard work and dedication of our staff that has resulted in this
fine budget document and the effort that went into making that.
We'd ask as always that you guide the deliberations of
the individual commissioners today as they make important decisions
that affect our community but that this time would be both a blessing
and a reflection of your will. We pray these things in Jesus' name.
Araen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, good morning, Mr. Dorrill.
We're ready to go here.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. And I -- I gave you sort of my
review format remarks yesterday, and I did that in order to save time
this morning, so I don't -- I don't have any additional remarks. Mr.
Smykowski has some introductory remarks.
I have just been advised as -- as my luck would have it
that Commissioner Matthews is stuck in the elevator somewhere between
the first and the third floor, and our crack facilities management
people are trying to get the elevator to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we turn the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You all set that up --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we turn the sound up?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- just so you could get more
money in the budget. I know you did.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A clever ploy.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Clever ploy.
MR. DORRILL: She should be here shortly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: More facilities management
budget. I was going to cut that one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Apply the always take the stairs
on important meeting day.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now's our chance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just -- just -- you guys
have probably already discovered this, but this base level community
service book that Neil put together is just exactly, exactly what I
have been asking for. I'm just so thrilled about it and want to
commend him for it. I know that you guys will have looked at it
already, but if you haven't seen it and when you want to, it's so
clear. I mean, it lays out transportation department, how much of it
is general fund, administration for public services, how much comes
out of ad valorem. It's just exactly what I've been asking for.
So I wanted to -- I've already thanked him privately and
want to thank him publicly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're duly thanked, Mr. Dorrill.
Let's -- let's get going. Who's going to lead this off?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I -- I will. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, budget director. First of all, before we get started I'd
like to introduce the budget staff. In addition to this being a
challenging budget year from the ad valorem standpoint, it's also been
a challenge as we had pretty much virtually 100 percent turnover from
last year as well. So there's a bunch of fresh new faces. I'd like
to introduce them before we get started. Diane Snow, Tom Kukulski,
Phil Tindall, and Sheila Leith. Jean Gansel is still with us from --
from a year ago. Jean's still a mainstay of our department.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now considered a veteran.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You all recognize her. And we -- first
of all, I'd like to welcome you. From a format standpoint, this year
the board expressed interest in serving in a board of directors'
capacity. In -- in keeping with that, we had discussed as part of
budget policy making budget reviews on an exception reporting basis of
review.
And as part of that, we've developed a format change.
You'll note that you have two books as opposed to one. The primary
book we'd like to work from at this point is summary information, and
it's the -- the thinnet version. We've developed summary information
on the general fund, MSTD general fund, and then each of our other
operating funds.
Within the general fund component we've also developed
divisional summaries that shows where the relative increases are
within the general fund. That will help perhaps focus your -- focus
your discussion on departments that had varying degrees of increase
due to differing reasons.
There are also pie charts for each division showing
their relative proportion of the general fund and a bar chart within
each of the divisions in the general fund showing the relative
appropriations within that department.
So that will, again, help focus, I think, your attention
on within each division where the large dollars are as well as where
the major increases are. And we're hoping that that will assist you.
Within the summary section as well for each division,
there's a list of proposed expanded services that identifies the --
both the dollar amount and a brief explanation of what the expanded
service is all about and how it would enhance service within that
division.
A major change from previous years is that we do -- we
are going to do the reviews this year on a fund basis rather than a
functional basis. Last year you'll recall we did it principally along
divisional lines where support services would -- from A to Z we would
talk about that, but it got a bit confusing just because it crossed
the varying fund lines.
So what we're going to do this year is today talk about
the unincorporated area general fund initially and then the general
fund from A to Z so that all your discussions would be on -- affecting
ad valorem tax rates. And then tomorrow's discussion would focus on
the special revenue funds and capital funds and debt service and
Honday's discussion then on the enterprise and internal service
funds.
For today's agenda, I'm going to provide a tax overview,
kind of where we stand at this point. Then we'll have a discussion of
the unincorporated area general fund. And then we'll begin the
general fund discussion.
Just in terms of a big -- a broad --
MR. DORRILL: Could you -- could you explain the
difference between the two books that you have and the primary book
that you're going to be working out of and then if they have questions
about individual divisions or departments how we're going to show them
where the detailed information is?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, the -- the large -- the thicker
binder is what we have had in the past, the departmental and program
summary information just like you're -- you're used to seeing in the
past. What we've done, though, is developed a -- a summary format,
again, to help focus where the increases are and where the relative
distribution of appropriations of dollars within each division are.
And again, that is designed to help focus our discussion.
If and when we need to look at the detail, it is
available as in prior years. So if -- if -- if and when we get to
that point where you'd like to look at a specific department, just let
us know, and we will turn to that book for that detailed discussion.
Just a broad overview of the financial budget, we have
budgeted a 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment effective mid-year.
The net cost in FY '97 is one and a half percent. As per budget
policy, we budgeted 4 percent attrition. A major impact was the pay
plan adjustment. Obviously impacting current service was the pay plan
adjustment in both the county manager's agency, the clerk's agency,
and the sheriff's office.
There were some offsetting savings in the budget health
insurance rates we're happy to report. In FY '96 for a -- for a
Collier County employee with single coverage it was $2,600. This year
the board's contribution is $2,350. For dependent coverage it's gone
from $5,400 in FY '96 to $4,900, so savings of, respectively, $250 per
single, $500 per dependent -- per employee with dependent coverage.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mike. I'd like to
request a clarification on --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the decision we made to do six
months of cost-of-living increase instead of a full year. All of that
will be implemented at six months. It's not a phase-in on anniversary
date. It -- it's just taking six months, delaying it for six months,
and instituting it --
MR. DORRILL: April 1.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In terms of broad overview in terms of
budgets that have fee increases, the Marco water sewer and Goodland
water districts have proposed rate increases. Those are tied to the
SSU rate increase for bulk -- cost of bulk water that is passed on
through us.
As per budget policy, EHS rates are proposed to go from
$250 to $302. Within the community development division, they're
proposing an on-call inspection service, and they would charge
additional for that to expedite -- if someone needed a -- a inspection
next to immediately, they could call and schedule an appointment, so
that's a new proposal this year.
And within mandatory collection, there's a
cost-of-living adjustment per our franchisee agreements and within
solid waste a tipping fee increase to build reserves to fund our new
landfill acquisition.
If you'd turn, please, to page 3 of your summary
booklets, I'd just like to touch in general terms on the changes in
taxable value for both the general fund and the unincorporated area
general fund. There's a chart on page 3. Current value of the -- of
taxable value in Collier County's approximately 18.1 billion dollars.
That has gone up overall 6.9 percent of which 4.4 percent was
attributable to new construction being added to the tax roll.
Existing property increased approximately two and a half percent. So
the total taxable value increase in the county is 6.9 percent moving
from 16.9 billion to 18.1.
Within the unincorporated area, total -- total taxable
value's approximately 13.6 billion, also increased 6.9 percent. The
taxable value attributable to new construction --
(Commissioner Matthews entered the proceedings.)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I got a new budget item.
MR. DORRILL: Time out. We gotta here this story.
We're all waiting.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, fortunately nobody was
claustrophobic and nobody was pregnant. Somebody has been, though?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Those are compliments of myself in
recognition of the birth of my daughter two weeks ago today.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, congratulations.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And we have the pictures if
anyone wants to see them on break.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. Pass them down. Pass them
down.
MR. DORRILL: Were we able to get you out, or was the
fire department called to get you out?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We called the sheriff, and they
got us out on the second floor. MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some very strong men held that
door open.
MR. DORRILL: We're glad you're here.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I think a new elevator might
be in the budget. Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Rough way to start the morning. The
proposed millage for the general fund, at this point the budget is
balanced with a proposed millage of 3.772 mills which equates to
$377.20 per $100,000 of value within the general fund, the prior year
millage in the general fund, 3.4889 or $348.89 per $100,000 of value.
So overall at this point per $100,000 of value, it would be a tax
increase of $28.31 in the general fund per $100,000 of value.
In the unincorporated area general fund, the proposed
millage is .6101. I'm sorry. .5956. There's actual savings in the
general fund, MSTD general fund, of $1.45 per $100,000 of value. We
are essentially at the rollback rate in the -- in the unincorporated
area general fund.
Pages 3 through 5 in your summary booklet just show what
the proposed millage rates are for each of the respective funds that
we will cover. Given that we're not going to discuss the special
revenue funds which comprise the bulk of the proposed millages, I will
hold off on that discussion until tomorrow. We've already discussed
the general fund picture and the unincorporated area general fund. It
also shows the proposed tax dollars on page 5 and the change in
property value on page 6.
With that, we'll begin our -- our budget deliberations
starting with the unincorporated area general fund which there's a tab
in your booklets called MSTD general, in your summary booklet. And on
page 2 and 3 --
MR. DORRILL: Mike, I've got one last little reminder
for you. It came up at the end of yesterday's board meeting. When we
get to a division or a general department description that involves
what the staff is calling one of the onion skin proposals --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: -- you need to highlight that so that the
board members know this is one of the five departments that budget was
developed in layers, and the staff has coined the term onion skin so
that you can peel off --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Peel away.
MR. DORRILL: -- you know, one or more at a time. But
you won't know that we're there unless we remind you so if you all
will make that mental note.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. There -- in fact, within the
unincorporated area general fund on page 2 and 3, one of the, quote,
onion skin budgets was developed for the code enforcement department.
And Mr. Cautero and I'm sure Hiss Sullivan can explain -- explain the
impact and how that develops.
As we alluded to in budget policy, we're kind of going
to take a balance sheet approach to the budget. On pages 2 and 3 is
-- is the fund summary for the unincorporated area general fund. And
just as a quick reminder, this would -- this is for taxpayers in the
unincorporated -- unincorporated area of the county thereby excluding
residents in the city of Naples and Everglades City. The principal
funding source in this fund is ad valorem taxes along with a -- the
second largest component is cable franchise fees.
Total appropriations in this fund increased 7.8
percent. Again, the proposed millage is .5956 mills per $100,000 of
value. There's a tax decrease of $1.45 per resident, so there is no
tax increase in -- within this fund.
In general terms total appropriations in the fund
increased 7.8 percent. Within the operating departments on page 2,
we'll have an opportunity to explore each of those and the expanded
services that are proposed. There are expanded services within parks
and recreation, long range planning, and code enforcement. Total
operating department increases are 13.7 percent.
Within the reserve categories, budget contingency
reserves are at 5 percent. We have utilized the 4 percent attrition
level as per budget policy. There's 1 percent for merit bonuses, and
our -- our outstanding liability on impact fee waivers is $831,900.
That kind of gives you an overview of the reserve component.
In terms of transfers to other funds, I guess the major
highlight there would be the $400,000 proposed to fund the Gordon
River basin study in the water management capital fund. That is a
joint project for which there will be contributions from the Big
Cypress Basin as well as the city of Naples.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, where -- this is in our
water management 325? Is that what you're telling us?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. That is a capital fund.
And one of the capital projects that we'll actually talk about later
on this afternoon is the Gordon River basin study which is a joint
project. We felt obviously the city was contributing, that our
contribution should come from the unincorporated area as the city
residents were already contributing.
MR. DORRILL: As he's walking you all down this, you're
-- you're going to see the same fund summary every time we begin a
fund, and he's going to start you on the left-hand page which are the
expenditures for those departments that are wholly within this fund.
Then you'll see reserves. Then you will see transfers where this fund
is subsidizing some other activity. That's where he's at at the
moment.
Then at the -- on the right-hand side you're going to
see the revenues that then balance and make up the fund. And so he's
trying to walk you down through his balance sheet here. And he's --
he's giving you the highlights. And then when he gets through, he's
going to see what particular questions you have. And we'll highlight
those onion skin budgets for you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Obviously a major component of
the unincorporated area budget as well is a transfer to the sheriff
which is up 8.9 percent.
One thing to be clear on so I don't incur the wrath of
Mr. Carlton, he always wants me to make it very clear that within the
unincorporated area general fund and the general fund, the -- the
appropriations for the tax collector are actually the fees charged for
collecting the ad valorem. That is not -- his budget is not
necessarily increasing six and a half percent. That's an estimate of
the -- of the fees charged for collecting the ad valorem component
which we'll get into shortly. So I do that to spare myself the wrath
of Guy Carlton.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not something you want to
incur.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On -- on the right-hand side, page 3, is
the summary of the revenues for the unincorporated area general fund.
As I indicated earlier, the total ad valorem increase is 4.1 percent,
but we are slightly below the rollback rate. This budget as proposed
represents a tax decrease of $1.45 from last year's adopted millage
rate per $100,000 of value.
We also note a large increase in cable franchise fees,
23.5 percent, based in part on the revenue being collected this year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about occupational
licenses? Why is that up so high?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the revenue side.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. In the expanded column --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- you'll note there's $71,800. That is
to fund -- that is designed to fund -- that is one of the expandeds on
the expense side as well, a transfer to the general fund to fund the
economic development --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- expansion of the economic development
program as discussed in our meeting a few weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: At -- down at the library we had talked
about increasing those fees to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this contemplates --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- to augment it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- increasing the fees by --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, it does.
MR. DORRILL: This -- this budget was prepared --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- fifteen percent.
MR. DORRILL: -- in advance of the discussion that we
had subsequently at -- at your workshop, and that's one of the items
that we should probably discuss. It was prepared in anticipation that
we would raise fees. Economic Development Council's proposal is that
they would like to use the existing fees to develop this pilot
project, and then they -- they want to wait a year or two years before
you consider raising them beyond their -- their current rate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm -- I'm worried about that
too. That's something I don't want to -- to slide by, a decision to
increase occupational licensing fees without a thorough discussion so
MR. DORRILL: We ought to make a little check then on
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And as soon as he's finished, then that's
one of the many things you may want to talk about in this forum.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is driving cable franchise
fees to be up so much higher? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is driving the cable
franchise fees to be up 23 percent?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's principally a function of actual
activity. You'll note in the actual revenue column last year we did
receive a like amount, so we had -- we had conservatively budgeted
this year. We've upped the budget to reflect the actual level.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- but those fees are a
function of the percentage of the charges by the cable companies;
right?
MR. DORRILL: Subject to whatever audited statements --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
MR. DORRILL: -- or review. And you'll remember we got
into a little dispute deal and were working with the internal auditor
to try and rectify some prior year actuals. And that's why your
forecast number's up there a little bit this year also but we're --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But is that a one-time increase
due to resolving these discrepancies in the audited stuff, or is -- or
-- or -- or is this a true increase in service?
MR. DORRILL: I think so. I think this is a better
number, but I'll let Hiss Gansel --
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, commissioners. Jean Gansel
from the budget office. It -- part of the audit revealed that there
are some areas that were not paying franchise fees. So although we
had some backs -- back payments to that, we also will be receiving
that in future years. There's also some growth that's included in
there. And because of the renewal process coming up in this year,
there's payments that are made for applications for the renewal fees.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So some of this is a bump that
won't repeat itself.
MS. GANSEL: Some of it will, yes, and in anticipation
of continued growth as we have experienced. And we were rather
conservative last year, so it's a combination of two factors.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And those renewal fees are like
10,000 bucks or something, aren't they? MS. GANSEL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big numbers on the application
fees.
MS. GANSEL: And -- and transfers we get a 10,000
application fee also. And as you notice, we've been getting a couple
of those that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Keep selling that cable
company.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. One of them
probably just got to its max.
MS. GANSEL: Yeah. They don't come much bigger now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, I have a question
on the appropriation side.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under cable TV can you give me in
a nutshell the reason for the jump of adopted budget 38,500 to current
service will be 293,000?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. There's three and a half
additional employees administering -- administering the cable
process. That was approved by the board this year. And we -- we can
discuss that further if need be.
MR. DORRILL: New -- new department approved in
conjunction with the utility rate regulation -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: -- department about two months ago. And
so this is the first time you're seeing that department, and their
offsetting revenues are obviously the cable franchise revenues.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's why it's not an
expanded because it's new, but we recently --
MR. DORRILL: That's why it's seen as part of the --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
MR. DORRILL: But in many larger current service budget
for next year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for my own
clarification, the -- is it 4 percent on the -- that's covering that
for the new utilities?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Four --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We will charge on the --
MR. DORRILL: Oh, the utility side?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Water and -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For water and -- water and utilities?
Four and a half percent is what the PSC collects, and our intent is to
go ahead and collect that for now, get a year or so's experience to
see what it takes to run our department and then reduce that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have not increased that
any from what the Public Service Commission was charging. MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, absolutely not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Defeat the purpose.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On the revenue side I guess the -- the
last thing of note is the last item. The transfer from 6 -- fund 669
is actually the repayment of the utility franchise loan that was
approved as part of the start-up costs of that operation in FY '96.
In fact --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So that's a one-time entry.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: But on -- on the expense side as well
you'll note under forecast -- it's about the fifth line from the
bottom under transfers -- it showed the expense going out for 93,000.
This is the repayment of that $93,000 loan in the subsequent year as
that was just designed to be seed money until they began collecting
the franchise fees from the -- from the utilities.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: There are -- on pages 4 and 5 it
identifies the expanded services that are proposed within this fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When would it be -- I -- just a
small question on -- why is the transfer in from the general fund less
than previously? Am I seeing that right? Down 2.2 percent in the
other sources section of revenues.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: What is that for?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you know where I mean?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, I do, and I'm having a momentary
lapse of memory here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because -- because basically what
that means is that last year the incorporated fund -- this year the
incorporated fund is covering 2.2 percent more than it was last year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. Those -- give me a moment on
that one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or you can -- we can talk about
it at some point.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. Essentially the transfers between
funds like that are typically for things like -- I note from like 113
it's perhaps building fees, cost of building operations down at
Horseshoe Drive and/or --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll just mark that as something
MR. DORRILL: We'll -- we'll get you a better answer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- city folks will want to know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That makes us the country folks?
MR. DORRILL: Final thing worth -- worth noting at the
bottom of the revenue page is we all -- always give the board a
position count. And you will see both the numbers and the historical
data going back to 1994. You'll see there are two departments that
are requesting additional employees next year as part of the expanded
service. And then that's going to be the key in him taking it to the
next page to show you all the departments that are asking for expanded
service or new programs. They show -- in the column under the 1996
expanded service column, you'll see there are two new employees that
go with expanded services. And then he has them itemized beginning on
the next two pages.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So parks and rec. and code
enforcement are the only two hires -- MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for the whole year?
MR. DORRILL: For this fund.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For this fund.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this fund, okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I was just gonna ask if
we're gonna get --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this fund.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Lake Avalon operational and
get South Naples Community Park operational, one person isn't going to
be able to do that.
MR. DORRILL: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You just explained it.
MR. DORRILL: And the parks and rec. activities for the
unincorporated area fund are only supporting activities in Immokalee.
The other community park funds that are in the urban area are coming
out of the general fund, and our rationale for that is that everyone
in the urban area is benefiting from having community parks west of
951. The unincorporated area fund funds both the sheriff and the park
activities in Immokalee and Everglades City.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this -- this fund funds the
park activities at -- at McLoed Park in Everglades City?
MR. DORRILL: I believe that it does, yes. And likewise
the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have some work to do down
there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom's nodding.
MR. DORRILL: -- the 6.7 million dollar transfer to the
sheriff coming from the unincorporated area fund is funding the
sheriff's activities in Immokalee and Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a similar -- is there a
similar allocation for the court activities in Immokalee?
MR. DORRILL: I don't believe so. I think courts are
all in one -- there's one transfer. I'm looking at Mr. Middlebrook.
You don't -- you don't have separate cost centers for your court
activities in Immokalee, do you? Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's -- so -- okay.
MR. DORRILL: All within the general fund. All court
activities are --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Thank you. I mean no thank
you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioner MAc'Kie, we have determined
a better answer for you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is the proportionate share of
growth management which is funded from the general -- that is budgeted
here, but a major component of that is deemed to be of county --
county-wide benefit. So that -- that's a proportionate share of the
growth management budget. As the growth management budget was
reduced, the proportionate share coming from the general fund would
reflect a likewise reduction.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'll use this opportunity
to tell the rest of the board that one of the things you're going to
hear from me as we go through here is that I was surprised to find
well over a million dollars in growth management, development
services, environmental services comes out of general ad valorem
instead of what I thought was a totally fee based -- I thought
Horseshoe Drive ran off of fees. And we reduced those fees by about a
third a few months ago. And I'm going to want to be talking about
putting those fees back and taking that support out of the general
fund and letting it be paid solely and supported solely by fees. So
that will be -- that was just a tag to get to bring that up.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, there -- there's other
departments that are in that division that we need to talk about.
MR. DORRILL: She's aware of that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am.
MR. DORRILL: She's told me in advance that she wants to
pick and choose. And on -- on the one hand, all of the county housing
activity that is involved in Mr. Mihalic is -- is a general fund type
of activity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we don't need long range
planning unless we're going to have development, and development ought
to pay for long range planning. That's what I think anyway, but we'll
get there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure Mr. Weigel will have
some input on that matter too.
MR. DORRILL: Ready to talk about expandeds?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. On pages 4 and 5 are the proposed
expandeds. There are two within the community development division.
And, Tom, why don't you -- Mr. Kukulski is the analyst for community
development. I'll let him walk through that. If there's any
questions, community development staff is available. And then we'll
walk through the public services expandeds that are identified on page
5.
MR. KUKULSKI: For the record, my name is Tom Kukulski.
In the community development unincorporated area, the comprehensive
planning group is requesting some consulting fees of about 25,000 to
complete the comprehensive plan evaluation and the appraisal
amendments. That's including the development of an activity center
guidelines and corridor management studies.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I think those need to come
out of increased fees for development permits.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also how -- how many people
with graduate degrees do we have working on Horseshoe? Just, Vince,
why -- why are we looking to bring in somebody from the outside to
finish that up?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. Basically
what we wanted to do is put some money in the budget in case we needed
some funds to offset the staff work in this area. It was basically to
give us the opportunity to look at a work program for some of the
community-based initiatives that we're going to be looking at in North
Naples and East Naples in the event that we needed some staff
assistance to augment staff.
There's another way to look at this as well. We might
look at some outside help to augment our data crunch for the
comprehensive plan amendments and then devote our staff resources more
to these community planning initiatives. And that looks like we may
-- we may pursue that because we want to be able to have our people
go out into the field rather than to bring in outside help.
Basically it would be minimal assistance in those areas
because we are going to be looking at evaluation and appraisal
report-based amendments for the next 18 months which is going to be
very labor intensive. It's not necessarily a talent issue or
qualification issue. It's more of a time issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I -- I -- if I'm
speaking out of order, please accept my apologies. But the issue that
Commissioner Hac'Kie raised would probably go a long way if we can get
it resolved now towards having discussions later. I think that legal
staff should be brought into that because I have been told on occasion
by attorneys that those types of fees cannot be used for long range
planning. But you, of course, would have to consult your legal staff
for that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I have some legal advice,
Mr. Weigel? In the -- in this book that I was raving about before,
the base level community service, when you get to the section about
development services -- let me just find it. Yeah. It's on page 7 of
this book -- it says that code enforcement is supported by property
taxes at $885,000; that planning services is supported by over half a
million dollars; pollution control, almost a million dollars; and
natural resources, a half a million dollars.
Why can't those -- since they are all functions for the
purpose of responding to requests for development, all of that has to
do with -- if -- if we have a moratorium tomorrow, if there's no more
development permits issued in this county ever again, we don't need
any of those functions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's incorrect. You need
pollution control. There are minimum requirements --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm stretching.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you have to pursue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm stretching but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- and understand there is a
base level of service that if you do stop issuing building permits
tomorrow, the planning counter doesn't go away. There are commitments
that we have to -- that are made under our comp. plan and are just
basic maintenance areas that we will have to continue, and I think
that's the distinction between what is a fee-based service and what is
a base level of service that was made in that book. And I think --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But some of them -- I think that
there's bound to be some of this in that few million bucks I just
listed off that could come out of permit fees. And frankly, I'd make
an argument that all of it could.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't necessarily disagree.
I'm just pointing out that -- that that one point about all that goes
away is not necessarily true.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I recognize that I'm
stretching. I'm trying to advocate a position. Well, I'm trying to
persuade Mr. Weigel before he gives his opinion and that as much of
that is possible especially when -- and I'm not talking about, you
know, single-family home bermit -- permit applications. I'm talking
about PUD aps. went down a third, SDP aps. went down a third. We just
reduced those fees significantly, and I think those need to go back to
where they were, and that as much as possible ought to be funded by
fees.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think he understands the question.
Let's see if he'll answer it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can tell you I think -- I think
we're really in the process of fine tuning, and I haven't -- I haven't
with me the book you're working from there that shows the figures and
the break-outs, but I look forward to looking at that immediately.
And obviously the fees that we had in place previously that had
relatively recently been reduced were reduced for particular reasons.
But at the same time they existed previously for particular reasons.
If those particular reasons still exist, it would seem to me to kind
of back through the answer to your question, is that we may find that
we may at least come back to that figure if the legitimacy is there.
To go beyond that figure, I'll endeavor to tell you just as promptly
as I can. But I don't really wish to say a gross statement answer
right now that would, you know, be echoed through the land.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, as I recall it, we -- we
reduced it because that division or that section, whatever you call
it, was making money. It was -- it was collecting more fees than it
took to run the services of that department.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And -- and Neil or Hike probably can
tell us that part of the allocation of the expenditures of those
previous fees had to do with retiring some capital expenses --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: -- as well as operating expenses.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And --
MR. WEIGEL: I'd want to review that real closely too
just to make sure that we don't cross the line but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In my point just to be -- just
last thing and I'll stop is I got two questions. One is if we -- if
we left those fees where they were, Mr. Cautero, what -- how much
money would that bring in? I don't know if you -- I don't expect you
to have that answer off the top of your head.
But the other one is if I had known when I was voting to
reduce those fees by a third that there was this much general ad
valorem tax money going into development-related issues, I would not
have voted the same way.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understand also that our action
at that time was taken due to a court case that had just been settled
that basically said you can charge building permit fees but the cost
of the fee must be commensurate with the services provided. You could
not charge an increased building fee and turn around and pay your
pollution con -- pay for your pollution control department out of
those -- those building fees. So I believe that that legal issue was
at the forefront when we made that decision.
And maybe a better -- a more couched question than what
you're asking is we can't raise building permit fees to pay for a
department that doesn't serve issuance of building permits. We may,
however, be able to attach a surcharge, a growth-related surcharge,
for long range planning or something to permits but, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bound to be able to.
MR. WEIGEL: That's a -- that's a good point in the
sense that there may be the implement -- the potential for a legal
implementation of a charge that wasn't within the perview of the
previous charges that ultimately were reduced.
A second factor comes to mind and again -- and perhaps
Hike or Neil can tell you, and that is I would expect that there
always was an ad valorem component toward the development services.
And it may be that the percentages changed significantly or maybe
relatively insignificantly. And again, I'll look at that very closely
with staff --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and just because --
MR. WEIGEL: -- so that we can get back.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- there always was, let's look
at if it could be less --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- even if it always was.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. But we understand the
questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vince, what would happen if
we opted not to include that 25,000? MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what would happen if
we opted not to include that 25,000 for bringing an outsider in?
MR. CAUTERO: All of the staff resources would be used
then for those exercises. And what we would do is in our management
plan or strategic plan for completing those, we would then space out
the EAR-based amendments probably over a longer period of time if
we're able to because those -- the -- the community planning
initiatives are -- are things that we wanted to accomplish next year.
We would just redirect staff resources in certain areas.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'd like to kind of
earmark that as an early option of something to dump.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm probably not going to
be supportive of that. Both the East Naples and North Naples planning
communities had requested services from our development services staff
in the area of long range planning that has previously been provided
to Immokalee, Marco Island, Golden Gate. And I think those
communities deserve the same recognition and resources that other
communities have received.
So these funds are actually, as I understand Mr.
Cautero's explanation, to be used for data crunching primarily because
we don't want to take our degreed professional planning staff and --
and have them, you know, preparing population estimates that can be
done by someone on an hourly basis. If that's the intent of the
25,000, I'm very supportive of it to free up our people to do real
community planning so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to pursue Commissioner
Mac'Kie's argument a little bit. If -- if we were -- and I have no
idea what the number is, and I presume our budget staff, development
services can provide this for us at some point. If we were to put a
moratorium on and no more building permits were issued, no more PUDs
were issued, nothing, what is the actual mandated cost of any sort of
comp. plan department?
MR. CAUTERO: I would venture to say that the mandated
cost would be what you see in your base level budget for the fund 111
in comprehensive planning which is a -- a state-mandated function. As
was stated earlier, there may be some -- it doesn't answer your --
your question specifically, Commissioner, but -- because it's not
state mandated and -- from what I know, but we would still have other
functions that we would have to complete for projects that were in the
pipeline.
But as far as mandated goes, my best estimate at this
point would be the long range planning effort that is mandated by
chapter 163 of Florida Statutes. So it would be that amount of money
in the budget. I don't know what that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to take it --
MR. CAUTERO: -- is off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to the absurd level, though --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's an observed level --
MR. DORRILL: But that is --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that I'm trying to get to.
MR. DORRILL: That is -- goes in the budget. So if
you'll get your more detailed book --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. KUKULSKI: That would be on --
MR. DORRILL: -- turn to that fund, fund one --
MR. KUKULSKI: -- page M-20.
MR. DORRILL: -- which is the fund -- 111 fund, we do
have a base level cost.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page under there?
MR. KUKULSKI: H-16 for --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The one that says it's 150,000
bucks?
MR. KUKULSKI: No, H nine -- page H-19.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Darn. I like that one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that under MSTD fund 1117
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Page 19.
MR. KUKULSKI: HSTD section.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two hundred eighty-eight thousand?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two eighty-eight? I'll take that
out of general revenues and the other couple million added to the
fees.
MR. CAUTERO: It appears to be -- the total cost is
$750,000. If you look at base level, it's $288,000 which is
approximately fifty-five and a -- 55.6 percent of the -- of the
dollars it's showing. There are programs, as you can see,
commissioners, that are identified that the -- this particular section
completes. And the base level states implementation of the
comprehensive planning amendments and the concurrency management
program and other studies required by the comprehensive plan. I
believe I'm correct on that figure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- so it's your
estimation, Mr. Cautero, that if -- if all the PUDs were built and
long range planning had nothing else to do except to monitor the
comprehensive plans, it would cost $288,000 a year?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Great question, great answer because, A,
you've got the balance sheet approach to asking your question, and
then we -- we are zero based program budgeting to be able to tell you
what they're doing with the money that you're giving them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- okay. And the total --
because I see -- I got some discrepancy between this that adds up to a
couple million bucks and the summary that says about a million bucks
of general ad valorem support to development services division. Can
you give me the number of what is actually general support for your
division, Mr. Cautero?
MR. CAUTERO: I can't off the top of my head, but I
would -- I would think that what you're referring to in the core level
document that was submitted by management and budget deals with other
aspects. When you say development services, I'm -- I'm assuming --
and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that you mean other portions of
the division that are funded by ad valorem tax dollars, not just --
MR. DORRILL: She's referring to community development.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Community development and
environmental services division.
MR. CAUTERO: Right, but you're talking about other
functions besides comprehensive planning? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CAUTERO: Okay. The $288,000 that I re -- responded
to Commissioner Matthews' question with was for comprehensive
planning. The figure that you're using I believe are the other
portions of the -- of the division that are coming from 111 which may
or may not be mandated by state law. I'd have to go over --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: -- them with you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I -- I think code
enforcement ought to be -- fines ought to support it. If the fines
aren't high enough to support the code enforcement effort, raise
them. Planning services I've made my case, and I guess I'll stop
making it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before we get off of this one
page that we are on seems like many moons ago, page 4, one
commissioner expressed a desire to flag 25,000 for elimination in fund
111. Are there two other commissioners that have that same --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask Vince because your
point is well taken. Does that -- if we flag that, does that mean
those area plans, East Naples and -- what's the other one?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: North Naples.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: North Naples.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you -- North Naples
plans wouldn't happen or would somehow be neglected or --
MR. CAUTERO: I don't think they wouldn't happen, no.
We're committed to -- to performing that work, those work products. I
think what we would do, as I said earlier, is probably schedule some
things out further, maybe cut a few things. There's some things we
could -- we could nip and tuck on. For example, we might delay our
demographic and economic profile which takes some hours to put
together, things like that, and -- and maybe look at the EAR-based
amendments and -- and how we might streamline those, schedule some out
further.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me -- let me be very
specific with my concern. My concern is that a lot of what at least
the group I'm working with in North Naples has been working on
dovetails with our EAR-based amendments and possible future LDC
changes that could have community-wide impacts. And I assume East
Naples' concerns are similar.
So I didn't want that delayed because that time frame
would push our LD -- any LDC changes back and delay things up to six
-- at least six months to a year beyond where I want them to go. If
-- if that's not going to be the case, then I'll willing to consider
that -- that as an -- to be eliminated. But I didn't want to, you
know -- I just wanted a level of comfort that those efforts are not
going to be pushed back six months or a year by elimination of those
funds.
MR. CAUTERO: They would not be, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me see if I can summarize this so
we can move along. I think you heard several commissioners here
express a desire to reinstate perhaps some of the fees and -- and use
that as supplanting the -- some of the ad valorem-based expenses to
the extent that we legally can. So if -- if Mr. Weigel and you can
come back at our next hearing with some suggestions on how we do it,
that's what we're looking for. MR. CAUTERO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To the maximum.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I interject
on that too and -- and if they really can't get to the dollars and
cents of precisely what portion goes to what permit, can we look at a
surcharge just to kind of allocate some of these costs?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- I think they'll -- they'll
probably bring back whatever is feasible.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I haven't heard a discussion of
a surcharge, and I want to introduce the idea if we can do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd mentioned it to Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, did you?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before we turn the page,
Commissioner Hancock asked the question, I asked the question. I'm
just wondering how the rest of the board feels. If -- if Vince thinks
we can do a little nipping and tucking, I'd just as soon start tossing
things now as opposed to going through it all and then going back and
looking at everything a second time.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I'd like -- you know,
he says he can nip and tuck in different areas, but I don't want to
hold the master planning process up for East Naples and North Naples.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And he's just said that
wouldn't happen.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But at the same time he's
talking about EAR-based amendments maybe being held up, and that's
going to coincide with these master plans.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, he's not. Commissioner
Hancock -- I'm sorry. Say it again, Vince. I thought Commissioner
Hancock just asked that question and you said it wouldn't hold that
process up.
MR. CAUTERO: It would not hold that process up that
we're embarking on in North Naples and East Naples. But to the extent
that EAR-based amendments could be scheduled at -- at different
intervals that would not affect these particular programs, I may be
able to -- to schedule those out far enough in advance so that we can
use the staff resources to the -- to the best extent possible.
So what I would do is I would be selective as to what
amendments could wait, in other words, but not jeopardize this
process. So if it is the board's intent to not fund the -- that
25,000 that -- that had been requested for augmenting staff resources,
what I would do is then, of course, utilize staff resources 100
percent for all these efforts but delay some things as to the extent
possible.
MR. DORRILL: What he's saying is he can probably do it,
but he's reserving the right to come back to you if he gets hisself in
trouble on the EAR amendments.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But let me ask, Mr. Cautero, I
understood you to say that you were going to farm out some of this
work at a lower price than you can do it in-house. In other words, I
think I understood you to say that you would have some high priced
employees doing this work that you could otherwise do cheaper by
hiring outside help. Was that -- was I incorrect on that?
MR. CAUTERO: No, you're not incorrect, sir. That would
be the twenty -- that's what I would use the $25,000 for. But to
address Commissioner Constantine's question, if that money were not
funded by the board, then plan B would be to utilize staff resources
in a different way. Did I answer your question?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess plan B would be we
wouldn't spend that $25,000, so I don't know how it's cheaper to spend
25,000 more.
MR. CAUTERO: If we can still --
MR. DORRILL: He's saying it would be more efficient,
but it's going to cost you more.
MR. CAUTERO: Cost more, right.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- but we would -- but we
would get other projects done at a faster level by these higher priced
employees.
MR. CAUTERO: Or -- or utilizing the contract dollars,
yes, yes, ma'am. Did I answer your question, sir, satisfactory?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we can pay you now or pay
you later, but we get it done faster.
MR. CAUTERO: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Tell us -- tell us what you want to do,
and then let's move on and talk about this car that code enforcement
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Poll the board.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am -- I'm for leaving it in and
paying for it out of the increased permit fees, the surcharge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're against it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm five, fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we move on?
MR. DORRILL: My other note, though, is to look
especially at the $288,000 for base level planning services to
determine whether or not that could be fee driven as part of some
large analysis that we need to do with the attorney's office. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just a small part of the
big question.
MR. DORRILL: That's just the first one. And we got a
vehicle we need to talk about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mike or Tom, you want to set that up, code
enforcement vehicle?
MR. KUKULSKI: The -- in the code enforcement area, the
department is requesting to purchase an additional vehicle. The
number of vehicles they have is less than the number of field
personnel. So the expanded request is for the purchase of a vehicle
to bring the number of vehicles in line with the number of personnel.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm fully supportive but want
you to increase the fines to pay for it instead of paying for it out
of ad valorem.
MR. DORRILL: Just keep in mind that many people that
get red tagged from your zoning code enforcement, they -- they never
pay a fine. They voluntarily correct action. And only in that rare
event -- for the 25,000 red tags we may have written last year,
probably only 1 percent ever go to the code enforcement board, and
probably only some fraction of those zoning fines ever get paid as a
percentage. So that -- you'd be taking us into a new area with that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it ought to be a self
supporting program seems to me.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if -- just
because, again, it's a complaint-based thing, some of the complaints
may not be valid. You may have violations that aren't ever red
tagged. And then, again, if we have voluntarily compliance, you don't
have -- we should get what we can, I agree, but I don't know that it's
realistic to say that the whole thing's gonna pay for itself.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of like making the sheriff's
office fee based.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's not.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Code revenue's approximately $53,000
versus expenditures of almost 1.2 million, so I think -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did I hear that?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- it would be very difficult to make
that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 53,000 versus 1.2 million.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- fee driven.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'll -- I'll be happy with
half. I'll take half.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Come up with a realistic
plan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 18,900 for a vehicle, why in my
mind does that sound high? Can't we buy trucks for less than that?
MR. CAUTERO: State contract.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are we buying? A Jeep?
MR. CAUTERO: Probably a pickup.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that --
MR. KUKULSKI: It's a -- it's a combination of eighteen
three in capital for the purchase and about six hundred dollars in
other operating costs. So it's really a combination of two different
groups of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the eighteen three, is that
strictly the truck cost because if it is I'll go out and get you a
better deal?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. I'm sure it includes --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It would be outfitted with a radio and
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just need to know what are we
getting for eighteen nine because that sounds high to me for a truck.
MR. DORRILL: Your -- your fleet manager's in the room,
or he was earlier. What -- what is the state contract price for that
size pickup truck? Is Dan still here? You'll need to come up so this
lady can get it on the record, though, but it's a good question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also I'm curious what -- what
is that one extra person -- how are they getting around? How are they
doing their job right now?
MR. CAUTERO: We're using vehicles from other
departments within the division as well as loaned vehicles from fleet
management I believe. We've been just using whatever we can get. MR. PUCHER: For the record --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just simply, Dan, what does the
eighteen nine get us?
MR. PUCHER: I think we're paying about -- Dan Pucher,
fleet management director. I think we're paying about seventeen
five. It's a four-wheel drive extended cab. I think that's the
price. I'm not sure.
MR. DORRILL: Pickup truck?
MR. PUCHER: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. They're all driving pickup trucks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need a four-wheel drive
extended cab for code enforcement?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I --
MR. CAUTERO: In some areas you do especially when they
go out in the eastern part of the county. I'll do a little bit more
research on this one. But what we may be doing is looking at giving,
you know, the new vehicle to an employee perhaps that does make those
trips where the four-wheel drive's necessitated and the other employee
could drive a regular -- MR. DORRILL: What's -- what's a two-wheel-drive by
comparison? Two thousand less?
MR. PUCHER: I would say so, yes.
MR. DORRILL: So you'd -- 15 or 17, and then by the time
you -- you allocate some costs -- we charge by the mile for fuel and
insurance and capital depreciation and recovery.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Instead of this one truck which I
agree is a very valid question, I'd be interested in what's the fleet,
you know. What -- what kind of vehicles are we buying for code
enforcement? Are they bigger --
MR. DORRILL: For code enforcement --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and fancier than they ought to
be?
MR. DORRILL: Code enforcement and building inspectors
we have been converting to pickup trucks because on the one side code
enforce -- or building inspectors are carrying ladders and the trucks
have racks with ladders.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and -- but that's
partially the answer. Is it big fancy pickup trucks with extended
cabs, or is it those little Toyota --
MR. DORRILL: For 15 and 17 -- we're buying Fords off
state contract this year?
MR. PUCHER: This year, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In case anyone's was wondering, I
have my answer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, but the larger issue is the
fleet question. Don't you think that's worthwhile to examine?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can get into that when we get
into Dan's budget probably, Mr. Pucher's budget, excuse me.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one -- one question,
Dan, not for you, for code enforcement in general. Are -- are we
supplying one vehicle per code enforcement officer?
MR. CAUTERO: I believe we are. I can turn to my office
manager of code enforcement.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are they taking these vehicles
home at night?
MR. CAUTERO: No, no, ma'am, they're not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have code enforcement
officers that work other than eight to five five days a week?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. The -- the hours are staggered
somewhat, and we do have weekend coverage.
MR. DORRILL: Why can't we share -- share vehicles with
these different shifts then?
MR. CAUTERO: Because they're all on the same shift.
They're all working during -- during the day. The timing is not --
the hours are not staggered great enough where one is not working and
the other one is. They're all working during the middle of the day.
If the hours are staggered, they're only an hour at the front and an
hour at the back.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're not -- we're not
working eight to five and then five to whatever or whatever to
whatever.
MR. CAUTERO: No.
MR. DORRILL: No. We don't work a traditional second
shift. They -- they have some swing shift time that's in there.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could that be addressed as a big
picture issue as a way to save capital?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I imagine the staffing
meets the peak complaint requirements.
MR. CAUTERO: Peak complaint time is during the middle
of the day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can I make a comment here? We -- we
will be here till Christmas if we don't start moving along. I mean,
if we're going to sit here and discuss for an hour every $15,000
appropriation, we're never going to get through this. So can we move
along?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but I'm going to go ahead
and tell you up front, last year when you said that to me, I was a
scared rookie and I said yes, sir and went right along. And this year
I'm not going to do that. I'm going to ask my questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Ask you question, get your
answer, and let's move along.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm happy to do that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind as long as we do
it with some rhyme or reason. My understanding is we're looking at
those expanded service items here. We're not looking indepth at each
and every department at this point yet. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We will but we're not --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: When will we if we don't today?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You will not.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's an important
point.
MR. DORRILL: The easier question is you -- you
certainly are when you get to the general fund. But the point is that
if -- if the parks budget is up 20 percent, we want you to focus your
detailed questions and time on the parks budget and not Mary Morgan's
budget that is going -- so we're -- we're not anticipating really
talking about Mary Morgan's budget today because it's going down. And
so we're not going to flip you to a page and say, here's Mary Morgan's
budget. We're going to be showing you this budget's up 20 percent.
These are all the new requests you've never seen before as opposed to
going page by page by page over a 300-page document.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion then
because when -- when -- we're working out of three different books
here. And so as we go to each area, why don't you direct us to the
page for each book --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Both.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because I've put my -- all
my comments in the large book ahead of time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so it doesn't do me a
whole lot of good to look at the little one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and with -- while I agree
with the approach that the first place to look is the expanded, this
is my only shot to get to ask could we do swing shifts on code
enforcement and are the trucks too fancy so --
MR. DORRILL: Okay. And we -- we have one more expanded
service for this fund. And -- and then unless there's some other
issues, we'll conclude this fund. Those are in parks and rec., and
they're on the next page, page 5.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page is parks and rec.
in the big book, please?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 88 in the general fund section
which is your first --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is the first section of the
big book.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Your first tab in the large book. Oh,
excuse me. That's general fund. You need unincorporated area.
Pardon me.
MR. DORRILL: It's on page 10.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Page 10 through -- 10 through 12
is the parks budget for the unincorporated area general fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got that as code enforcement.
Wait. I'm sorry. I got it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Got it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First thing you ought to do is
get a refund on these binders.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Indeed the gaps have proven difficult.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, they are.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hiss Snow, I'll have you walk through
the expandeds and '-
MS. SNOW: It's Diane Snow. I'm with the budget
department. Four thousand dollars of this expanded request -- three
thousand was for a new computer. One thousand is for the IT support
and hook-up. Then forty-four three was for the new recreation
supervisor at the parks section.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me specifically
what the new computer will be used for regularly? They seem to be --
last year it was color ink jet printers everybody wanted, and this
year I'm sure some of them are necessary. But it seems like there's a
heck of a lot of computers in every department.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and I'm all for computers,
but I hate to sound like Hancock, but I can't -- I mean, I love to
sound like Commissioner Hancock, but I can beat 3,000 bucks, and I can
hook it up for less than a thousand. But these are such little
numbers I don't want to spend a great deal of time on it.
MR. OLLIFF: There currently isn't a computer at that
location. That is the -- the renovated gymnasium and pool facility at
Immokalee. Two things that we want to do with that computer: We
talked to you last year about trying to do telephone registration for
recreation programs. Finding out how to do that, connecting eight
different community parks into a central location and create a -- a
centralized type of phone-in system has become a much larger thing
than we thought it was going to be. It's going to require a computer
at each site that is -- is capable of doing that. So phone-in
registration is one of the things that we're looking for.
They also have no ability to create brochures for any of
their recreational programs in Immokalee, and they have to have them
created at the Golden Gate Community Park. We're in excess of 20,000
recreation programs a year, and -- and there's one computer and one
person doing all of those in Golden Gate at this point.
So that single computer is supposed to be designed to do
those two functions in Immokalee as opposed to having them done here
in Naples. And the figures that we got are just -- just straight
numbers that we're provided from our own IT department about what the
cost is for the package and software.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The new recreation supervisor
is for where and to do what?
MR. OLLIFF: Same location. The Immokalee gymnasium and
pool facility, it has right now about sixteen and a half FTE
employees, and there is one --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sixteen and a half?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. And there's one position right
now that's a supervisory-type position. The facility is open about 83
hours a week. And so actually the majority of the time there's no one
that we have in a supervisory position there.
What we actually want to do is because some of the
Immokalee recreation programs and facilities are increasing as they
are, especially with the addition of that particular facility, is have
somebody that's basically in charge of the parks and recreation
activities in Immokalee as well as in charge of this facility when the
other supervisor's not there. Right now what we've done is we've just
simply asked a lifeguard who's about 20 years old to be a supervisor
while there is no other supervisor there, and he's doing a great job
for us, but we just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gulp.
MR. OLLIFF: We have a void there in terms of some
management, and we found that we have some unique management
challenges at that particular location that need to be addressed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I note in the -- in the big book
I'll call it under central services you have the pool closed for 6
months. For $150,000 more it's open for 12 months. I know that this
is an item the board visited before I -- I -- I was -- was on. And I
put this in my individual list of things to look at. I'm not talking
about a six-month closing, but I'm obviously interested in tailoring
the personnel to the use. And although the lap area may be used
year-round for people who are more serious about exercise, there are
some months in January and February that I'm sure the slide and the
kids' pool and that kind of stuff are not really fully used.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same thing in Golden Gate. The
diving I hear is really important year-round but that the kids
probably don't go play in the spray in January.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- and again, I'm not -- you
know, my -- my question was can we tailor the expense and the
personnel more to the use without doing a full closure for six
months? And maybe it's an operational question that I just have a
lack of experience in, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: It is, and because this is 111 we're
talking more about the Immokalee pool. It's a little more difficult
here --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
MR. OLLIFF: -- because that pool only is one --
basically one pool where the slide dumps into the main pool. So I
don't have the luxury of closing down the slide section and leaving
the main pool open.
The other -- the other issue that we have to deal with
is if it is open you have to staff at a certain number of lifeguards
to participants that come in. So we have to have the coverage, or
else we'll -- we'll have to turn public away. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the design --
MR. OLLIFF: -- there is a minimum staffing level that
we'll have to have in anticipation of whoever shows up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the design of that pool does
not allow us to cordon off sections of it and only use a portion of it
and staff a portion of it.
MR. OLLIFF: The only sort of programmatic kind of a
closure we could have would be the -- the children's pool. There is a
separate children's pool like there is in Golden Gate and Immokalee.
But there's not three pools. There are only two, so we could make at
least --
MR. DORRILL: That's a good question. Is it heated? Is
the children's splash pool heated in Immokalee?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: They've all been heated.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it only -- it's only one
lifeguard if I remember correctly on that one. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you -- in this budget that you
have, are you proposing closing it for six months?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
MR. DORRILL: No.
MR. OLLIFF: No. The budget that you see --
MR. DORRILL: Remember again I'm showing you program
spending.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. DORRILL: And I'm showing you line item financial
spending. And so we do program for different levels. But both the
Immokalee pool that's in 111 and the general fund pool that's in the
fund and we're going to see in just a minute, they're fully funded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a comment on the -- on
the pools, and -- and that's the personnel operating the pools. When
-- when the privatization plus task force listened to a proposal from
-- from the Y to operate our pools, they have a -- a fairly simple
system of opening the pools in the wintertime based on temperature.
And their employees are by the hour part time and so forth. And
they're on -- they're kind of on call. When the temperature gets to a
certain point, they can expect to come to work. If it never gets
there, they don't come to work. And they're paid for the hours that
they work. The -- the pool is never opened if the temperature doesn't
achieve a certain air temperature each day. And I -- are -- are we
doing anything like that?
MR. OLLIFF: No, we haven't. What we've done is -- is
transferred a bunch of our positions from full time equivalent type
positions to part times where we've got a lot more flexibility in
scheduling and those kinds of things. We've not gone to a system like
that. We've had a hard time frankly keeping lifeguards especially in
the Immokalee area, trying to find people who are qualified and
trained. In fact, we have to train our own in most cases. So we are
a little concerned about being able to keep and retain qualified
lifeguards in that area.
So I'm -- I'm a little hesitant to try and propose
something where I -- I probably would have a harder time hanging on to
them because of the -- the unsureness of the number of hours in the
paycheck that those employees would get.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand.
MR. DORRILL: Any other questions on this expanded?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just so everybody's clear,
it's not only -- once we turn this page, we're done with this fund.
MR. DORRILL: No, no. We're going to talk about one
more thing. We've got one onion skin department that's in this fund,
and we want to show you some potential cut layers before we leave this
fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are all your notes in that
section?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. We will deal with
parks and rec. again in the 001.
MR. DORRILL: Just as soon as we get done, that's where
90 percent of their money is.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. As Mr. Cantero's working his
way up to the microphone, you were provided what we're calling the
onion skin budgets. In my cover transmittal I call them service level
alternative budgets. I have extra copies if need be. It's within
code enforcement looking at service level alternatives.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's this little memo; right?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Service level alternative budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't bring that.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's the second page back from code
enforcement.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I need one. Thanks.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Need a couple. There's copies if
anybody wants them. I see Neil has a whole stack.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Code enforcement HSTD general
fund, is that what we're dealing with?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Essentially if I can just provide an
overview and I'll let Mr. Cautero talk about the various service level
alternatives, I think what he's attempted to do on this page and the
following page is to break out the code enforcement services into
varying layers that are associated with response times to code -- code
investigation complaints.
So it's -- you know, obviously if layers were -- if you
opted to strip back a few layers, what he's attempted to do is
quantify the response time consequence of that decision. So I'll turn
it over to Mr. --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which service level of the onion
is in the big book presently? Which one are you proposing is in the
budget -- is in Neil's budget?
MR. CAUTERO: What I'm proposing would be the -- it
would be 1 through 4, all of them, which would be the 21 FTEs and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The max.
MR. CAUTERO: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: Bear with me. We may have some different
methodologies in different divisions as we -- we go through this. But
if you look at the page that talks about the service levels going
backwards from 4 to 1, what -- what I did was I contemplated the
highest number of FTEs being funded by the board and gave various
alternatives if then the -- if -- if the -- that service was not
provided, what the level of service response time would be, hence the
term onion skin or peeling the onion.
Service level 4 would be the investigative response time
for the 21 FTEs needed to provide that function. And we've given you
the turnaround time on the initial investigation and then going down
to service level 1, service level 1 being the base level. Carrying
out the necessary programs only required by state law would be service
level 1, and we're stating that that entails or consists of six FTEs.
But the level of service on that would be completely different from
level of service -- or service level 4 which includes all of the
layers.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: In the big book this is pages 22
and 23 under the fund 111. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Just to put this in context, the -- the
board to a -- a member said last year you liked seeing layers of
appropriations that everybody remembers was last year's park
maintenance budget. And this is -- you said you wanted us to pick
five departments this year to show you that sort of option choosing.
And so this is one of them. And if -- you know, as you're looking to,
frankly, cut money, this is the opportunity where for a half a dozen
different layers you can see where you can reduce expenses in code
enforcement. And you see what the service or, you know, the time
necessary to complete investigations or to initiate an investigation.
And he's -- he has chosen to show you funding layers based on manpower
and the time that it takes to respond to and investigate a code
complaint.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is our standard time of --
of response and investigation right now? The average person calls,
says lot -- you know, the lot three houses down is -- is tall with
grass. How long does it take to get someone out there?
MR. CAUTERO: MAximum three and a half days based on the
21 FTEs right now and work load.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you comfortable with that
response time in -- in comparison to other counties? Is it high? Is
it low? Is it --
MR. CAUTERO: It's -- it's -- probably matches up very
well, but I'm not happy with it. I'd like to go down a little bit.
And we're working on -- on doing that, prioritization of -- of
complaints, those sorts of things that might be able to take care of
that, team approaches, shortening up areas, things -- there's some
administrative techniques that we can use to do that, and we're -- and
we are working on those, my supervisory staff and I. I think a day
and a half to two would probably be optimum.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And important too, you said a
maximum of three and a half, and I know with the Golden Gate volunteer
code enforcement it is often two days. It's not uncommon that it's
two days, so compliments to your staff.
A couple of questions. Adding one investigator to
enforce sign regulations, that would be their sole purpose in life?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. And this represents the -- the
entire allotment of staff now so this is the -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. CAUTERO: -- FTEs. What we've done is we've added
one -- and we've added that service level, so that's really where
service level 4 comes from. One person handles signs exclusively in
order to keep the response time at a reasonable level. And there's a
lot of sign complaints that come in, several thousand per year, and --
and that is why we chose that as a separate service level.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if I -- if I may also, one
of the problems we've had in the past is that in some other areas
we'll dedicate a person for a certain type of complaint when the
complaint numbers rise that it -- it requires a full time. And that
is for -- you get consistency in interpretation which has been a
problem in the signs, if I'm not mistaken, is the interpretations have
been less than consistent in the past because, again, when you're
responsible for an entire book of codes, your familiarity with one
area over another may -- may not be so great.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a comfort level that
we need to leave that at service level 4. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do too as well. This is one of the
basic functions of government that we should try to -- try to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can't enforce codes, why
have them?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. Is that all then on 1117
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We -- we chose a smaller fund
and -- to walk you through the new format this year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: But we are concluded now, and you have
given us some direction on one of those expandeds and some analysis to
increase permit fees in this particular fund to the tune of about at
least $288,000. But we don't have any other comments that we're --
we're going to be making on this fund.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then before we move on to our
next fund group, is there any member of the public that would like to
comment on what we've done so far, anything relating to fund 1117
MR. DORRILL: I can -- I can tell --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one?
MR. DORRILL: -- you in advance, Mr. Chairman, I've got
about 12 people from the Arthritis Foundation who want to talk about
the Golden Gate swimming pool as part of the parks and rec. budget.
And I've got two that want to talk about the museum. Those are the
only registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have not gotten to either
one of those subjects.
MR. DORRILL: We're about to, and the people from the
Arthritis Foundation understand that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One woman raised her hand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you --
FEMALE VOICE: I want to talk about the Fool in Golden
Gate.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we're not there yet. We talked
about the swimming Fool in Immokalee, but I just indicated we've got a
number of people who want to talk about the pool in Golden Gate.
We're about to get there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then I guess we'll go onto the
fund 0017
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. There's a tab for the
general fund within your summary booklets. I'll just kind of -- and
there's also a fund summary I'm going to introduce and kind of hit on
the major points, and then we'll work through. There are divisional
summaries for each of the respective divisions within the general fund
showing the relative increases by departments and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- my -- I just want a
summary that as we leave fund 111 -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- with -- but for the question
on the fees versus ad valorem, we just agreed to spend $13,225,0007
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've also agreed to lower the
millage rate for that fund?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. We are essentially at
the rollback rate. So if people had no increase in taxable value,
their cost per $100,000 would go down $1.45 per 100,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's such a nice practical
answer.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, we're trying to make that a little
more understandable. That was one of the other goals of this process,
and we're doing our best to not talk in budgetese so -- on page 1
within the general fund summary, there's a -- a chart and a graph
identifying the general fund millage history just showing from --
there were tax increases from 1988 through '92 of varying degrees,
three of them double digits. Since '93 we've essentially been at
rollback or below the proposed budget balanced. Where we're at right
now prior to any changes is a 10.8 percent increase over the rollback
rate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not so good as that last one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why we're here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why we're here.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On -- on -- if you turn to page 2,
please, there's a comparison of the general fund FY '96 adopted
budget, the proposed budget. It identifies also dollar increases by
source and a percent increase. I'll just walk through those quickly.
The sheriff's increase is 6.3 million dollars.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 16.3 percent.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Following now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 16.3. Just 16.3.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. And then the chart below --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You said a lot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Percent?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Percent.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Overall the general fund increased
approximately 11.8 million dollars. That's your third column under
dollar increase, total expenses 11.8. The pie chart below shows the
relative proportions of where those increases have occurred.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That it is just the sheriff?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Fifty-three percent the sheriff,
transfers -- well, actually let me get into that. I'll --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was going to say are you going
to explain to me what those are at some point, transfers other. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this a good time to ask?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. And we'll get into the detail.
There is a summary of what those transfers are as well, so I'll just
kind of hit the high points here. And then we'll move right into the
-- the following page, and it identifies each of those transfers
individually.
The county manager's increase is approximately 1.6
million dollars. Transfers other increased 3.6 million dollars, and
that is principally an increase in the subsidy to EHS and road and
bridge.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And the road and bridge operation is a
function of a declining carryforward -- carryforward balance.
Transfers capital, at this point we have -- and in accordance with
budget policy we had allocated slightly over seven million dollars per
year to fund capital projects out of the general fund. We kept that
at a constant dollar amount.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Mr. Smykowski, I want
to back up just a second.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Transfers other, the 3.6 million,
the bulk of that is the road and bridge transfer; is that correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct, as well as EHS. And we'll walk
through that quickly when we get to the next page. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The rest is kind of -- I grouped as
other in the chart there, relatively small increases, in fact, some --
some cases decreases. Reserves went down. Slight increase for the
clerk. The tax collector's a function, again, of the ad valorem
levy. And one thing you may not know is that the county pays by state
law to collect the ad valorem for the school board, the city of
Naples, as well as Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aren't we a good group of
people?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Indeed. So our -- those fees are
inclusive of the taxes that are levied by those other taxing
jurisdictions. That's a function of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question on the --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- of state law.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- on the next one, courts
related and then down state attorney and public defenders for a net
increase of almost 13 percent. I want to know how much of that we can
tell the state to either fund it or, you know -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- send me to jail.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. This is kind of just a big
broadbrush overview. We'll get into the -- the fund summary on pages
3 through 5, and then there will actually be a divisional summary
further on back that will show each of the departments within the
court system.
Moving on to page 3, this is the county's general fund.
Again, this is principally an ad valorem tax-supported fund which is
paid into by all residents of Collier County including the
incorporated areas of the city of Naples and Everglades City.
Just kind of hit some of the major -- within the
operating divisions between the board and the attorney, they're up 2
percent; the county manager, 6.9 percent. Ms. Hac'Kie, you had
expressed interest in transfers to other funds. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In the -- in the middle of page 3 is a
summary of each of the individual transfers to other funds, the
relative dollar increases for each. And as you can see, obviously the
transfer to EHS which is inclusive of an additional unit with --
within the city of Naples due to -- and that's a response time issue,
that has gone up 30 percent. The road and bridge trans -- subsidy has
gone up 90 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's GGCC?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, let's stop and talk about that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, let's -- it's time to stop
and talk about the transfers. Don't we have a capital millage that's
unin -- unincorporated versus incorporated capital improvement
millage? Is that included in the general fund?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund on page 4 is a list of
the transfers to capital.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, no, no, no. I'm talking
about a separate capital improvement millage that's --
MR. DORRILL: No.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- folded in. We do not?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we did.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No.
MR. DORRILL: Originally it was. You're correct. The
last two or three years it has been levied as part of the general
fund, and then we just transferred the money over to a capital fund.
We don't have multiple millages now. We just have one millage where
we pool all of the -- the receipts, and then we've got transfers.
Right now he's talking about transfers to operating departments or
operating funds. And on the top of the next page he's going to show
you where we -- we got a transfer for the 301 fund. We got a transfer
of water management. We got a transfer of parks, libraries. That's
where you'll see it at the top of the next page.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I may -- I'm going to be point
blank, and I may be preempting comments by -- by some others. I don't
know. But, you know, we sit here looking at a -- a possibility of a
tax increase this year. We have three large items that have kind of
come home to roost that are in our budget. Two are payroll
associated, one with the sheriff's department, one with the county.
The third is this item under road and bridge 101.
My personal preference is to flag that item as a -- to
come back to because a reduction in that transfer and a deferral of
that transfer for one to two years or a portion of that transfer, to
defer it may put us in a better position. At one point the board said
we're going to, you know, transfer an increasing amount every year.
And I would rather see us bring that down to last year's amount or
maybe even a little bit less and defer the balance to next year to
avoid any type of increase.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have already done that. As part of
the budget policy, we deferred the final transfer. It was to be
phased in over a three-year period.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: FY '97 would have been the third year of
that three-year period. What we have done is retained some of the gas
taxes within road and bridge this year. Otherwise the -- the transfer
amount would have been a couple million dollars more.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I -- but I still see almost a
three million dollar increase in that 101. And what I'm saying is
that we may, you know -- there's no interest being charged here. So
for us to phase that deferral over a more extended period of time
doesnwt have a -- a negative effect.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But where it does have consequences,
though, in funding your road capital program.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just so youwre --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, so we have to do it
commensurate with how many projects came in underbid last year.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: True.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Quite a few. Quite a few.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But -- but on page 2 youwre showing a
$3,601,000 increase in that transfer fund, most of that attributable
to this 101 road and bridge.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct, as well as EMS has gone from --
the adopted column youill see is 3,470,800 to 4.5 million dollars. So
thatls slightly over one million dollars there as well.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: So -- all right. So itls -- and
youlre saying that this is -- that we are not transferring the third
yearls payment? What then is causing that increase?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the road and bridge fund, they
had a -- a large carryforward -- carryforward variance last year which
kept our ad valorem subsidy artificially low one year ago. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And essentially as that one-time revenue
is bled down, it -- it needs to be replaced with an ongoing funding
source. And weill -- weill have an opportunity to look at the detail
of that. I -- within the divisional summary here, I just want to kind
of hit the key points of where the major increases are. And weill
have a -- an opportunity to explore in as much detail as you would
like the -- the road and bridge fund and what -- what services are
being --
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- provided there.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: All right. Go ahead then.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Whatls the 38,000 in courts
increase?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is an expanded service for -- bear
with me a moment. Therels fourteen thousand dollars within the county
judges and twenty-three nine for a half a clerical position in the
domestic violence unit and a half a position that was currently
budgeted in human resources to be accounted for in the courtls
budget. That was the volunteer coordinator.
Weill have an opportunity again. There are summaries
for each of the major divisions here. So Iill just kind of hit the
high points, and then we can move into --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could I interject a thought as
we go through this transfer from road and bridge? This transfer to
101, is that essentially road construction?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. This is purely operations.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Maintenance.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Maintenance, correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Street lights, that kind of
stuff.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. All right. Iim okay
then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're going to -- that road
and bridge 101 we're going to take a more detailed look at later --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and have the ability to --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Where we'll go from here, Commissioner,
there is a summary for the BCC and county attorney and for each of the
divisions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Management offices, support, et cetera.
And included within those divisions are these transfers to other
funds. So at that point if you want to go into the detail --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- we'll be happy to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's flag that for more detailed
discussion if the board doesn't mind.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. Overall you'll note too within
the divisions themselves there's -- at the bottom of page 3 there's
approximately 1.4 million dollars in expanded services proposed. And
again, we will have -- there's a -- a detailed listing by division,
what those are. We'll get to those shortly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 4, overall reserves have
actually gone down. That is a function of the sheriff's office
attrition. One year ago when they budgeted attrition, we agreed to
budget it as an expense in the general fund. It was $904,600.
This year they have budgeted the full 4 percent
attrition as -- as per the board policy, but we felt as though we
could not afford to just budget that as an expense item in reserves.
A year ago it was a slightly different scenario where they had -- it
was kind of a last-minute change at the board. And they were also
talking about implementing a pay plan, and there was concern that they
would have to come back and ask for more money. And that is why that
reserve was established initially.
At this point that reserve would have been one point --
slightly over 1.7 million dollars, but that is not budgeted. And I'm
sure when we get to the sheriff's budget tomorrow morning, they will
discuss their relative need for whether or not we need to actually
budget that money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This was a point I -- a
note I had in -- in -- in my book, so just so I understand this, the
sheriff has budgeted 4 percent attrition but has asked that it be set
into reserves again just as we did last year rather than being taken
off the top like every other constitutional officer has requested or
has -- has performed; is that correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And I'm -- I'm not recommending a separate
reserve for the sheriff for attrition. And I think if upon analysis
next year the sheriff didn't have the attrition that he has -- has
budgeted for, then he could come back and request a supplemental
appropriation from you in your reserve. But I feel strongly about
having an artificial reserve in the potential event that his attrition
is not what it is. And that was one of the ways that we -- we used to
balance the general fund.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. And the extent of the tax
increase would have been 1.7 million higher --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- had we not done that. So obviously
the -- the -- the downside to rebudgeting that is that we would have
to increase ad valorem or cut some other expenses by a like amount
just so everyone's clear on that -- on that issue.
On -- the next item or grouping of items are the
transfers to capital and debt. Again, there was $7,038,700 budgeted
in FY '96. Per budget policy we budgeted a like amount in FY '97. I
will point out, though -- you'll notice the first two items that have
appropriations in '97, the 800 megahertz debt and debt service in fund
214 which was the campus parking acquisition, in FY '96, the second
column in, there was a million three fifty for 800 megahertz, and the
final payment on the campus parking debt was a million thirty-four.
So roughly 2.3 million -- three million dollars for debt service.
Next year we only have debt service on the 800 megahertz system at a
million five thirty-one.
So essentially there is an additional allocation to
capital projects of about $850,000. We were able to fund $850,000 in
additional projects as a result of that debt service going away.
Obviously as part of our budget policy discussion, there
was talk of obviously reviewing the capital list and the proposed
projects. We will do that this afternoon. There is a list of all the
projects within each of these respective funds that are proposed. And
we'll have an opportunity --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Especially 301.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it be correct then to say
that our capital project list is $850,000 more than the cost last year
if --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And that's the point I'm trying to
iljustrate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a direct -- basically a
direct transfer, and we'll be looking at that later today.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Exactly. The final category on the
expense side is the transfers to the various constitutional officers.
The clerk increase is 1.9 percent; the sheriff's office, 16.6.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 16.6.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that percent --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- over last year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. You will recall from the graph on
page 2, of the approximately 11.8 million dollar increase in total
appropriations, 6.3 million or 53 percent is attributable to the
sheriff's operation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fifty-three percent is attributable
just to the sheriff's operation?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. If you look at the graph on page 2
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think everyone here's got the
idea, folks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And again, the property appraiser and
tax collector budgets represented here are the fees for preparing the
rolls and collecting the ad valorem and do not represent the -- the
constitutional officers' budgets.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let the record reflect he said
that three times, Guy, wherever you are. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, I did.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the property appraiser
actually is -- is a decrease in --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: His budget has gone down actually. That
was a -- a pleasant surprise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: God bless Abe.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 5 is the general fund revenues.
It -- again, this is a county-wide fund paid into by all residents of
Collier County. The -- and it does include two revenue sources as
approved during the budget policy which is in the middle of the page,
the utility franchise fee at 4.2 million, the interim service fee at
1.7 million.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So if those were not approved, we
have another six --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Five point -- yeah, six million dollar
__
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Six million.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to -- to raise property taxes
or find cuts.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You may have just
answered this. This -- when we talk about the 16.6 percent of the
sheriff or the 53 percent of the total -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- does that include that 4
percent attrition, or have you taken that out already? Does this have
the assumption that his attrition is a part of his requested budget as
reserves?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, it's been netted out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has been netted out.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. The transfer to him is netted
out. What he was requesting, though, was that in the general fund we
budget the equivalent dollar amount to that 4 percent attrition should
he --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 4 percent --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- have a need for it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 4 percent that he wants to budget
for attrition or that we wanted him to budget for attrition, he wanted
us to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Reserve it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- appropriate it and put it in
reserves for him, so it really wouldn't cut anything.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we have not done.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have not done.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have not done, correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We didn't save anything there.
Okay.
MR. DORRILL: He and I are having strong disagreement
about that, but it is -- it is not in the budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: It'll be up to him to convince you to put
it back in.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that 4 percent is outta here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. And as Mr. Dorrill indicated,
there is some disagreement between the agencies about whether or not
that money should be appropriated. I'm sure --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is ongoing discussion, Mr.
Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Ongoing discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Much better phrase.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If -- if the sheriff were to
prevail in that ongoing discussion, what will his percentage increase
go to?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 17.3 percent.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Seventeen something or other,
right, or closer to 18 percent? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Another 1.7 million.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- we would probably opt to reserve it
within the general fund as opposed to --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- leaving it in his fund.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we would, but it would
still be --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- a reason for increasing the
millage if it were in there.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, because at this point there is
nothing budgeted for that sheriff attrition. If we added that back
in, we would compound our problem by 1.7 million dollars.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about some of
the revenue sources.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like we get 100,000 bucks from
race track revenues?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's that?
MR. DORRILL: Part of the statewide paramutual funding
scenario for both greyhound and horse racing, and every county in the
state gets a portion of it whether you have a track in your county or
not.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How interesting. And what's a --
what's a PILT, enterprise fund PILT?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Payment in lieu of taxes. That was
implement -- instituted one year ago.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same with the feds, huh?
MR. DORRILL: Federal government pays you a -- a pay fee
in lieu of the taxes that you would collect if they did not otherwise
own lands in Everglades National Park -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. DORRILL: -- and the Big Cypress National Preserve.
We created a similar charge to our utilities funds, solid waste and
your water and waste water department, because if they were privately
owned and operated, you would receive ad valorem taxes. And we have
developed a mechanism to account for taxes that they would otherwise
pay were they a private entity.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The federal government's giving
us a whole $300,000 for 40 percent of the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ain't that good of them?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's based on the acreage out in the
far eastern part of the county. And as -- that declines as acreage
comes off the tax rolls.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I -- I was a party to the franchise fee
discussion yesterday, but I feel I need to point out that obviously if
that item were not included in the budget, the proposed tax increase
over rollback of 10.8 percent would jump to 17.9 percent if a -- if
there were no franchise fee and that 4.2 million had to be substituted
with ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or -- or cuts found to --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- offset. And, Mr. Weigel, did
I read it wrong, or did I get a memo saying that you recommend against
the -- the interim service fee?
MR. DORRILL: He and I are having a ongoing discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continuing discussion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Protracted.
MR. WEIGEL: Continuing discussion, yes. No, you didn't
read it wrong.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: That was a memo I -- the latest memo was
delivered two days ago --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- in that regard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it says can't do it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, based on the -- on the
discussions that have been going on and -- and -- and Mr. Weigel's
memo which -- which I truly respect --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just get a real brief
summary because I have not read that? I'm -- I'm sorry. I haven't
seen it.
MR. WEIGEL: The question is can a county such as
Collier County, a nonchartered, home rule county, impose an interim
governmental service fee for those constructions, be it homes or
commercial constructions, that come on line and receive a certificate
of occupancy but don't appear after January 1 of a particular year and
don't appear on the property tax rolls and receive a tax bill
notwithstanding that just like every other property they are receiving
services.
And the question is, of course, they're always on the
tax rolls as unimproved property. But when the improvements are not
being picked up on until up to -- it could at the extreme as far as 21
months later; usually it's not that far.
And the legal answer to the question from the county
attorney office and from outside counsel, Neighbors, Giblin, was in
December of 1994 that it's constitutionally improper, impossible. And
the legal opinion of this county attorney and Neighbors and Giblin as
of May of this year is that with subsequent case law since 1994 that
we are more concerned and feel stronger the defensibility of imposing
an interim government -- government services fee, the reason being --
and you ask why -- is that the courts have held that to be a fee it
has to be differentiated from a tax, and it has to show a particular
benefit or service to that entity, that property that is being
assessed this fee that distinguishes itself from other -- other
properties or persons in general.
And that distinction has not been recognized in the
courts. They say it smells like a tax and it is a tax. And the
ability to tax is reserved by the constitution to the state
legislature. And as I know you're all aware, the counties have
attempted to get legislation passed for several years now to provide
for this sort of gap tax measure, and it hasn't had success in the
legislature.
Now, part of the ongoing discussion is there are several
cities that have implemented this. In fact, it's been in place for
several years in a few of the cities. And that's kind of the model
that I think that some of the county staff are looking at. And the
fact is that cities come under different statutory and constitutional
authorities. They're not the -- the general authority of the Board of
County Commissioners under chapter 125, and the -- and they're not --
don't have the -- the home rule constitutional powers that are
recognized for counties. It's different. The thing is they haven't
been challenged in court. They may be lucky, but they haven't been
challenged in court.
Ultimately my opinion was that if the -- if the board
were to go forward, my advice would be to retain the necessary capital
reserve so that if it were challenged successfully in court that the
county would have the wherewithal to pay the refunds as well as the
administrative cost for the refunds. And I -- I don't come to that
opinion lightly. And I will state to you that the Lee County
attorney, Jim Yaeger, has advised the Lee County board similarly both
in '94 and in 1996.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, you disagree and
your reason is --
MR. DORRILL: My reason is, not to argue with Mr.
Weigel's legal opinion because I -- I can't and I wouldn't. And if --
if it comes down to that, then I'll -- I'll step aside and tell him
that -- that we need to heed his advice. We are involved in a
preliminary analysis with Lee County that is going to cost us about
$1,700 to try and do the nexus-based analysis of what a -- a new
property that comes on the roll after January the 1st does impact your
park and EMS and library system because those people are just like any
other people, but they're not going to pay for the impact until the
following year.
And I think if we can show -- and we are in some
discussions and I've authorized pertaining (sic) some consultlye
assistance -- our share of which will be less than $2,000 -- I believe
it's from Deerfield Beach where they have gone through the reasonable
nexus to show what the fee basis should be so that he can get around
this subterfuge that it is, in fact, a tax and -- and be able to
associate what a new resident's impact on county general fund services
are. And we probably won't have the answer to that until the end of
July.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that nexus is arrived at, Mr.
Weigel, there's an element of your legal argument that -- that I
believe has still not been answered. And it's the point at which you
mentioned that it has to be a service that is not afforded -- and I'm
paraphrasing -- but similar or like properties elsewhere in the
county. In other words, if -- am I -- am I phrasing that portion of
your statement correctly, sir?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you're dead one. There are two
elements of the test. And one is it has to be a service that is not
afforded other properties similarly situated which, quite frankly,
they are because they're receiving all the general services. And,
secondly, to be a fee it has to be, as the courts say, quote,
voluntary, and I don't see that as a -- a potential in regard to the
application of this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so the point as I get it is
-- is that we -- we get good legal advice and we decide whether or
not to take the risk. And it might be a risk that we take because we
don't think we'll get challenged because it's expensive to challenge.
You have to hire lawyers. But I think that the only way we could take
that one is acknowledging the risk of challenge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we would still have to tax
the amount of 1.7 million dollars to make sure it's in reserves plus
legal fees in order to move ahead. So the net -- the net benefit to
the property owner is negligible if -- if not a negative based on --
and I think that's good advice on --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not a negative in that
if someone challenges and we win we have that question out of the
way. If someone challenges and we lose, we have that question out of
the way, so I --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I think we take a step
forward and we may find a year down the road that we don't ever have
to worry again and we can implement that from that point forward.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. My -- my concern is not
in whether we should go ahead and implement this. My concern is
building -- building our budget this year on 1.7 million dollars that
in my opinion we ought to reserve in case it is challenged. And --
and I think Mr. Weigel has said that it may take two years to get
through the challenge period.
MR. WEIGEL: I would expect that. Now, one thing is
that since this is kind of a threshold issue for nonchartered counties
particularly generally, I would expect that this would be an issue
that would be of great interest to nearly all of the counties, Florida
Association of Counties, the county defense fund. And there may be, I
would expect, a -- kind of a rallying of resources both monetary and
perhaps legal on behalf of counties should the challenge come if the
board were to enact that. But notwithstanding it's a -- it's a rather
daunting process.
MR. DORRILL: And we budgeted 5.7 million dollars in
reserves. And if I come to you at the end of July and David stacks
the legal cards up and then I look you in the eye and say "I think
this is a calculated risk, but I think it's one that's worth taking,"
then it -- it will be your call.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the other point is I just
said to Commissioner Hac'Kie, the likelihood of a court case being
filed and being resolved all within one fiscal year is -- is slim.
if we found ourself in a position where we felt we needed to do that
reserve, you could actually parcel that out a little bit too.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The other thing too,
Commissioner Hancock just talked about the FAC legal defense fund that
was established last year --
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I was alluding to.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- we participate in, and -- and
we can hopefully tap some of that too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When -- at what point in the
budget discussions will we discuss the specifics of this assessment in
more detail? For example, my question is to the extent a developer's
carrying property in inventory, it's CO'd but not sold --
MR. DORRILL: I won't -- I won't have that information
probably until the end of July and would have to come back as part of
a proposed ordinance. And we would have to, I'm sure, have a -- an
exemption provision in there for units that may be carried on
inventory and how we would collect those or permits that are already
pulled and in process where a general contractor does not have
recourse to go back against the owner for an unanticipated new fee
that is going to be a condition to get the CO.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will be a -- a -- it will have
to be very carefully drafted in order to avoid some inequities. And I
just say heads up to the board that the development community is going
to be hot to trot when they find out about this when they start paying
attention to it because it potentially is a huge impact on big
developers who carry an inventory of property and also on small
construction companies who finish houses and, you know, who spec.
houses.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: And we anticipated that, and I spoke to
their executive board two months ago and told them you -- you need to
anticipate this because I intend to recommend it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mike, we're going to need to pick up the
pace here so that we can get to some of the divisional -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: -- highlights and get some of those
questions.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just about there. One last point on
revenue. Obviously we're affected -- carryforward revenue fund
balance is going down. It's approximately 9.8 million dollars. One
component or approximately one million dollars of that reduction going
back to the expense side -- and this will be my last comment on the
summary level -- is that the sheriff is proposing -- his adopted
transfer from the general fund at the bottom of page 4 is thirty-seven
million nine, but he's proposing that to make ends meet as a function
of his pay plan adjustments, et cetera, that he needs thirty-eight
million eight eight three seven hundred, approximately one million
dollars of additional transfer from the board this year to make ends
meet. And obviously that -- considering that an expenditure,
carryforward is lowered by a million dollars. So that would be
another potential issue or ongoing discussion perhaps to have in the
morning with the sheriff's staff.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll have it in the morning
because we identified all funding sources for that pay plan for the
balance of this year, if I remember correctly. And to request
additional transfer of funds above that to do something that we all
make decisions for, I've got a problem with that, so flag that
sucker.
MR. DORRILL: We found out two weeks ago and he's put us
on notice that he now feels that he may run out of money before the
end of this fiscal year. And I told him in no uncertain terms then
you're going to have to be solely responsible to convince the board of
that when you see them. It was two weeks ago Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just -- but aren't we saying
that that nine hundred and forty-one, that million dollars that we
reserved, he hadn't tapped? So wouldn't that be the source? I mean,
didn't he tell us he needed to reserve a million bucks and we reserved
it?
MR. DORRILL: He did. But that's what I'm saying
though. But it's -- I think the board is entitled to what his
year-to-date expenses are --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MR. DORRILL: -- and why he now thinks that he's going
to need that money because he has had attrition. And, in fact, he's
had more attrition than what he ever told you that he was going to
have, and that money was set aside for attrition purposes. You -- you
have already identified the money for the pay plan increase. And so
what it means to me is he has increased spending in other areas in
other than what he has previously told you about. And he needs to
come and explain that to your satisfaction.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes my general overview. Now
we'll move into the actual divisional budgets. Beginning on page 67
is the summary of essentially the board's component which is the
board, other general administrative, and the county attorney. I'm
going to turn that over to Ms. Gansel if there are any questions.
Essentially this is the format you will see, though, for
each of the county's major divisions. There's a pie chart showing,
you know, total appropriations and the split amongst the various
departments or subunits within -- within that grouping -- the board,
county attorney, other G and A -- and the relative slice of the total
general fund pie that these departments make up. There are no
proposed expanded services in this area. Overall total appropriations
are up 2 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in the BCC we're up -- we're
asking for -- for ourselves a 6.3 percent increase. Is that what I'm
reading?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had -- and this is where I
think Mr. Dotrill asked us to bring our individual lists because each
of us put down under Board of County Commissioners some areas for
possible reduction. And I had under professional development a total
reduction of $5,000. And I haven't looked at the master list just
yet, but I don't know how many people shared in that. But is this the
appropriate time to make those recommendations?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. At this point any of these three
departments it would be time now. If you either have questions here
or would like to look at further detail, this would be the time
because once we conclude this, we would move onto the next division
and consider this one closed.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Two things:
Administrative helicopter flights, that is under this budget if I'm
correct?
MR. DORRILL: It would not be under the board's budget.
You will see that when you get to that division, and it probably --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Support services is next.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: So it would be part of that budget.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a $5,000 proposed
reduction in professional development based on those funds not being
used each -- each and every year. Miss Filson, can you give me --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are we in this book, in the
big book?
MS. GANSEL: G-7, general fund page 7, 6 and 7 I think.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The big book.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yup. Got it. Because right now
we're doing fund 001.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Filson, what is our -- what
is our professional development budget each year?
MS. FILSON: The professional development includes
$10,000 for travel, 2,000 per each commissioner; $2,000 for FAC
travel; $5,400 for a lobbying coalition; 13,100 for FAC membership
dues which went up this year; and $300 for organizational development
which is the staff attending classes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 2,000 FAC is total,
right, not each?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. That 2,000's dedicated to
travel on FAC-related matters, so that's -- that's by itself. Miss
Filson prepared a little summary at my request of -- we -- I looked at
the total number of times we traveled to Tallahassee with the lobbying
co -- with the tri-county coalition. And the truth is we probably
only needed to be there twice, maybe three times during session. And
Commissioner Matthews can vouch for the validity of having to be there
the last week.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And after looking at what it
would cost to go up and get a hotel room and have a rental car and per
diem versus the tri-county lobbying coalition, there was a savings of
some $1,500 if I remember correctly, Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: Well, I took an average of hotel nights.
For one night it was $100. Car rental for 2 days was $62 including
unlimited mileage; air fare, approximately $400; and per diem, 42.
That's $604 times 5 was $3,020.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, where we had budgeted five
thousand some odd -- I'd like to reduce that line item amount to
$3,000 and -- and eliminate our partnership in the tri-county lobbying
coalition.
MS. FILSON: Reduce it by -- by 3,0007
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reduce it by 2,000 to ale --
amount of 3,000 on an as-needed basis to go to Tallahassee on specific
budget issues.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and not have a
constant presence?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And not have -- not just a --
well, our presence is only five weeks out of the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- budget session.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Between the tri.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. The truth is having Lee
County or Charlotte County there didn't help us at all. I mean, we go
up there and deal with our own issues. I don't go up there and lobby
for Lee or Charlotte for the most part. I mean, you're spending all
your time hitting on the issues that are important to the people in
this county. And I -- you know, I would just as soon we be more
selective and go up as needed, and -- and we can probably save a few
thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically two questions.
Can we always find a hotel room in Tallahassee in session,
particularly when you get to the key weeks like the last week?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And are those -- did you get
quotes on those prices for session? I know they kind of sneak up
during that three-month period.
MS. FILSON: I asked for it during legislative session.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guys, realistically, though --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind the suggestion.
I just don't want to end up without being able to get a room, and I'm
sorry for interrupting.
MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, could I just -- there's one
point you have in your budget that you receive $2,300 as a
reimbursement from the other counties that you also wouldn't be
receiving if you don't participate in the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the net is $3,100, 5,400 minus
the 2,300. The net is $3,100.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a trade-off.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guys, I know this is a small
number in the overall picture, but I don't think we get anything out
of that that we don't -- I mean, I -- tell me one piece of legislation
that -- that, you know, you're happy that happened or didn't happen as
a result of Collier County going up there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- the municipality -- the Collier
County special act dealing with eminent domain in municipalities.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that was -- that passed, and
we got it vetoed through a letter. You know, we don't need -- I'll
just say real plain what I think we ought to -- I don't think we ought
to spend any money on that lobbying effort. Either we buy a
membership in the FAC and they do it. That's enough. That's where we
have power is through the lobbying of the FAC. I think we ought to --
all -- all that ought to be in our budget is -- is what it takes to
run this office. We don't need to go to Tallahassee. And I also
think that if we go to Tallahassee that -- I'm sorry, but we make
$46,000. We ought to pay for our own travel.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- the FAC would -- would
tell you that there's no greater influence especially during the
committee hearings than a county commissioner being there to address
specific issues. There -- therefore, I feel we should continue the
lobby effort whether we go in -- in a hotel or rent an apartment with
-- with three other counties. For $3,100 the idea's a push.
And -- and, you know, quite frankly I -- I talk with the
FAC several times during the year. I get their recommendations. And
when I'm up there, I meet with the legislative delegation. We talk
over the issues. And I -- I really don't know that there's any one
issue other than the eminent domain that we haven't had effect and
impact on just through conversations with the delegation of what's
going on, who do I need to go see, and so forth like that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's take a poll so we can move
along. There's a cut.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pass.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can't pass.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It almost worked.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't blame me for
trying.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Keep.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cut.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll say keep for the time
being.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cut, keep, keep.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Cut by 50 percent.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Keep.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three keeps. Hove along.
MS. FILSON: That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're finished, Hiss Filson, I
guess. Anybody have anything else for Hiss Filson?
MR. DORRILL: The -- the other what we would call
divisional budgets here are the county attorney and also the board's
other general administrative budget.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let it -- let the record clearly
reflect that the county attorney's budget is down by 1 percent.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good job.
MR. DORRILL: Get my vote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now if you can just work 100
hours a week, Dave, we can get that down a little further.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: If there are no further questions, we'll
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a luncheon
engagement, and I'm going to need to -- to leave. I'll be back about
one o'clock.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now's a good time to take up all the
Immokalee issues.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I better stay. Thank you.
(Commissioner Matthews exited the proceedings.)
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The next summary or group of summaries
is on --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take the stairs on your way
out.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- page 20 --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do what?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take the stairs on your way
out.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and 21. That is the management
offices.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I will. No more
elevators.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Twenty and twenty-one?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Twenty and twenty-one, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of our summary booklet?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, yes, sir. Skipping over the
constitutionals, they're scheduled this afternoon. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Management offices, I'll turn it over to
Hiss Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, as you can see, the
management offices overall have gone up 9.1 percent. As we go down,
I'll just hit the highlights in the various departments. And if you
have individual questions, if you'd stop me, please.
In the county manager's office, there is an increase.
During this year you had approved an additional position, an assistant
to the county manager. That position has been budgeted 50 percent in
the county manager's office and 50 percent in human resources budget
based on allocation of responsibilities.
In the public information or public affairs budget,
there is a substantial increase. There are a number of items that
attribute to this increase. They have some additional
responsibilities. And there are some transfer of budgets from other
departments such as the employee newsletter, the employee recognition
program. These were accounted for in other budgets and are -- are
being reflected in this budget. They are also requesting an
additional position, an expanded position, here for a secretary 2.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, can you explain that?
I'm reading here red ribbon week, yuletide donation drive, news
clippings, library, so on. Linda's here somewhere --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the detailed book --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- hiding behind you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- we're on page 40 and 41.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I -- I know you do all
that currently, and I'm wondering how that -- how this changes that.
What does that this do? What's this free you up to do that's not
happening now, or what's different? Why do we need to spend $30,0007
MS. FASULO: There are a couple of things. I'm sorry.
Linda Fasulo, public information coordinator.
There are a number of things that -- that really impact
this. I had prepared a statement. If you'll allow me to read it, it
may answer a lot of your questions. And I have a copy of it. Felicia
has a copy of it for each one of you.
As I'm certain you're aware, in September of last year
we were moved under the county manager's -- as part of the county
manager's reorganization plan. We were separated from what is now
support services and moved under managerial control of the county
manager's office. As a result of this, there have been many changes
and additions to our areas of responsibility.
Because of our redefined role within county government,
our mission, focus, functionality, and the resultant volume of work
have changed substantially. I'd therefore like to apprise you of
several things prior to discussing specific -- budget specifics.
First of all, I'm delighted to report that the public
confidence rating for Collier County government has dramatic --
dramatically improved over the last year as a result of policies set
by the county manager and implemented by our office. Last June we
began tracking public confidence levels through local media. As the
public confidence index -- index verifies, in one year we have gone
from a zero rating to a plus 362. And I believe you -- you should
have a copy of that.
We've also taken a proactive approach in the area of
employee morale. We've done this in several ways. A touch screen
electronic employee satisfaction survey was developed which solicited
employee opinions on a variety of issues. These included working
conditions, employee input with regard to personal work, environments,
feelings about merit pay, interaction with superiors, et cetera.
Surveys will be conducted twice each year and will cover a wide
variety of subject areas. The information gleaned from these will
help us to develop programs to enhance employee morale and esprit.
We've restructured and reformatted the Turkey Tribune
into a true employee news magazine rather than another management
tool. And the feedback on this has been nothing but positive.
Through programs like the yuletide donation drive and
WalkAmerica, we have tried to foster a sense of family and community
responsibility. As public employees, we are supported by the
community through salaries. By means of these programs, we as
employees have an opportunity to give something back to our
community.
Additionally, although the board elected -- and rightly
so -- to eliminate funding of charitable organizations, we've been
able to negate through these programs any perception that Collier
County as the county's largest employer is a cold, uncaring, and
disinterested organization.
Publications are an important part of public education
and perception. Over the last year we have received accolades from
both the public and our peers on the caliber of our publications. In
the past our publishing capabilities were extremely limited because we
were underfunded and underequipped. The perfect example of this is
the production of the Gordon River Bridge fact sheet last year. In
order to produce this camera -- in camera ready copy which is the way
our printer required it, I had to use my church's computer as my
outdated 386 with its 7 megabytes of RAM couldn't handle it.
I'm delighted to report that OPI has finally entered the
20th century. We're now equipped with state-of-the-art computer
equipment and software packages which will allow us to produce
first-class publications appropriate for a blue chip community.
Incidently, I thought you'd be interested to know that
the cost for OPI to produce publications in camera ready format is
roughly $9.40. Most of the print companies we deal with charge from
16 to $20 to do what we do downstairs.
One area I strongly feel is of vital importance to
county government is our central switchboard. Our lead operator is
county government's first line defense. She's also our greatest
public relations asset and over the years has repeatedly been praised
by both customers and employees.
Based on figures obtained from me via the phone tracking
system, I've been able to document that we receive between 100,000 and
125,000 calls annually through the central switchboard. This
translates to from 33 to 52 calls per hour or roughly one call every
one and a quarter to two minutes.
And what I thought was interesting too was any calls
placed on hold wait only an average of two to four seconds before
being transferred. That's an excellent record when you consider the
volume of calls she's dealing with down there.
OPI also works in tandem with emergency management when
storm emergencies arise. Per an agreement with the county manager's
office, we're rolled under emergency management's operational control
during these times and become a satellite of their department until
the emergency is over.
While under emergency management, our responsibilities
include preparation and distribution of appropriate media releases,
food and child care services for paid volunteers and staff who work
during this time, main switchboard operation, and emergency phone bank
assistance.
As I previously pointed out, our work load has increased
significantly over the last year. Also we lost about three quarters
of a person because of our repositioning under the county manager's
office and the breakaway -- I'm sorry, and the breakaway of mail
services, the half person being Diane Brubaker and the quarter person
being mail services personnel who we used to fill in and assist us as
the need arose and their time permitted.
In order to negate this loss and handle the increased
work load, it became imperative last November to add another staff
person within OPI. To do this we've borrowed temporarily vacant
positions from multiple departments for short periods of time. For
fiscal year '97 we are asking for a permanent addition of this
position within OPI. I ask you to please give serious consideration
to this funding for without it we can't maintain the upward mobility
we've begun to generate over the last year.
I'd also like to point out that while it appears we are
requesting nearly twice the funds approved for this year, in truth
that's not the case. During the six years I've been with OPI, much of
the funding for specific projects or roughly $29,000 was included
within budgets -- within the budgets of those departments for whom
these services were provided. This year, as per agreements with those
departments, a portion of this funding was rolled over into OPI. And
I think -- I believe it's 15,000 -- a little over 15,000. I think
it's 15,300 or 15,600.
Our fiscal year '96 budget was $87,200. Add to this the
$29,000 of -- that we have pulled out of other departments,
responsibilities we've taken from other departments, and the $28,000
request for the replacement position. You arrive at 144,200. By
including the upgrade of one secretary 2 position to that of public
information coordinator which would be $5,300, we arrive at one
forty-nine nine. And the public information coordinator's position
has been filled in the six -- for the six years I've been here. It's
just never been funded before and never actually been approved for our
office. This leaves 13,400, 6,500 of which can be attributed to the
office automation upgrade and the increased cost of utilities, office
and photographic supplies, and other operational expenses.
The remaining 6,900 is -- is an actual budget increase
to cover costs for any additional programs and/or services requested
by the board and management offices during the 1997 fiscal year.
Sixty-nine hundred dollars, to give you an example, it costs roughly a
thousand dollars to do a color brochure as we did for you, the
commissioners. The annual report runs about $6,000. So if you factor
those in, we could do two or three brochures at your direction if
necessary or whatever you determine.
In closing, I'd like to say that although governments
have historically had the reputation of being anything but user
friendly, we in OPI are working on your behalf to change that
perception, at least as far as Collier County government is
concerned. One indicator of the fact that we're on the right track
was a comment made by a customer a few years -- a few weeks ago. "I'm
impressed," he said. "Everyone I've dealt with here today was
knowledgeable, helpful and very, very pleasant. Sure is different
from home."
I'd like to state that in my view the money you spend on
the office of public information truly gives you the most bang for
your buck of any office in county government. Thank you for allowing
me to read this. I appreciate it, and I'll try to answer your
questions.
MR. DORRILL: The issue there is -- is the one new
position, and the point that she made in her -- her statement is that
because of the extra work load that was added to this department last
year for all of the projects that she mentioned, they have been bor --
borrowing vacancies in order to keep an employee who was originally
hired as a -- from one of the temporary services here in town. And
that, frankly, was the young lady who just passed the handout to you.
She originally came here as a temporary employee, has worked out so
well that we -- we're keeping her employed but borrowing the position
slot from other divisions. And then as they have the need to fill
that, it throws us into this little state of chaos trying to find
another vacant position in the organization in order to keep that
individual on the payroll and on the switchboard to cover for those
times when the switchboard operator's not here.
MS. FASULO: And as I say, although it does appear that
-- that we're adding another position, we did have half of Diane
Brubaker as public information coordinator prior to the change. And
we did have access to mail staff to help us with, you know, some basic
projects --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
MS. FASULO: -- so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I for one appreciate the -- the
great job that the office of public information has been doing here
over the last year or so. It's -- it's really a lot different than it
used to be. We used to not do a lot, frankly, compared to what we're
doing now. And today I think we -- we've gone a long way and -- as
the chart shows towards getting a better public perception of the
image of Collier County. And I think we should continue that. It's
-- we have a lot to offer that sometimes the public doesn't even know
about. And that's one of the great benefits we get from this
particular office is that the general public finds out things that we
are doing and -- and that they can take advantage of. So personally
I'm all for this particular request.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I strongly agree. The -- this is
one of those where customers of the county get direct service. And
there aren't a lot of those. There's a lot of departments that are
very layered and have a lot of -- where we take care of each other in
the bureaucracy, and this one is direct to the public. I think that's
-- we have to do more.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: As -- as someone who probably
handles more elementary school tours than the balance of my colleagues
-- I don't know why you guys are never available.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More elementary -- oh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- yeah, see, you had to ask
what that was, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: ANyway, I -- I -- I -- you know,
Linda, you -- you do a terrific job, and your office does a terrific
job. But I think we can maintain or increase what is going on without
-- to -- not to the full extent of what's presented here in expanded
services. My personal feeling is what we're doing is we're taking a
secretary 2 and moving them to public information coordinator at an
expense of $5,300.
MS. FASULO: That is myself.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We're then going to bring
in a secretary 2 for a department of three people.
MS. FASULO: No, she would be secretary 1.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's listed here as
secretary 2.
MS. FASULO: Okay. That's an error.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Regardless, we have a department
of three people. And now we're going to have a full-time funded
position of secretary for a department of three. I'm a little
cautious about doing that. And -- and my feeling is that with the
increase in computer equipment that is presented in this budget, the
increase of $6,900 to cover what programs may be requested in the
coming year, that if temporary assistance is needed in some areas that
we can obtain it for that one year.
As I look out over the next four or five years, the
public information office is going to have to grow and expand in
services. I'm just not so sure this is the year to add a $30,000
position.
So, you know, I sound like I'm in a minority. And once
again, I -- I'll -- I'll suggest a reduction and probably lose. But
my feeling is that we hold off on that position for one more year and
-- and look at funding it next year.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that I
disagree. Linda, you do a great job, though. All you guys do down
there. And we've made certain strides. And I know you want to take
it up to the next level. If we do not, if -- if we follow
Commissioner Hancock's suggestion, can we maintain the level at which
we've achieved at this point?
MS. FASULO: No. We -- as I say, we lost basically
three quarters of a person with the breakaway of the mail room with
Diane stepping aside. We had originally last year Diane Brubaker,
myself, Tammy, and Judy. There were still four people in there. And
we basically have that same four now. Diane is out of the picture at
this point. She's doing full-time support services work. We have
Felicia to basically replace her.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a way -- and I don't
want to get too nitpicky here. But is there a way to do some of that
with a part-time person at a lower expense or --
MS. FASULO: It's really very difficult to do that. A
secretary l's position is fairly low on the salary scale to begin
with.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And understand, Linda, these
suggestions are in no way a reflection of the work that your office is
doing.
MS. FASULO: No, no, no. I do understand that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you're getting an infusion of
$29,000 that was in other department's budgets last year. And I
understand you'll be taking on that work load. But there is some
money coming into your budget that's coming out of other budgets
already this year. And I guess I'm just trying to -- to limit the --
the total growth of -- of this particular department this one year or
spread it out over two years. I'm looking for a way to do that. If
it's not in eliminating a single position, maybe you can help me. If
I want to spread this growth out over two years, how can I do it?
MR. DORRILL: I think what we could do in order to -- to
move on, the -- the reason for this is because it is -- it is
extremely hard to find capable secretary is. It is equally hard to
find them from the temporary agencies that are in town. We found one
who is able to do secretary 1 work that was previously being done by
an executive secretary. I think we will either have to return her to
one of the temporary agencies and hope that -- that she stays with
that agency. Or we will have to find another position in the county
manager's agency and offer to transfer a preexisting but vacant
position but have no increase in -- in the total number of positions
because the way this is proposed is as a total new position. And what
I hear at least three of you saying is that you recognize the work
load but you want a different solution that doesn't entail in effect
new money or additional employees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just to be careful,
though, I only hear two people saying that, and there's -- MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So don't -- don't count to three
too fast.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
MS. FASULO: As far as cuts, the one area that there is
a little padding in is that $6,900 to cover new projects that we're
directed to do in the course of the year. That -- we've -- we've
tried to be --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many projects did you do last
year that are not recurring?
MS. FASULO: It's really hard to say. About the only
thing that -- that's not recurring possibly -- and I don't know that
at this point; a decision hasn't been made -- is the standards of
service brochure.
MR. DORRILL: We have the standards in service
brochure. We had the Gordon River Bridge -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That definitely won't be
recurring.
MR. DORRILL: -- effort. Let's hope not. And we have
always the potential of one incorporation or annexation initiative
that historically has resulted in us printing and publishing our side
of the story. And those are the things that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- she doesn't know whether they're going
to recur or not, but there's 6,900 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion.
What -- what -- I hate having a number out there that is just in case
something might happen. And I wonder if we might trim that number
down but allow the person that's proposed to go on because I don't
want to lose -- I mean, you answered my question when I said, if we
don't do that, will we be able to maintain the level of service. And
Commissioner Norris pointed out both public confidence and I think we
interact everyday down there and we see it. And I don't want to lose
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll suggest the
elimination of $6,900 in the -- in possible expanded services next
year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. FASULO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Linda. Next.
MR. DORRILL: Mike, is there anything else within that
other general administrative budget, or can we go on to support
services?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think we can probably go on.
MR. DORRILL: The -- the other general administrative
budget, frankly, is where we incur the cost to print your weekly
agenda and incurs costs to pay the one position that's at Everglades
City that is a -- wears three different hats. That is sort of your
pooling account for things that are not directly attributable to
either the management offices or your executive office. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Moving on to support services?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we can get a long way
through this division. But I -- if you're going to break for lunch,
we might let some of these other people go now so they can return to
the office and be back here, but I don't know what you all want --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are going to break from twelve to
one.
MR. DORRILL: So my -- my suggestion is that if you're
not here for the support services division -- and that would include
those members of the public who want to speak about the swimming pool
-- you can go to lunch early, and we should be back here at one
o'clock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What page in our big book are we
on, Mr. Smykowski?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- yeah, let me make a
suggestion here.
MS. LEITH: Page 49.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's -- why don't we -- before we get
into the subject of the parks and recs., why don't we let those
members of the public that are here to speak on that go ahead and
speak now --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- let me --
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- so we have their thoughts in mind
as we go forward.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question too. I
mean, from the discussion earlier on the Immokalee pool, it does not
appear that we have three members looking to close down for six months
or for three months. We're looking at maybe some streamlining of
those -- those cold weather days or doing like the YMCA does. But
just so that everybody doesn't get up and say the same thing, if we
already agree with that --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't hear support for
and nor am I suggesting a full closing of six months. I would like to
trim the budget to force a streamlining during the cold weather months
and reduce staffing but not to the point that Mr. Olliff is going to
lose his -- his good quality lifeguards out there but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And none of us are talking about
-- or I'm not. And it sounded like none of us were -- it sounded
like we were all talking about leaving open, for example, the lap
pools --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for exercise.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not trying to close those at
all.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At a minimum I think that's --
that's a requirement. I would agree to that.
MR. DORRILL: We have two groups, and I know that not
all of these people want to speak. Some of them do. One group is the
Arthritis Foundation and some type of aquacize program. Then there is
some -- there's some people here from competitive diving. And if you
want, I can run through these real quick, and they can either speak or
waive.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Carroll? Okay. And -- and you all
just help me here if you don't choose to speak.
Ms. Andrews supporting arthritis doesn't want to speak.
Ms. DeNahu (sic) supporting. Ms. Brent, okay, very
well. Ms. Matthews? All these people are with the Arthritis
Foundation. Ms. Read. All right. Then, Mr. Gersonde, you'll --
you'll follow this lady. Go right ahead.
MS. READ: Yes. I am the volunteer coordinator for the
aquacize program, Naples chapter of the Arthritis Foundation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And your name is --
MS. READ: Elizabeth Read. I live in district 5, 272
Rose Apple Lane.
We've held our classes twice a week at the Golden Gate
Aquatic Facility for a year and a half now. We have over 100 people
registered, men and women ranging in age from 40 to almost 90. The
majority of our members are retired. Over half of them are also
seasonal people, so they're not here to scream and yell at the
possibility of losing the class they depend on very much.
Arthritis eventually afficts -- afflicts over 85 percent
of people as -- sometimes when you're young, more often when you're
older. It worsens with age like everything. Continuous water
exercise has been found to be extremely beneficial. It's a way to
maintain one's strength, mobility, and independence. This is
important when you think of future services for elderly people. The
longer they're strong and independent, the better it is for the -- for
everybody as well as for the government.
Our members are from all over the area: From the city,
from just south of Immokalee Road all the way to Bayshore, and just
over the 951 line. We draw from a large area. We would very much
appreciate being able to continue at the Golden Gate Aquatic
Facility. There is not another pool really that can handle this
group. It's centrally located. The size is good. The staff has been
excellent, very cooperative. And it's very needed. It's open to
anyone in the county with arthritis. The foundation pays for the
liability insurance. They have also furnished a very expensive pair
of stairs, set of stairs, so that the people can enter and leave the
water safely. There is a very small fee that the members pay
basically to the foundation to subsidize the insurance.
And I think that pretty much sums it up. You may not
have realized that the pool was used that way as well as for young
people and all sorts of people. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Read.
MR. DORRILL: Are -- are you -- are they using it
regardless of the weather?
MS. READ: We use it --
MR. DORRILL: Twelve months?
MS. READ: We use it as long as the -- the air
temperature is 70 or above. Arthritics are very susceptible to cold
weather like this room. And -- and as long as it's -- the air's
pleasant and over 70, yes, we use it year-round unless like last
winter. It was pretty chilly for a couple of months. MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seventy or above. Sounds like a
magic number.
MS. READ: Seventy or above, and we re -- have to have a
water temperature of over eighty -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MS. READ: -- for obvious reasons.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's maintained constantly
year-round I believe.
MS. READ: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
MS. READ: But there's a good turn-out. We have in the
season -- January through May we have an average of 32 people
registered for each month. Because of illness or travel or seasonal,
it varies from day to day. But our average is 32 people in those
months and just over 20 the rest of the year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gersonde.
MS. READ: Thank you.
MR. GERSONDE: Hi. I'm Jeff Gersonde. I'm the head
coach of Naples Dive Team. We practice at Golden Gate pool. And
whenever the rumors of the shut-down of the pool come up like they did
last year and now again this year, it kind of shakes the public's
confidence in the stability and the quality of our programs and the
future we're headed in. And that's -- that's one of the things that
really concerns me. And it also affects the morale of the pool
staff.
It's -- I'm glad to hear that we're going to stay open
because it -- it is important to have the opportunity to practice
year-round. We've dove in meets in January. We have meets in
February and March if we choose to dive in them. And if it's warm
enough, we will go out and practice in those months. That's about all
I have to say. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said something -- quickly,
you said if it's warm enough. Again, if the temperature's -- MR. GERSONDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was on the dive team in high
school. And when it got to a certain point, we were on the dry pit.
We were not in the water so -- MR. GERSONDE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, again, the same
thing.
MR. GERSONDE: And -- and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it gets too cold, you're not
out there anyway.
MR. GERSONDE: Usually not, no. We -- and we don't --
we don't have -- at this time we don't have the dry boards or the
trampolines to practice on, so it's -- it's important that we get out
there. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Pontes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. It sounds like that
nobody so far is going to object if what we ask Mr. Olliff to do is
something akin to what Miss Matthews was talking about with the YMCA
air temperature issues.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Pontes, P-o-n-t-e-s, and she's with
the dive team also. I have a question, and I was a swimmer. Swimming
and diving was always a fall sport. But the last gentleman said that
-- that you have competitive diving throughout the year if you can
comment on that.
MS. PONTES: Our season -- I just -- I'm Flo Pontes, by
the way. First I'd like to say that I have no notes and no speech.
I've been working on this diligent speech to come before you in a few
weeks and beg you for a three-meter board. The fact of closing the
facility totally took me by surprise. And, I mean, I understand the
cost of saving money and budgeting. I'm a seasonal employee. But the
fact of closing it totally took me by surprise.
To answer your question, I just did my first dive
circuit with my son. Our season runs primarily from October through
Memorial Day. The summer is when they spend developing it and
learning and falling and trying and continuing so that they can
shine. The need for practice during this time, I can't explain to you
how great it is. I think it would be a really great idea if you did
it according to temperature. However, those kids were in there last
year in water -- I -- I wouldn't have even thought about it, but they
were determined, and they did.
In that case I would really love to go on and get, like
you said, the dry pit and the land equipment that we could use in this
time because they can only benefit from it.
We're the only organized dive team in southwest
Florida. That covers a vast area. When we go to the other coast and
compete against these children with 30, 40 kids on their team, their
platforms, their high boards, their trampolines, we might be few in
number, but we walk away winners all the time. Our competition last
year, nine series we went. My son entered nine times and only took
one third place medal. The rest were first and second, four of which
were in three meter, and he started when he's six. I mean, he's now
only seven. The bigger kids, we have one member that beat a regional
champion. It says a lot. I'd love for you to all come down sometime
and watch these kids. They're great.
And as parents and with Jeff -- I mean, having Jeff is
an asset in itself because he's a do-as-l-do kind of coach which is
one thing that all those large teams on the other coast don't have.
And we've got potential. We've got a lot going for us. We just had
48 children come out for a competitive dive test all of which with
excellent skills which with the proper equipment you never know where
we might go. We've had some great divers as well as two captains
leave due to lack of equipment. And I just -- every sport is
important, and I know that every child is important.
This -- we have got -- we have got the potential. I
could go on for days and explain it to you. But I mean, basically I'm
asking please don't close us. And if you're going to shut us down on
the cold days, could we consider some other equipment, please?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. PONTES: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Brooks, are you still with us? Okay.
I don't know that I had any other registered speakers on this topic.
If you'll come forward. Again, if you're here, you do need to -- to
register. But, ma'am, if you'll just give our recorder your name.
MS. NEAPOLITAN: My name's Ruth Neapolitan. And I
suppose what I have to say has -- has been said. My concern is for
all the patrons that do take advantage of our facility in Golden Gate,
and I would imagine those that do in Immokalee appreciate its
existence as well.
But I've been a patron at the Collier County aquatic
facility since it has started and in the water aerobics group. And I
have two children that have become involved with the swim team, and
our youngest children has taken numerous swimming lessons and just
this week started with the sea turtle swim team. Our oldest daughter
began with the sea turtle swim team. But due to a little drop-off in
attendance and an exodus from our county pool to the Y, she went to
the Y during the winter. And I really talk about the pool and its
facility. It's -- it's easy to get to and -- but mostly I talk to my
friends about the fine staff.
And the thing that concerns me a lot, not only the lack
of continuity that would be in existence if the pool were to close for
the children and patrons but that the staff we have there we should
appreciate, and I really believe we're blessed. I think they're a
really fine group of professionals that are well certified and that I
entrust my children to. For example, this morning I was stuck in the
elevator. And I said to Miss Matthews that, you know, my daughter's
at swim camp or swim team this morning, and I know that if I don't get
back there at 10:30 that she is in good hands with the certified and
dedicated lifeguard staff.
They're well organized. They love what they do. And
when discussion of closing the pool comes up as it did before, those
people have, you know, budgets of their own. And it isn't fair to
those professionals to bring this topic up when we knew as a -- as a
community when we built those pools, this one as well as the one in
Immokalee, that they wouldn't be revenue generators but that they
would be expensive to build and maintain.
And if we expect qualified professionals to stay at
those positions and to continue enjoying their jobs there, I don't
think it's fair that we bring the discussion up of closing those
facilities. I think they're dedicated. They deserve our praise and
our encouragement to continue doing the fine job that they do.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They're not the only employees
that are involved in talking about budget cuts. And when you use the
word fair, we have a lot of other employees that may be on the line in
these budget discussions. And we don't discriminate.
MS. NEAPOLITAN: I understand that. But the topic of,
you know, human resources that -- like their secretary in a few
discussions ago that would be hard to replace, these people would be
really hard to replace I believe, you know, that come with
certification as pool operators or as lifeguards, as instructors. And
I really appreciate them being there, and I'm glad the pool can stay
open.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: I have one question for Mr. Olliff because
it's pertinent. It -- it sounds to me a little bit like there may be
times also during our operations when we have certified lifeguards who
are at the pool when otherwise it's the swim team who's in the pool?
Did I hear that right? Do we have a lifeguard on duty when the
competitive swim team is practicing swimming? I would think we could
trust them --
MR. OLLIFF: We don't have a choice. We don't have a
legal choice. HRS requirements require us once the pool is open to
the public whether they're certified swimmers or whatever they are
that we have to have our own staff there and staffing the facility.
So generally any time it's open to any member of the public whether
it's any of these groups, even if it's in a small kiddy pool with two
inches of water, we've got to have our own staff there.
MR. DORRILL: So the issue then is one of whether -- if
otherwise our -- our license requires us to have a lifeguard or
multiple lifeguards even if it's the swim team who's there practicing
swimming who probably swim better than the lifeguards can swim for
that matter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my suggestion -- and we've
heard a lot about staffing. And, Mr. Olliff, you've probably
approached this yourself. But if there are days in which the
temperature's such that the pool facilities are not being used, you
know, we do have seasonal positions in parks and rec. -- MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we hire for on a
part-time basis that we could use qualified lifeguards to maintain
them in an employment status at a similar or same pay status so that
they don't -- you know, we're not talking about eliminating positions
every time we -- we are talking about it's too cold to open the pool
today. So that type of creative staffing and their use in other parks
and rec. areas may be a solution to that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is our next topic? Support
services did I hear?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can you give us an overview of that
before we break for lunch?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. I'm going to turn it over to Ms.
Leith who's the budget analyst for the support services division.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What page?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The detailed book, you're on page 24 and
25.
MS. LEITH: No, that's the summary book.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The summary, excuse me. In the detailed
book support services administration begins on page 48.
MS. LEITH: For the record, Sheila Leith, budget
office. The support services budget has increased 7.1 percent in
current service and eleven and a half when you include the expanded
services. Host of the increase is attributable to the change in the
transfer to EHS. And excluding this transfer, the support services
budget has increased by 1 percent.
Starting from the top, division administration is up
11.8 percent, and this is due to the pay plan adjustments as well as
the reclassification of the division administrator's retirement
contribution rate from regular service class to senior management
class.
Within human resources, the human resource budget has
decreased due to 50 percent of the assistant to the county manager's
salary being charged to the county manager's office in FY '97, and the
employee assistance program's been moved to the risk management
department.
An increase in the -- in the human resources budget is a
contribution to the RSVP program which is requesting an additional
thousand dollars of support for their program in FY '97.
Within the purchasing department, there's a request for
an expanded service for an integrated address mail system that will
produce specialized labeling and bar coding that will allow the county
to utilize a reduced postage rate, and this system coupled with the
shift from first to third class postage on local mail will save the
county a minimum of $65,000 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why '-
MS. LEITH: -- annually.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is that a net increase? It
seems to me if it's going to save us sixty -- we're going to save
$65,000, we're going to '- MS. LEITH: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- spend 25, that ought to be a
-- a 40 in patens instead of a 25 plus.
MS. LEITH: Well, the savings is spread throughout the
county departments. We took $23,000 out of the general fund to
reflect the savings to the general fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What did you take out of the
general fund?
MS. LEITH: $23,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why not 40?
MS. LEITH: Because proportionately they represent a
certain percentage of the total cost and so we --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We reduced the postage in the general
fund departments that represented, you know, the general fund's
proportionate share of that savings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where else did we reduce
postage?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. LEITH: At this point we haven't, but there would be
throughout all the funds. At the point where we decided -- we
introduced this to the budget, it was very difficult to go back cost
center by cost center.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That final decision was made about one
week ago.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not really saving
$65,000 then or are '-
MS. LEITH: A minimum of $65,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we're not budgeting that
savings. You're only budgeting 40.
MS. LEITH: We -- should this be approved, then we would
go back and adjust the other funds accordingly.
MR. DORRILL: They will. They have not had time.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: What we did was factor in the savings in
the ad valorem fund so that the tax rate reflected the savings in
those funds.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Obviously in a -- in a fund like
community development, all you would do is reduce postage and increase
reserves. There's not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Because that is building permit
supported.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. LEITH: Within facilities management, the expanded
service represents the addition of 13 facilities for next year. This
includes maintenance, custodial service, and grounds maintenance for
those facilities.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and does that mean that
you're adding people to -- to get those 13 buildings maintained? MS. LEITH: No, these are contracted.
MR. DORRILL: No. All of those are privatized. You're
adding square footage or, for example -- I don't know what came on --
I'll say the estates library. You've got the full year's cost of the
estates library or other facilities that have been added to the
private contract for custodial services, and we also privatized all of
the grounds maintenance. And they may also be entitled under their
contracts to cost-of-living adjustments, and those are being
recognized there as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. LEITH: The -- the county security budget reflects a
-- three and a half percent additional positions which were required
to staff the Immokalee -- new Immokalee courthouse which was done by
budget amendment in -- during this year. The expanded service
includes the cost of installing an electronic security system in the
courthouse. And the pay plan adjustment effect on the county security
departments was quite substantial. It reflected as 35 --
approximately $35,000 in increased salaries for next year.
The Immokalee medical assistance program has been
excluded from the FY '97 budget. It's not recommended for next year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that mean?
MS. LEITH: At this point the county manager has
requested that we not fund this program next year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What program? I'm asking you
what is that program.
MS. LEITH: This is -- well, actually I'll let the EMS
people answer. Leo?
MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services
administrator. This is an annual subsidy that began, I think, maybe
four or five years ago that as I understand was initially intended to
be a one- or two-year subsidy to get the clinic out in Immokalee off
the ground. But we've continued to fund that in subsequent years to
the tune of about $260,000. And the manager who I see is now back has
decided that it may be time to -- to let that facility begin to stand
on its own.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Obvious question is what's going
to happen to services.
MR. DORRILL: I met last week with Mr. Morton and also
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: -- Bill, and I'll think of his last name
in just -- just a minute.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The guy who's the head of the
clinic.
MS. FLAGG: Richard Akin.
MR. DORRILL: But also the doctor from Marco who's --
MS. FLAGG: Dr. Ausbon, Bill Ausbon.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Bill Ausbon who runs Isabel Collier.
I reminded them that this was supposed to have been a one-year
agreement that is now -- has become five-year agreements, and we are
beyond the original agreement that we had with Naples Community
Hospital. I told him that I was rec -- would not recommend it in the
budget. And he indicated to me that they are behind their original
implementation plan for Immokalee but that they had just announced a
residency program between Naples Community Hospital and the University
of Florida Medical School, and they intend to have 10 or 12 physicians
in Immokalee and at North Collier beginning next year.
And he has asked that if we would split the difference
with him for one final year that that would take them through the
residency program that they just announced. And I told him, well, it
was too late to reflect that in the tentative budget but that I would
pass his request onto the commission. And he's saying that as part of
his phase-in to the residency program if we would do half of that
amount for one final year, that was the nature of their request.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask -- one of the points
that was brought up was that what this money in effect does is buy
hours of operation for that facility.
MR. DORRILL: They -- the -- the operator there is
Collier Health Services Incorporated, and he subcontracts with the
emergency room department at Naples Community Hospital for an ER
physician or a physician assistant and an ER nurse. And they get so
many hours dedicated to the emergency room there for that team. And
that's the costs that are attributable to that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, one of the arguments for trying
to keep it open longer hours was that our EMS department would have
less necessity to transport people back to Naples if that facility's
open. So I'd like a response on that from Miss Flagg.
MS. FLAGG: That -- that would be correct. What we have
recently done is implemented an agreement where the EMS department as
a result of this facility being open is able to transport patients
with minor injuries to the facility as opposed to transporting them to
North Collier or NCH.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's gunshot, machete wounds, and
that sort of thing?
MS. FLAGG: No, none of that. It would be strictly the
gastrointestinal flu-type symptoms with no cardiac involvement. It
would be based upon the assessment of the paramedic on scene.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we see real dollar --
expected real dollar reductions in your operation by way of -- of
increased operating hours at the clinic? Or is this another one of
those efficiency savings that really doesn't mean anything to the
taxpayer?
MS. FLAGG: Right now because the number of patients
being transported to there are very minor -- very small in number
because they don't have the staffing that they need, one of the things
that they talked about that if the board could assist them in funding
it over the next -- by the year 2000 at the latest, they could
eliminate any type of funding. This was one of the proposals that --
that they had talked about. What they're trying to do is accelerate
it to a 24-hour operation. And as soon as they get it to a 24-hour
operation -- at the latest it would be the year 2000 -- then there
would be zero -- they wouldn't need any additional funding.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's -- let's poll the board. Do you
-- what do you want to do?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cut it off?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- leave -- leave the funding
in.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All of it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I want it to -- in the
manner described by Mr. Dotrill in the phase program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Half?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Half.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cut it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All of it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All of it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- we're not going to see any
reduction whatsoever in EMS budget if we -- if we fund a portion of
this?
MS. FLAGG: It doesn't impact the EHS budget, no, sir.
It's the -- the goal is to have those patients be able to go to that
facility rather than using EHS. But right now they're on an extremely
limited ability to accept patients from EHS because they don't have
the funding or the staffing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can't see any reduction in
our EHS budget, I -- I -- I think we should not fund it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Diane, are you sure you
understand his question because the answer doesn't make sense to me?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why I asked you the second
time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's answered it twice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She's answered it twice.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that was -- that was the
logic given me by Mr. Morton is that it -- it will -- it could
actually help us save money. And again, if it's not a real dollar
savings, then I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But Miss Flagg's -- Miss Flagg's
answer is the ad valorem subsidy is going to be -- to EMS is going to
be there whether or not they're transporting people.
MS. FLAGG: Right. We have to provide that service to
the community.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we don't -- we don't take it off of
this line in our budget and add it off -- add it in somewhere else.
That's not going to happen so --
MS. FLAGG: Right now at the most we're transporting two
patients every two weeks, four patients a month, to the facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From Immokalee into the urban
area?
MS. FLAGG: Into the clinic.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they're saying is --
MS. FLAGG: The rest of them --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if the clinic hours -- what I
think they're asking -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- we have three for cuts, so we'll
take a break for lunch.
(A lunch break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we will
reconvene our budget hearings this afternoon. Mr. Smykowski, we were
right in the middle of support services when we left off.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, we were. I'm going to turn it
over to Ms. Leith who was walking us through the -- the support
services summary on page 25.
MS. LEITH: I'm kind of behind here. (indicating)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just keep talking, Sheila. We'll
know you're there.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I like that, a little shield there.
MS. LEITH: Yeah. Okay. I think at this point we're at
the emergency services budget, and this is one of the departments that
we did the onionskin approach, so I think Leo's going to start out
here.
MR. OCHS: Actually, I'm going to let Miss Flagg take
you through the -- the onionskin budget for EMS.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pages 64 and 65 in the big book?
MS. LEITH: Page 68 and 69.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ball park.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that mean anything
before 68 and 69 we've already considered completed?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Not on the emergency side. We had --
Sheila before lunch had highlighted through court security what were
the administrative services components.
MS. LEITH: And we discussed the Immokalee medical
assistance program.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
MS. LEITH: And --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only thing I was asking,
under human resources and facilities management and those things come
before page 68.
MS. LEITH: Yes. We did --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I'm going to have some
questions on those.
MS. LEITH: We did discuss those already.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh. I had questions on
those.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, we '-
MS. LEITH: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We will entertain your questions and do
our best to answer them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Human resources has --
included in capital outlay is $600 for audiovisual equipment for
Q-Plus.
MS. LEITH: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I look at our list of
items for potential reductions, Q-Plus had four out of five
commissioners suggesting perhaps that did not need to continue being
funded.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What page are you on and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty-three in the big book.
MS. LEITH: This would be page 52 and 53 of the big
book, human resources.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it just seems to me if
we're going to discontinue Q-Plus, we probably don't need to buy
audiovisual equipment for Q-Plus.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, my specific comment on
Q-Plus was show me the hard-dollar savings or eliminate the program
because we -- again, we have got to correlate savings and stop just
talking about them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that ain't been done thus
far.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you know --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might, your human
resources director has some information that -- that she'd like to
share with you regarding not only the Q-Plus program but our overall
training effort with some hard-dollar results of the Q-Plus program to
date that -- that I think will help clarify some of your questions.
MS. EDWARDS: For the record, Jennifer Edwards. What we
have done in human resources with our Q-Plus coordinator position is
assign that individual additional responsibilities. That individual
is now performing 60 percent of her time on human resource functions,
including training and developing a mandatory training program as well
as other training seminars, and she is also doing other H.R.-related
functions, and 40 percent of her time is now delegated to Q-Plus
functions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you explain for me, then, why
the cost for Q-Plus is actually higher than it was last year if she
has had a shift in duties where she's spending a greater majority of
her time on other human resource applications? Shouldn't there have
been a commensurate shift out of Q-Plus into H.R.'s personnel budget?
MS. EDWARDS: We --
MR. OCHS: Go ahead.
MS. EDWARDS: We continue to fund it as a cost center
for Q-Plus even though she's -- 60 percent of her time is delegated to
H.R. functions, and the $600 is for a video for Q-Plus.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That -- That still doesn't
answer Commissioner Hancock's question, though, as -- where -- Where
are the real dollar savings with that Q-Plus?
MS. EDWARDS: Well, her -- her budget did go down this
year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. No. No. I mean, from
having the program. If -- If we have a --
MS. EDWARDS: Oh. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Q-Plus person dedicated to
doing that, how does that save us money overall?
MS. EDWARDS: There are individual savings on Q-Plus,
what we call idea programs, individual savings from those individual
programs overall to -- Over the life of Q-Plus, there's been a direct
savings of $150,000 in the program.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Over how many years?
MS. EDWARDS: That's over -- I believe it's four years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Here's my point. My
memorandum for proposed reduction in program costs for the upcoming
year is dated April 16. Here we sit in June, and right here it says,
"Show hard-dollar savings of 55,000 or eliminate quality improvement
program." Now, one of two things didn't happen. Either this never
got to you and the Q-Plus coordinator -- and if so, I may be partly
responsible for not copying every office that was -- that was
referenced on this, but these have been made available for some time,
and I had hoped that I would be able today to say, "Okay. This is
what I asked for on April 16. Show it to me, and if it ferrets out,
then -- then fine." So I'm -- I'm a little disappointed. I'm not
sure where the responsibility lies, and I'll be willing to take
whatever blame is -- is -- is -- should rest with me for not
communicating this with you, but this was, you know, going back a
couple of months here and we don't -- we aren't any closer to an
answer I requested then than we are today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You made it very clear, and I
-- I don't blame you at all. I think the manager was here and I -- I
don't know if you were here when he said that or not, but this
information certainly had been available and --
MS. EDWARDS: I have information. I can show you a
savings -- cost savings of improvements for the year of'94/'95 which
lists each of the projects and the value of each of those savings.
That totals $52,309.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much have we spent in the
four or five years that Q-Plus has existed to have it exist?
MS. EDWARDS: The budget is approximately $53,000, so it
has decreased each year in the life of -- of the program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we've spent over 200,000,
and we saved a hundred fifty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I understand there may be a
start-up cost in the first year or two but my point is very '- MS. EDWARDS: And there are efficiencies -- efficiency
savings also that don't have associated hard-dollar values.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is, quite simply, if we
are going to have a Q-Plus program that's intended to improve
efficiency and save dollars -- I mean, that's really what -- Correct
me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dotrill, but Q-Plus -- part of it was to foster
ideas that would actually make -- produce real savings. MR. DORRILL: Exactly. And that's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can't at least pay for the
program or if we're breaking even on the program, I'm not -- I don't
think we're making much headway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any -- any realistic way to
quantify the results of Q-Plus?
MR. DORRILL: She can show the -- the actual dollar
budget reductions. It is very difficult to -- to quantify the -- the
efficiency of the process savings. I mean, we can come up with --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would be --
MR. DORRILL: -- with estimates.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it also doesn't take
into consideration the time that our staff members who do this from
each department take out of their regular work duties to go and do
this. So that would be an additional cost I would think '- MS. EDWARDS: Well, one of the change --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- over and above. I mean --
And when you're talking about things that aren't quantifiable, maybe
you can can't quantify that, but that's lost time as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think you could easily quantify that
if you recorded it. That would be easy to quantify.
MS. EDWARDS: One of the changes that we've made in the
program is that we're striving to incorporate Q-Plus into the -- into
the way we do business. It's not being considered as just a project
that we take time away from our regular duties to go participate in,
that it becomes a way we do business, and we're doing that through
what we call our ideas programs, and that is individual savings on
individual projects. And the idea can be created by one employee, not
a team, so that it's ongoing. It's the way we do business. And
that's one of the reasons that we've transitioned the employee from
doing totally Q-Plus function to also doing human resources functions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In my opinion, then, this ought
to just simply be a function of human resources department instead of
a drawn-out item as Q-Plus. And that being the case, if this person
-- You know, again, I'm looking at a cost of $58,200 to spend 40
percent of their time on Q-Plus but it -- the whole thing is showing
up as Q-Plus. So maybe it's misleading. MS. EDWARDS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I -- Again, in a year where
the extras are not available, the $600 for additional audiovisual
equipment may need to wait a year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd cut 600, but I -- I'd go
a step further and suggest we cut the fifty-eight. And if you want to
try to reallocate that somewhere else where it's appropriate, that's
fine, but I'm not in favor of spending 60,000 bucks for the Q-Plus
program because we can't quantify making that back.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we -- We aren't really spending
60,000. This -- This is the only individual in the county that does
in-house training programs of everything from our self-directed sexual
harassment training to the new employee orientation training to
performance review training. There's only one person that does that,
and that's one of the first things she said, was that this is the only
-- and that's why we moved the position to human resources to account
for the increased emphasis this year on training. If you want us to
go back and say we don't want to devote any more time or effort to the
Q-Plus side of that, we can. I think we still need to keep the bulk
of the position there to do the in-house training because otherwise we
will be contracting that type of stuff.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the board room.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is her position and benefit
package the entire $58,200?
MS. EDWARDS: No. It's -- There's additional operating
included in that total.
MS. LEITH: I believe her salary and all would be about
42,000 of that and benefits.
MS. EDWARDS: With benefits.
MS. LEITH: Salary and benefits.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we have about 16,000 in
operating. Of that 16,000, how much is Q-Plus?
MR. DORRILL: We've got some copyright or some licensing
fees, printing, and all that kind of stuff.
MS. EDWARDS: Right. I would say about half of it. We
also are budgeting for printing costs and so forth for some of the
training -- training catalogs in that budget and also for some
additional training for staff.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like direct costs of the
Q-Plus program are $8,000, provided this position is needed 100
percent in the human resources department. Is that fair?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 8,000. If the position is 42,000
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and an additional 8,000 is for
in-house training that is -- I mean, let's face it -- that's
necessary, the Q-Plus program is another $8,000 basically.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's snip that 8,000 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and snip the 600 for
another video machine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we have a reduction of $8,600
being suggested in the human resources' budget --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll concur with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- related to the Q-Plus program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's -- Let's go ahead then.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I need to ask you just one point of
clarification. When we went through the -- the individual
commissioner items and we produced the spreadsheet, the tally sheet,
of all the items that the board looked at, I -- I highlight there were
nine items that had three or more votes, and the direction that we had
at that time was to budget with those items in but that we were going
to stop and discuss and that the board would reserve the right to take
them out of the budget when -- when they occurred. This was the --
the third item on your tally sheet. We -- We've already passed over
the county attorney's discretionary costs for attending advisory
boards, and there was also one discretionary program in the board's
administrative budget --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, actually --
MR. DORRILL: -- but they -- they were all budgeted in,
and so they're -- they're in unless -- like you just did in the case
of Q-Plus, unless you take them out. I'm sort of expecting you to
raise these, or we can remind you that you previously voted you want
to stop and talk about them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Feel free to remind us.
Perhaps it was my error, but we got a memo from Mr. Weigel -- two
weeks ago?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- something like that, on
attorney time spent on committees and such and what he thought he
could reduce that, and I was under the impression because that memo
came from him, that that was -- that reduction was reflected in his
budget. Now, if it's not --
MR. DORRILL: My hunch is that it was not, and I don't
know who is the analyst on the county attorney's budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Jean. Jean Gansel.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. That's -- That's my only reason for
raising it, because you -- you did have ten items that had three or
more votes.
Hiss Gansel, can you help us with that, whether or not
we have revised the tentative budget -- MS. GANSEL: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: -- according to the assistant attorneys '-
MS. GANSEL: The -- the -- The budget that was submitted
did not include the reductions for the advisory boards. That memo was
sent after his original submission. We can certainly make that
change.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I -- I would just
suggest we do. I mean, that's from Mr. Weigel himself that he
suggests he can do that. We certainly don't want to argue and give
him more money if he doesn't think he needs it so -- Is that all
right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We tend to let department
managers reduce their budget if they wish. MS. GANSEL: We will make that change.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So what you're saying, it's less than
what we saw an hour ago?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And on the same -- in the same
vein, there's a discretionary item in the BCC budget. It doesn't tell
me what it is on this little spreadsheet, but it said three of us
voted to cut it. Do we know what that was and -- MS. GANSEL: That --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- did we cut it?
MS. GANSEL: No. That was for -- Last year you had
ranked professional development as a discretionary service which were
the items that Mrs. Filson referred to this morning with the travel
and the memberships.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the 3-2 vote that
failed, the 3-2 --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So somebody changed their
mind?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other thing, Jennifer.
The capital outlay requested for an additional copier. Do we have one
that died there, or do we just have new requirements or -- additional
copier?
MS. EDWARDS: What we've done is changed one of our
processes in human resources. In the past when a customer comes in --
came in to human resources and applied for a job, if that individual
applied for, let's say, for instance, three positions, then we would
send that application to the first -- for the first position applied
for to that department, and that application would remain in that
department until a position or a person was selected. And then it
would come back to human resources, and we would send that application
to the next one if they weren't selected and so forth and so forth.
What we're doing now is, when an applicant completes an application in
human resources, we keep that original on file, and we have the
applicant make the respective copies so that those copies can be sent
to the hiring department simultaneously. So what we're doing is
cutting down the lag time that it takes for the -- the applicant to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we don't have a copier up
there now?
MS. EDWARDS: We have -- We have a copier that's about
six years old that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of those little desk units?
MS. EDWARDS: -- isn't working well for us.
MR. DORRILL: This is a new replacement because that --
that copier --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: Anything else?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
Question under facilities management -- Is that all
right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did we skip this one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On page --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, we did not. We -- We had indicated
what the expandeds were, et cetera, and Commissioner Constantine had
some follow-up questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 56, expanded includes
additional facilities. Is that just the addition for facilities that
were not in existence last year?
MR. CAMP: That's -- Excuse me. For the record, Skip
Camp, your facilities management director. There's 13 new facilities
being added, and we're only -- we're only looking at cost as they come
on line. So some of them will have six months. Some will be 12
months. It depends on when they actually will be CO'd.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that simply stuff that was
built in the past year?
MR. CAMP: Yes. A good example is the microfilm for the
clerk. That will be done this summer, so it will be a full 12 months.
MR. DORRILL: Any other examples?
MR. CAMP: Yes. Another example would be the medical
examiner's office. It will probably only be on for five months
because of construction. So we've made those costs as they relate to
building maintenance, janitorial support, and -- and grounds
maintenance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And privatization of those were
possible?
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
MR. DORRILL: They're all privatized.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All privatized.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Thank you. Huy
important.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 800-megahertz. Just a
question. This says past tense. The 8,200,000 radio system was
completed and operational in fiscal '96. Is that completed and
operational at this point, or is that an assumption?
MR. DORRILL: It will be, and I -- I think we are
scheduling units to actually be retrofitted every week, and I -- I
think ours will be essentially done by the end of next month.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. OCHS: The administrative system is -- is primarily
installed at this point. Public safety and the fire -- independent
fire districts is ongoing currently, and then final installation of
the sheriff's office will occur in July and into August.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong,
Commissioner Constantine. Are -- Are we changing process now? Because
we were being led through the budget kind of jumping area to area that
were expanded services and --
MR. DORRILL: We're doing what we intended to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we -- That's why we said when we get
into these big funds where -- after they run you through the division
summary, if you have questions on any department in that division --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gottcha.
MR. DORRILL: -- this is where we wanted to talk about
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that takes us up to
emergency management? Is that where we were?
MS. LEITH: To emergency management. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. We were at EHS.
MS. LEITH: EHS. Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the helicopter operations,
have we got to that yet? We -- just -- I know that was one we had
flagged, was the administrative flights, and it -- it appears for
8,600 bucks.
MS. LEITH: Under helicopter operations we're looking at
a 2.1 percent increase in budget. I think the only issue that you may
have had with this budget was the administrative flights which
represents about $8,600 in expenditures, the cost of that program.
MR. DORRILL: We -- We can make that cut. We need to
leave a small amount in there for the event that we are doing either
some aerial photography or those flooding-type surveys when we put --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My suggestion was to reduce
administrative flights by 50 percent with a savings of $3,500.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the cost per flight
hour for that?
MS. FLAGG: $210.45. Diane Flagg, emergency services.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I -- I'd suggest maybe
go a little further and -- and -- I mean, if -- if our only concern --
and maybe Diane or Neil can help me. But if it's -- If we're only
looking at those circumstances you just described and that may only be
ten flight hours annually, that may be -- I don't want to knit-pick
over a couple thousand bucks but -- MR. DORRILL: $2,500.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If -- I was going to
say, if it's 2,500 instead of half --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I -- I will agree to go to
2,500, but I did want to ask -- have we received private estimates on
-- on aerial photography? Because there's several -- or at least two
companies in town that do it. How much do they charge per hour? In
other words, 400?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One guy I do business with is
400.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that -- that's what I
want --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can get -- so many stock
photos and stuff you can get for 50 bucks. I mean, all -- Developers
do it all the time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stock photos?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Nodding head.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there are certain things
that require us to get real-time photos, I'm assuming, as opposed to
stock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At 2,500 -- A reduction of 2,500
is acceptable to me.
MS. FLAGG: If I could offer -- We're projecting, based
upon our history, 41 flight hours for admin. flights next year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Forty-one for next year. How much did
we do last year?
MS. FLAGG: Last year we did 38, and that's flight
hours. We're projecting 60 flights, but not each one is for a full
hour. So we're projecting 60 flights, 41 flight hours.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask -- Maybe you can help
me. Who is taking these flights? Because I -- I personally had a
request to -- to take people up at one point on the mangrove issue,
and I looked at the number of people and that kind of stuff and I --
it just didn't work out, and I said, no, let's not do that. It's an
expense every time it goes up. It's -- and my -- My thought was an
unbudgeted expense. What -- Give me some examples of what some of
these are.
MS. FLAGG: Some of the -- When they view the drainage
ditches and the draining, they go out, and they check the drainage and
the weed growth and the developments. Many different departments use
the helicopter for those aerial overviews.
MR. DORRILL: I would say the two are OCPM and the water
management department. I -- I do know that we will periodically fly
state officials from DEP who are involved in CARL land purchases and
the like. We don't bill them for that, but those are what are
considered other general administrative flights. And so I'd -- I'd
have to say that OCPM is probably number one. Water management would
be number two. State agencies concerning CARL purchases and things of
the like would be number three, probably in that order.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Concerning CARL purchases and
such, that seems like that's the part we could cut right there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: CARL purchases is an oxymoron.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it -- it sounds like to
limit some of those things that probably shouldn't be funded by the
local taxpayer, we could go down to -- Just taking those hours and
looking at 30 hours is $3,000, plus or minus. No. Thirty hours is
6,000 bucks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go back to your 50
percent if --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that will make you
comfortable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty-five hundred -- at least
it makes us think about them before we schedule them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sold. Sold.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we cut 5,100.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm-hmm. Now we're to EHS.
MS. LEITH: Now to EHS.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're still on EHS.
MS. LEITH: Emergency medical services.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, George is going to bring a
chart so you can see kind of a pictorial display that identifies where
the current station locations are and then the proposed station based
upon increase in calls.
Over the past two years, we've experienced a 26 percent
increase, and this year we're running about a 12 percent increase in
calls over last year. And you can see by the one graph there that
goes by month and the significant increases that we've been
experiencing for each month so far this year.
To go into a little bit more detail, you have a --
primarily the base level that is providing paramedic units to all the
911 calls. As you know, the EHS department is a fully consolidated
department. So it responds to all medical emergencies in the City of
Naples, the City of Everglades, and also all of Collier County.
we're responsible for -- over the 2,000 square miles. Last year we
finished up at the end of'95 at almost 25,000 calls. We're expecting
this year to finish up around 28,000 requests for medical emergency.
In the -- the one -- you actually have two -- You have a
base level that breaks it out into three parts in addition to capital
recovery and then department of revenue. And then the second handout
it takes it even into further detail. It goes down into staffing and
exactly how we use -- we utilize the part-time EHT program. There's a
tremendous advantage in this program in that as we have to provide
additional services with the part-time EHT, they receive $7.14 an
hour, no benefits other than what's mandated, and that helps us
provide the mandated staffing by Florida Statutes.
So the paramedic unit under base level two for the
interfacility transport of medical patients -- and let me reiterate as
I have in the past, is that those patients that don't require medical
intervention are transported by private companies. There probably are
three or four private companies in Collier County, but those patients
that require medical intervention we use existing staffing. We take
primary medical, a primary ground unit, use a part-time EHT to staff
that unit 12 hours a day and take those patients. And those patients
are going up for procedures such as open-heart surgery. They're going
up to specialized facilities for children. We're running about 1,200
cases annually for those types of patients that they require medical
treatment that they can't receive here locally.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- Excuse me, Diane. What's
the rate of reimbursement on those? I mean, do most of those have
pretty good reimbursement?
MS. FLAGG: Yes. Those -- Actually, because they're
being referred to -- referred by a physician, those reimbursement
levels are very high, is my understanding. As you know, about a year
and a half ago department of revenue was doing all the collection and
billing of transports, so they could provide you that information, but
historically the reimbursement's been excellent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. FLAGG: The other aspect is -- in base level three
is -- is all the -- the state under -- Florida Statute 401 and
administrative codes 10D-66 is very specific about the types of
training and quality assurance that all the paramedics must have in
order to practice as paramedics, and we have senior medic captains
that also service paramedics. Everyone has two jobs in EHS. They --
They provide paramedic care. In addition, they do the training in
conjunction with Commander Aguilera who is responsible for the
100-plus paramedics, overseeing that they meet all the state mandates
relative to training and quality assurance. The other two aspects are
the capital recovery for the fleet, and then the final is the
department of revenue and that -- Department of revenue is reimbursed
by -- They tell us how much they need to do the billing services, and
then that's an interfund transfer.
(Commissioner Matthews entered the board room.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you give me a real brief
snapshot of why your personnel services show a 15.1 percent increase
in budget? Just in a nutshell, why are we looking at 15 percent in
personnel services under appropriation?
MS. FLAGG: As -- As you know, the federal wage and hour
laws revised as a result of recent court --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The settlement agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I knew -- I knew I
would get it before you finished but -- Thank you. I understand why
now.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There's almost 300,000 as part of that
expanded unit as well which --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we will not see next year.
I mean, this is -- this is something that actually will occur in this
fiscal year and then will level out next year as part of --
MS. FLAGG: Actually, what we are able to do for FY '96
is we were able to save 265,500 under what was budgeted for this year,
even absorbing that impact. It's -- It's the FY '97 budget that shows
that increase, and that's primarily due to that federal wage and hour
law.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. FLAGG: So from a -- an -- The EMS department is
responsible for the appropriation unit side of the EMS budget, and for
FY '96 we have six million seven hundred fifty-eight hundred budgeted,
and we're projecting to save when we finish out this year $265,500.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I have one more
question on this. When we went to the department of revenue and --
and we were all talking about increase collections, has the track
record shown a substantial increase in collections? Because, you
know, we continue to see an increase from the transfer from general
fund, and it's a little -- a little bit of an inequity compared to
what I thought we were doing and what I thought we were promised when
we looked at the department of revenue handling the billing. Our
billing percentages would be better. And I have a phone message from
two weeks ago from a gentleman whose insurance carrier refused to pay
his bill because it was billed one and a half years after service was
rendered in EMS, and I've -- I've sent that on to -- to Miss Flagg. I
don't know if it's got to you yet or not, but, you know, here we had
department of revenue, and everything is improving, and I get a phone
call from someone who's 18 months after service received a bill, and
their insurance wouldn't pay it. So I'm a little concerned. Again,
we went back and we said let's make decisions for efficiency and
future savings. Where are the future savings?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is our DOR here? Because that's
a question more fairly posed to them, I think, than --
MR. OCHS: Actually, they're -- they're scheduled to be
here as part of your internal service fund budget review session on
Monday but -- and I can have some specific information for you on
collection history to date, Commissioner, particularly with respect to
ambulance billing at that time if you'd like, but we fully expect to
meet and/or exceed the projected revenue budget for EMS this year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you proposing a conservative
revenue budget for '96/'97? Because I see your forecasted revenues
for '95/'96 at 2.4 million, yet your forecast for '96/'97 is only 2.6.
Are you proposing something conservative, and can that number be
looked at a little more -- a little more succinctly so we can possibly
bump that up and decrease the general revenue or general fund
transfer?
MR. OCHS: We'd be happy to do that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd -- I'd like to see something
on that if -- I'd like you to go to a point you're -- you're
comfortable at, but if you expect to exceed it in'96/'97, let's put
that expectation in the budget and not pretax for it. MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're bumping up the -- or we
did bump up on Medicaid, accept it at $30 higher. We've bumped up our
billing to $30?
MS. FLAGG: Medicare is -- current reimbursement is the
two fifty. So it would take an application to request an increase
before you would get the increase. So the current reimbursement for
Medicare is two fifty.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Weren't we told --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two eighty, weren't we?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at some point that that
was now going to be that they would now accept two eighty or
something?
MS. FLAGG: I'm sure that Mr. Yonkosky is probably
planning on requesting that increase.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- we already -- We already
approved a policy to do that, to begin doing two eighty because that
was the rate.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And about how long ago did we do
that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Months.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A couple of months ago, but the
policy we set was to charge whatever --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To mirror the Hedicare.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whatever it was, when theirs
went up, ours went up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that -- But, again, that's a
department of revenue question. I don't think it's a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Mr. Dorrill, would you --
would you flag that for DOR discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It -- It does have some
impact here, though, because that has to do with how much revenue we
can expect from ambulance fees, and if that's going to be at two
eighty a pop instead of two fifty a pop, that's going to have a
significant impact over the course of a year on the general ad
valorem.
MR. OCHS: The revenue budget for next year is -- is
predicated on the -- on the ambulance fee -- increasing the three o
two. We're coming to you next Tuesday with that ordinance for your
adoption to increase the fees. So the projection that we're going to
look at again at Commissioner Hancock's request is predicated on a --
on a fee schedule of $302 as opposed to two fifty.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's another little interesting
procedural note -- is the budget is already assuming the approval of
something that we're going to see next Tuesday, not that that's -- you
know --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are the chances you wouldn't
approve that?
MR. OCHS: Well, the board directed staff, I believe,
back in February when you were setting policy to -- to pursue that.
So that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And -- And, if you would,
in providing that number to me on -- on that 2.6 million in ambulance
fees, give me a track record of the last five years and what we
projected and what we collected, because if -- if there's a percentage
of difference, let's split that percentage and fold it into here so we
can be relatively safe without going overboard. Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else on EHS?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. City of Naples service
area, ALS, ambulance.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. I've put little stickies on the
chart for you. The City of Naples is experiencing -- Our standard
response time is six minutes or less to medical emergencies. That is
our response time standard. Twenty-seven percent of the time we're
exceeding that standard in the city. That's without the situation that
we're facing with the Gordon River bridge construction starting
probably January or February of '97.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Flagg, is that because of
our zone shifts?
MS. FLAGG: That's because of a tremendous increase in
call volume.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, within the city itself?
MS. FLAGG: In the city -- what -- What we used to do is
the units in East Naples would provide secondary coverage to the city,
but because there's so many more people here, that those units in East
Naples are already on a call, so they're not available. So it's just
-- It's by virtue of increasing population that we're -- the call
volume dictates that in -- you only have so many units to go around;
so, consequently, those units being busy -- Can I show you?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I have an
understanding but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll have to get the microphone.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You'll have to get the
microphone.
MS. FLAGG: Okay. What we were able to do in years past
-- and, again, this is kind of -- The orange is FY '95, and the
yellow is currently what we're in right now. This was this January of
'96, et cetera. So you can see the difference. And if we had had
room, we would have put '94 for you, but '94 would have been about
here, and '93 would have been about here. So by virtue of the
increased number of 911 requests for medical emergencies -- years ago
what we were able to do is -- This unit currently is located right
here, and what we were able to do is when the first call would come
in, we would take this unit and cross it over the bridge so that it
could cover for the next incoming call. But as a result of these
increase in calls each year -- and we average about 12 percent a year
-- now what happens is this unit's already on a call. This unit's on
a call. This unit's on a call. So when this unit goes out, there's
no one to come in to cover, and that's why -- that's what causes the
response times to increase. In addition --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seventy-three percent of the
time, though, everything is fine?
MS. FLAGG: Well, 73 percent of the time we're there
within six minutes or less. That's the most current information, but,
again, with this increasing, it's going to get worse, and that's
without considering the Gordon River bridge construction going in.
In addition, in meeting with Chief Rambosk in the city,
they've -- are seeking to provide the facilities so that we don't have
any capital costs. So right now the city has a station here and a
station here, and what we would do is move the units to those
stations, operate out of those stations, and so we're going to
coordinate both training, response, and utilize existing facilities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what would happen if we
did not add this item?
MS. FLAGG: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- What would be the
result if we did not add this item?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Besides the people would die who
wouldn't otherwise have to?
MS. FLAGG: And that's the very emotional response to a
question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Well --
MS. FLAGG: That --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, factually,
statistically --
MS. FLAGG: Factually, there are -- there -- just in the
past several months, there have been cases where patients didn't get a
medic unit for 15, 20 minutes on the outside, cardiac patients, et
cetera.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's clearly unacceptable --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- particularly in a cardiac
situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds like three.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a question. Mr.
Dotrill, Miss Flagg has said that the calls for service are increasing
at 12 percent a year. What's our population increasing at?
MR. DORRILL: Less than half that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Less than half that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- How does that compare
-- I'm sorry. I thought you were done.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just -- I mean, that's
telling me that we're having people move into the county who are
generating more calls for service than the people who already live
here, and I -- I just am questioning where we're going with this in
the end.
MS. FLAGG: Our -- The age of our patients is greater
than the other -- I mean, that -- that's kind of the factor that we
have to factor in.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The average age of the county has
been going down.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- How do those
statistics compare? You said 27 percent are longer than the six
minutes. How does that compare to other -- Where would be the second
worst station right now?
MS. FLAGG: The second worst is this area right here.
The Bonita Shores area is 25 percent of the time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what's typical out of all
of them? There -- There's got to be some '- MS. FLAGG: Everywhere else we're pretty much meeting
standard.
MR. DORRILL: What's your average response --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One hundred percent or 95
percent or -- almost all the time?
MS. FLAGG: Yeah. About 95 percent of the time, give or
take.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may have hit on something,
Commissioner Constantine. We're looking at a -- at a temporary shift
because of the Gordon River bridge construction.
MS. FLAGG: No. All those statistics did not take into
consideration the Gordon River bridge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what I'm saying, though, is
that -- would that -- that temporary shift adversely affect East
Naples, that -- that response area if we did it prior to the Gordon
River -- You see what I'm saying? Shift our -- our stations earlier
than later to get better response times in the areas of -- of the
greatest need, and maybe this goes from 95 percent to 90 percent
response, but this one goes way up without spending $300,000.
MS. FLAGG: No. The -- Where this unit is located right
here, this unit is committed -- as all these units are already
committed -- to calls. We know that we have a problem in the city
right now with responding to calls. So if we take, say, this unit and
find a place to put it, then East Naples will suffer with response
times.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A 12 percent increase in calls
is what the problem is.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, ma'am. If we can put gates on the
north end and the south end -- either that or start doing a -- and --
and we do -- As you know, we do a lot of community EHS events, do a
lot of prevention programs, hypertensive screenings and things like
that and do a lot of education to try and kind of get them aware that
they don't have to call 911 but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, maybe we can get our state
representative to alter impact fee schedules to allow us to pay for
some of these costs.
MS. FLAGG: Well, the impact fees are paying for capital
cost which is associated with the unit and the equipment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. That's it for EHS then?
MS. LEITH: That concludes the support services portion
of the general fund, unless there were more questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Moving right along.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We didn't miss anything on
our checklist there, did we, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I'm checking the checklist.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just by way of summary, if we
-- we just spent about $10 million, almost 11 million. I'm just
going to do that as we move. Support services is about $11 million.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I -- I'm just going to keep
ticking it off because the big picture is still scary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's put a tote board up behind
your chair.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing we had a discussion
on under EHS earlier in the year was special event coverage, and I
know it says two on here, but we had a -- some discussion on that.
MS. LEITH: We included $10,000 in the revenue
projection for next year as charged for special services.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where we did not have that the
previous year?
MS. LEITH: Where we did not have that previously. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Revenue side.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're anticipating a
reduction in -- in gratis '-
MS. LEITH: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- efforts?
MS. LEITH: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: You want me to tell you what's going to
happen though?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. They're going to come in
here asking for them one at a time.
MR. DORRILL: They're going -- They're going to dribble
in here every other Tuesday. The same way that they won't pay 75
bucks for a special events permit, they're not going to pay whatever
Miss Flagg's hourly rate is to have units at the fair and the seafood
festival and the golf tournament and high school varsity football
games and -- we -- We budgeted it, but it's going to be real tough
collecting it because they're going to be in here asking you to waive
the fees.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, hopefully the board --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say, why don't we
ask -- poll the board's commitment now to -- to making those fees a
priority in all but the most, what I would call, extreme situations.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't even give us that out or
we'll -- it will be the most extreme that's in your district.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I look at the IntelliNet,
and I think of -- I think of what the gate price is of IntelliNet --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: They can pay for it.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and -- and for us to
underwrite that is silly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're already underwriting
IntelliNet.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Additional underwriting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, high school football
games -- The athletic program pays for buses to go to games, you know.
So paying for an EHS unit locally I don't have -- You know, those
things are all going to have to happen.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll be tough.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Two votes for tough.
The -- A couple of other items on here, exterior court security. I
know Commissioner Matthews raised that issue during our initial
discussions.
MR. DORRILL: That -- That is the portion of the cost to
make sure that the balance of the campus is secured and the doors are
locked and one trip per evening out to road and bridge to make sure
that the gate is -- is locked there. That is a real small fraction of
what the overall court security -- but that's where we make sure that
your buildings are locked or that the final locks are set. This
building's a great example. You know, there's lots of meetings in
here after hours, to make sure that somebody is here until those
people leave, and then the building is locked.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only other one was that
additional craftsman. Skip, is that -- That has to do with the
question I raised before or --
MR. CAMP: Last year we took on two additional
craftsmen, and we have a great report that shows even with all the
salary and all the benefits that our craft -- craftsmen are paid, it's
$18 an hour with all the benefits and everything. We bid out a lot of
these items like air conditioning to supplement our force, air
conditioning, plumbing, and electrical. The low bid was $42 an hour.
Some of them are higher. Roofing is $70 an hour. So it's -- it's a
difference of -- We pay our people $18 an hour, load of benefits what
we pay somebody else 42 to do the same work. And when we have the
outside contract to do those kinds of items, we end up assisting them
anyway. They don't know the architecture of the -- the jail, for
instance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that would be 18 bucks an hour
for a guy to tell them what to do while we're paying them 40 bucks an
hour?
MR. CAMP: Exactly. Now, we do -- we have benefitted on
some items like -- In fact, Commissioner Matthews is here this
morning. Certain things like elevator maintenance we contract out --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a great point right now.
MR. CAMP: -- and they're going to be here any minute.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, there's one other --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: John's gone. We're out of here!
MR. DORRILL: We -- we do need -- as -- As part of the
board's adopted schedule for pay adjustments next year, there are some
representatives with the Employee Advisory Council who had at least
asked to speak to you briefly on that before you leave this division
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- and I told him this would be an
appropriate time. Mr. Roll, are you still here, or Hr. Hendricks,
whoever is the designee?
MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you. Kevin Hendricks. I'm a
member of the county manager's Employee Advisory Council, and we did
-- We conducted a survey of all of the employees through the payroll
plan, payroll distribution method in April, and the overall response
that -- clearly the overall response we got was that most of the
people were disappointed, disillusioned with the method of payroll
distribution of merit pay last year. They felt that it was
counterproductive, and we had many, many instances where people with
excellent evaluations in one work area sitting and working next to
others would get merit money, and the people next to them didn't get
merit money. We even had some rare instances where employees who had
superior performance evaluations received no money, and they were
working -- you know, in the next office over, there was a person who
had received an excellent evaluation that did get merit money. And
clearly, you know, that -- that -- that causes disgruntled feelings,
and certainly I don't think the -- the -- the point of any merit
program is to be counterproductive. It's to reward productivity in
hopes that I suppose you -- you'll spur further productivity during
the coming term.
So to that end, we have some recommendations as to how
you will distribute -- how you might distribute the merit money,
whatever dollar amount you see fit to -- to put into the program.
Number one would be that all employees who receive an
excellent or superior would get something regardless of how it
calculates and that the people who received an excellent would get
two-thirds of what the people who would receive a superior would get.
And then at the time that those distributions would be made, you
simply count up all the people who fall into the category of having
received either an excellent or a superior evaluation, and you just
crunch the numbers, and, you know, whatever the -- whatever the amount
is that comes out, at least it's fair. It recognizes all people who
through the performance evaluation system have -- have been recognized
and -- and rated excellent and superior, and it doesn't arbitrarily
choose some who perhaps might be personal favorites. You know, a lot
of the people mentioned in their survey responses that they felt
favoritism entered into the selection of who was to receive merit pay
last year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How it -- How it worked before
was the department head -- we gave it to the departments and they
divvied it up? Is that what happened before?
MR. HENDRICKS: I think so. I'm not certain how it
happened everywhere.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Apparently that's a bad idea. I
mean, I -- I -- I can't imagine what's wrong with the proposal you
just made, although I think that ought to be Mr. Dorrill's call to
make.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We took a step last year to make
it work more like merit systems have worked in private industry which
is --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Bell's curve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that the -- the -- you know,
the department director actually has discretion. You know, you may
rank two people superior, but one's efforts were so far outstanding
above the others, even though they ranked the same in an evaluation
system, that you can recognize that person. What I'm hearing is that
there's a lot of talk or some talk among employees that that
recognition maybe went too far to one end of the scale and ended up
cheating some others on the other end from -- from getting anything.
Is that a fair assessment of -- of the --
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, again, I -- I can't speak for
everybody, but the general consensus was that there was some
favoritism employed in who received bonuses last year because of -- I
think there was a percentage they said. Okay. No more than "X"
percentage of the employees will be eligible. And so I think we had a
greater percentage of people who fall into the excellent and superior
category, and that meant that some excellents got it and some didn't.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I've even heard stories in
some departments where, you know, some people refused their merit
bonus unless it could be divided among, you know, blah, blah, blah. I
mean, they tried to redistribute it themselves in ways that they
deemed to be more fair but I -- I'm -- I'm just looking at Mr.
Dotrill. It's his job, not ours as far as I'm concerned.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this sound like a reasonable
approach to you, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: In part. The -- The board limits the
amount of money that they're going to apply towards merit raises, and
in each of the last two years it's 1 percent of the gross payroll, and
1 percent will not allow everyone who was rated excellent or above to
-- to get a merit increase. And the point being that I bet 60 to 70
percent of all the evaluations done here are generally excellent.
Well, I -- I think the point is that if you limit the amount of money
to go to the most deserving, some people are more excellent than
others, and I don't have a better or more elaborate explanation for it
than that. Merit evaluations for service-related companies or
counties are very subjective, and the mechanisms that we have used --
Last year I think the board said only the top 30 percent of the
employees would be eligible for a merit bonus; thus, that's how we
reached the 1 percent. If -- If you want to limit only 30 percent of
the work force being eligible to receive a merit bonus, that means 70
percent of the people didn't get a merit bonus last year, and that's
the unhappiness that's at the employee level.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because probably 30 percent of
them got excellent ratings.
MR. DORRILL: More than -- or more than that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can -- and maybe this is
something we could -- we could wrap up rather quickly, and I
appreciate you taking the time to -- to bring this to our attention,
but I think the roles come down as it's our job to specify the amount,
and it's your job to specify how to deal with issues such as morale
and fairness among the employees. It's not our job to -- to -- to do
that, is my opinion. So I believe in policy. Let's specify the
amount and recommend that your report be referred to the county
manager for his consideration.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so what was the -- I agree
with that and -- Have we adopted that 1 percent policy? I mean, what
MR. DORRILL: It's -- It is a little broader --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: -- than that this year because we also
have the discretion beginning this year to give some $100 bonuses in
addition to the -- the merit increase. That has been generally well
received, although I found out the day before yesterday that the --
the payroll division is interpreting that to be pretaxed, and while
you intended to give $100 bonuses the same way you give a $50 bonus to
the employee of the month, the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that mean 76?
MR. DORRILL: -- payroll division is taking tax out of
that. And so now rather than handing out bonus checks for $100, we're
handing out bonus checks for $69.23, and there is widespread --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Disgust?
MR. DORRILL: -- dissatisfaction and disgust over how
the thing is being played out. I haven't had a chance to talk to the
-- the clerk yet about it, but we probably need to fix that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have them write Bill Clinton, 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. DORRILL: Or -- or either we're going to have to
gross up the amount so that what you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. DORRILL: -- really give them is $100. So we're
trying to do some things in addition to reward achievement and merit
as opposed to just saying it's 1 percent and we cut it off there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to tell us if the
policy we've adopted gives you enough flexibility to adequately -- not
adequately --
MR. DORRILL: We have the flexibility. We don't have
the money, and -- and that's why I said we -- but -- but what you said
was that you were going to give a cost-of-living adjustment, and then
the manager would have 1 percent to apply as he sees fit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And all of that's over and
above the entire pay plan adjustment.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We ain't getting hurt too bad
this year. Kevin, do you still have that hat, by the way, you got a
couple of years ago?
MR. HENDRICKS: What hat?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't you get a hat for one
of your Q-Plus -- MR. HENDRICKS: Oh, yeah. The Q-plus hat. Sure. Wear
it every day.
MR. DORRILL: They're now -- They're now collector's
items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess you had to be there.
MR. DORRILL: Anything else for this division?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seeing none --
MR. DORRILL: Public services.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Norris, would you like staff
to go ahead and proceed with their presentation? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, if you would,
please.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Snow
who's the budget analyst for public services, and Mr. Olliff is here
representing the public services division as well.
MS. SNOW: I'm Diane Snow. I'm budget analyst. I
support public services division. We're going to start with public
services admin. Which increased 13.4 percent or $17,000. Eleven
thousand five hundred of that can be attributed to the pay plan
adjustment, and then there's 4,200 that was budgeted to include the
division administrator and the senior management retirement
classification. That's -- Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's additional annual
payment into the state retirement system for that position? MS. SNOW: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's for you, Tom?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- Let's just get right
down to the point here. Is '-
MS. SNOW: Okay. Okay. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is that -- is that -- I'm
sorry. Is that standard protocol, Mr. Dotrill, of someone in Mr.
Olliff's position?
MR. DORRILL: It is standard protocol. Heretofore the
board has -- has not funded that. The Florida Statutes have created a
number of executive-class positions for every county, and it is based
on the number that -- the total number of employees that you have.
And in this particular case you have four positions for
executive-class retirement, and what that enables executive-class
people to do is if they work ten years and become vested, I believe
they get 2 percent higher pension payments when they're eligible to
retire than they would otherwise have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those four people are, or
those four positions are?
MR. DORRILL: There are four county division
administrators. You are already paying and you're obligated to pay --
I'll say five or six years ago for the county manager, and the county
attorney happened about three years after that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SNOW: Animal control had an 11.3 percent increase.
There was $2,000 to include two -- two computers to the network and
the other --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but
how -- how much is the dollar figure for that extra 2 percent for
those four people?
MS. SNOW: For the executive? 4,200.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total per year? Four --
4,200 times four?
MS. SNOW: Well, just -- This was just for Tom.
MR. DORRILL: Well, he said all four was --
MS. SNOW: Oh, for all four.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Probably in the neighborhood of $20,000.
I'm guessing. It varies with the salary of the individual. It's a
function of --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, but we don't have a choice on
that, do we?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We do?
MR. DORRILL: The positions for executive class are
available and at that level, and that's why we're showing each one as
-- as an expanded service.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So three years ago, you and the
county attorney were put into this classification?
MR. DORRILL: The first classification was county
administrators. County attorneys occurred, to my knowledge,
subsequent to that. It was probably two years later. You don't have
any discretion over those. That was a mandated cost. The executive
class was expanded I'll say -- or revised two years ago to be based on
a formula of the total number of employees that you have, and you were
eligible to have four -- Okay. You were eligible to have four
additional employees, and the total cost that is projected is $25,259.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know that these four division
administrators were probably not affected by the pay plan. If I
remember reading it correctly, you know, you -- I didn't see any
salaries getting bumped in that category, but based on the
implementation of the pay plan this year, I think to then add these
four positions at a $20,000 cost this year is a little much. I prefer
to defer this decision to next year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just -- They did, didn't
they, Mr. Dotrill? People in that level also got some -- like $4,000
raises.
MR. DORRILL: They did. One of -- One of them did.
Your average division administrator didn't get anything. There was one
position that was grossly low, and that happens to also be Mr.
Olliff's position, and it was adjusted, and the salary was increased
significantly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think in light of all the
salary changes we have made this year, to then bump four people into
higher level in the retirement or in the pension system at the same
time is not a good decision. I would like to defer to next year and
-- and maybe take four positions next year.
MR. DORRILL: I don't -- don't mind if you defer it. I
may want to send you some additional correspondence on that because --
and I will tell you -- it's -- These are your top four people, and
they're not entitled to any other benefit than -- than anyone else,
but the state has recognized executive risk class because of the
difficulty that it takes for these types of positions to ever get
vested status given the fairly high and, frankly, turnover rate that
they have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Volatile.
MR. DORRILL: -- and that's the rationale for executive
class retirement, is it is difficult for those individuals to ever be
vested within that particular position, and I'd at least like for you
to consider that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many dollars are we talking
about?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 25,000.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Don't they vest
sooner than ten years, the executive class?
MR. DORRILL: I don't believe so, but what -- what
they're doing is that at the time they retire they're getting a little
higher rate than they would otherwise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is, if anyone
understands the difficulties of the budget year more in this system,
it would be those four people, and I think we're saying that we would
like to do it, but this is the wrong year to do it, and we'll look at
it more seriously next year, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to put it in this year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Doesn't matter to me. I mean, I
-- I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not an executive so you don't
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. That's not quite true at
all but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We've got three then. Let's --
Let's go ahead.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Is that to remove?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three to remove for this year --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- with our humble apologies and
earnest desire to make it up next year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure we'll have the
opportunity to apologize in person to all four of them. MS. SNOW: Animal control.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm sorry, but can you get me
on the page in the summary sheet and the page --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 28 and 29.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the summary?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In the summary book.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And the big book?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And the big book -- We're now to animal
control. That's page 78 and 79. This was also one of the, quote,
"onionskin budgets," so we can -- Mr. Olliff and -- I'm sure will
walk us through that as well.
MS. SNOW: The major increases are in personal services;
again, the pay plan, the merit bonuses, and two IT charges to connect
two -- two computers were an expanded for $2,000. Other than that,
the onionskin is probably of the greatest interest, is it not?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why does it -- I just -- It
sounds so Hickey House, and I keep bringing up a thousand bucks to
hook up a computer, but with the number of computers we're hooking up
-- I -- I don't pay that, and I get topnotch --
MR. OLLIFF: And I think the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- people to hook them up.
MR. OLLIFF: I think the terminology is a little
misleading here. It's not the connections. It's actually the cost
for service through the new IT department. So this is the whole
package.
MR. DORRILL: It's -- it's the --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even that, I don't spend a
thousand dollars a year for every new computer I put on line.
MS. SNOW: It's service and/or connection, and we have
no control.
MR. DORRILL: If you want to see that broken out, we --
we have. We can show it to you when we get to the IT budget.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know what I want? That is
the way to look at it, and -- and the interest I'm going to have is in
whether or not that ought to be privatized because you can get that --
You can get an annual service per computer soup to nuts in less than a
thousand bucks.
MR. DORRILL: You -- You can, and I just want you to
also keep in mind that other than just the -- the cost of the device,
there's the server and the wiring and the support and the software and
the licenses and the training and it's -- and it's the whole deal.
It's -- It's not just, gee, can I run down to OfficeMax and buy a
machine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm still betting we can beat a
thousand bucks. I'll wait for IT. I'll keep bringing it up.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along that same line, Tom,
can you tell me -- and I don't necessarily object to this, but two PCs
added at animal control, what all are you going to be doing with
those?
MR. OLLIFF: Those are existing PCs that -- that we're
paying a thousand dollars to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to link up?
MR. OLLIFF: -- become part of the system, and today
they're doing complaint tracking and licensing on them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. OLLIFF: If you want to direct some attention to the
onionskin budget, if you will, for animal control -- I -- I apologize
for the format that it's in, and it's not as -- as probably as simple
as some of the others, but I didn't have the opportunity and time to
reformat --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They don't have their computers
hooked up yet.
MR. OLLIFF: And -- and the reason -- In fact, the only
reason that we chose animal control was because almost every other
department falls into just clean program areas, and an onionskin
budget would have simply looked like a program budget for you, and
trying to find a department that matched up with what parks
maintenance did for you the year before which you -- you seemed to
like, animal control seemed to lend itself best in terms of being able
to peel away the level of officer at a time and be able to see what it
does to the actual service.
The other thing I need to point out is the first level
is -- is actually the adoption program, and -- and please don't take
that as -- as we're offering up the school crossing guard as -- as the
first level here. But when you look at the functions that are in
animal control, this is actually the only one that is, if you will, an
extra in what they do. Everything else is licensing program which you
-- you, frankly, don't really have an animal control department if
you don't have a licensing program of some sort, and then the rest
it's responding to health human safety kind of issues when you have
loose animals, wild animals and -- and things like that.
So the first program that you see is -- is the adoption
program. And, actually, we're estimating that we're reducing one-half
of one FTE that we assume is -- is what it takes us to actually run
the actual adoption program. The impact of reduction of this
particular program is that you would actually -- and this is a -- this
is a difficult program to deal with, but what you're going to do is
you're going to euthanize more animals, and you're going to adopt out
about a thousand dollar -- a thousand animals less, and we would
hopefully be able to try and work with the humane society to be able
to have them pick up as much of the adoption program as they can, but
they are limited on kennel space too. So with that said, I'd like to
sort of move on to the next --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's $15 an adoption so --
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. It's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So move on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't -- I don't have any
reason to -- to remove that.
MR. OLLIFF: The second level is -- is reducing the
actual kennel worker that you added into the budget last year. We
added a .5 kennel worker last year. What we're looking at is reducing
the amount of kennel service, and -- and basically what that does is
it requires any animal control officers to go back to the kennel to
begin to do the work. And we have an obligation. Once you have the
animals in-house, we have to take care of them. You have to clean
them. You have to water them, and hopefully you have time to exercise
them. We're doing that today through volunteers, but without the
kennel workers, we tried to cut off what was the lowest cost -- the
item that we're actually paying the least for in terms of a program,
but it does require us to have animal control officers come back into
the kennels and spend what we're estimating a minimum of 40 hours a
week to do the kennel work.
Level three is a standard licensing program. We
actually only see a reduction in this particular program of $36,455,
and it -- it goes along with a loss of $80,000 in revenue. The
licensing program is one of the programs within the department that
actually makes a significant amount of money to offset some of the
other operating costs because of the department, but we do show it as
a program area.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are the licensing fees?
MR. OLLIFF: Depends on the -- the type of animal,
whether it's neutered, non-neutered, spayed, non-spayed. We try and
give people a discount, if you will, if their animals are neutered or
spayed. But they're 6 and $8?
MS. MORELOCK: Six -- Six for the spayed and 12 if
they're not.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably need Jodi on -- need you
on the -- MR. OLLIFF: She -- I'm sorry. That was Jodi Morelock.
She indicated it was 6 for the spayed and $12 if they're not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's whether it's a dog or
a cat?
MS. MORELOCK: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- And the -- the adoption
program and the kennel worker are all a function of picking up animals
that are unlicensed?
MS. MORELOCK: Yes, ma'am.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, no, not all together. The kennel
workers -- We pick up a lot of licensed animals as well. I mean, if
they're loose and they're in a neighborhood and they're licensed,
we'll still pick them up and kennel them until the owner actually
comes and collects them and claims them. So there's some -- some
kennel time, so to speak, associated with licensing animals.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there any -- Are there fines
attached to picking up the animals that are licensed?
MS. MORELOCK: Yes, there is. We have several different
things that we can do. We have $20 notices of violation which are put
on repeat offenders or depending upon the offense at the time. We
also have court citations which are $50, $100, and $300.
MR. OLLIFF: We also have a per-day charge for every day
that the animal is in our kennel.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're charging kennel
space and -- and room and board, so to speak, then for the animals?
MS. MORELOCK: Yes. And an impoundment fee originally,
but the impoundment fee is 20, and then it's $5 per day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't really
have any desire to cut any of what's in here for animal control. I
don't know about the others but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't either.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one question I had you
answered which was you charge -- for repeat offenders, you are upping
the fee a little bit but not so much that you're going to end up
euthanizing the animal in most cases. So '- MS. MORELOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that answered my big question.
I'm comfortable with the rest of what's in front of me.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just wanted to know what
-- what the fines and so forth were because if -- if we have a -- if
we have something that should be driven off of fines, then, you know,
maybe we need to increase the fines, but it sounds like you've got
them adequate.
MR. OLLIFF: You need to remember too that the numbers
that we're dealing with, we're picking up about 6,000 animals a year,
and only about 1,000 of those ever get returned to their owners.
of those that we're actually able to get some impoundment or fine
monies out of, it's -- it's a fairly small percentage of those
animals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one -- one last point I had
is under revenue. I noticed a $5,000 reduction in cremation fees due
to private clinics using the service of competitors. MS. MORELOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We never should have bought that
thing. It's been a pain since we bought it. Can you give me a good
reason why we shouldn't sell it and subsidize -- why we shouldn't just
sell it? There's -- There are competitors or people in the free
market -- in -- in the competitive market doing this to the point that
they're doing it cheaper than we can do it. Shouldn't we just sell
that thing?
MS. MORELOCK: I don't believe so, because at one point
in time we're going to be forced probably to use it for all of the
animals that are disposed of from animal control, and if we do sell
it, we'll end up having to pay the competitor.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To take it?
MS. MORELOCK: To take the animals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if they can do it right now
cheaper than we can do it --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's wrong with that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that would be prioritization.
MS. MORELOCK: They -- They don't. They can't. They
can't do it cheaper than I'm doing it right now. We lost some of the
vet clinics during the time that we did not have a cremator and -- and
the competitors provide freezers so they can -- that -- that belongs
to the company, and they put them in the clinic and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't need to get too graphic
in that area. I understand. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Did you see the story in the paper this
morning about some prison systems in Pennsylvania wanting to use road
kill to feed the prisoners?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, my God.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, no.
MR. DORRILL: State of Pennsylvania. They want to start
picking up dead deer on the side of the road to feed the prisoners.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could you flag the sheriff's
budget on that one?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I heard an interesting thing on
the news when I was coming back. Broward is going to start charging
$2 room and board per day to its inmates and a $10 uniform fee, Carl?
It was your voice.
MR. LOVEDAY: That's right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- And they're anticipating
raising a couple million dollars a year doing that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another item for the sheriff's
budget.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All those would be good
fodder tomorrow morning.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. When we get there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's next?
MS. SNOW: The library. The library circulation has
increased 42 percent over the last two years, and as a result, they
have asked for four part-time seasonal employees and one part-time
temporary employee.
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I would explain this to you but John
is '-
MS. SNOW: John is -- this is --
MR. OLLIFF: John '-
MS. SNOW: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- relishes the opportunity to see you once
a year and being able to explain.
MR. JONES: Good afternoon. I wore my special suit.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Teflon?
MR. JONES: Yeah. Last year -- John Jones, director of
libraries, and I'm not wearing a Teflon suit. Last year the -- the --
the budget phrase we used was called gain sharing, and we were given
gain-sharing goals which to achieve. One of the gain-sharing goals
that we had was circulation per employee. I presented the board with
information that showed the state averages with one employee to about
every 14,000 circulations that a lot of your system does. I then
presented to the board showing neighboring counties, counties similar
to ours showing that their ratio was one employee to every 15,000
circulations. Commissioner Norris then pointed out that our employees
were superior, and I agreed with him, and I agreed to accept one
employee to 21,000 circulations. Okay. We're now doing 25,000
circulations per employee.
Now, as you know, we do have some seasonal shifts.
based under the rules that you set last year, I could ask for
full-time employees, but really I would just prefer to have some
seasonal positions to fill in the gaps. I'm asking really for two
FTEs for the season. I'm going to hire four people half time. Some
of the branches are getting overrun during the summer, during the
season.
Interesting, we now have electronic door counters at all
our libraries. Through mid-June we received 916,000 visits this year
in our library system. I doubt if you have anyone else, to paraphrase
Hiss Hac'Kie, that -- that is more face to face with the public than
your public library is. So those are the positions that are in there.
MR. OLLIFF: Generally the other -- the other half of
the budget that you don't see here is -- is -- You will at a later
point, but the 307 library capital budget. And when John and I sat
down to do this budget, we basically balanced his budget off of that.
If you take the -- the cost to the general fund for both capital and
library operating and net them together, it's got about 2 percent
increase in the library budget overall. The reason being, last year
you were good enough to actually provide us some additional monies in
307 to enhance the reference materials at the branch libraries. That
was a one-time item which we -- we are accomplishing this year and
don't need those funds as recurring funds next year. So 307 actually
goes down by -- what's the number -- $116,000, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And 355 is what fund?
MR. OLLIFF: Library impact fees.
MR. JONES: Impact fees.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's where -- That's why
we're getting a reduction? 307 is being made up in 355?
MR. JONES: No. Last year you gave us -- I -- I came
and asked you for a one-time kick of $100,000 to rebuild the reference
collection in the branches. So being the honest southern boy I am,
I'm giving it back to you. And my overall budget is really increasing
about 2 percent, and for that 2 percent, you're getting twice the bang
for the buck that you got two years ago. For an example, our
circulation has through the end of Hay reached 1,037,000. The entire
year '93, '94 was only 1.1 million. So we're doing 25 percent more
work, and essentially I had mandated cost to add to my budget this
year, i.e., the increase in payroll, IT, fleet maintenance, all those
things. I am actually offering you a budget that's operationally less
than last year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What are your IT increases?
MS. SNOW: 9,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and --
MR. JONES: I already have 13,000 built into my budget
for IT plus an additional 9,000 for them to provide service
maintenance on nine computers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I'm getting -- I'm -- You
heard me already. We'll get there. That's a silly number.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you be willing under
gain-sharing if we continued this year to raise the bar?
MR. JONES: It doesn't matter to me. You know, the
thing of it is, is we're a growing library system, and we are heavily
used. For an example, cost per circulation, the gain-sharing measure
was $2.40. Well, I'm not going to -- That's per circulation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay.
MR. JONES: Now, I'm not going to save you any money,
but my cost per circulation is now $2.05. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. JONES: So in theory you owe me a check of money
that doesn't exist because I already spent it because there's nothing
saved because we're just increasing so much in business. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like the national debt.
MR. JONES: It is. It's -- But I've been doing this a
long time.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. The net effect is simply -- The net
effect is simply to the public --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're familiar with tax breaks.
MR. OLLIFF: The public has to wait longer to be able to
check out books as that number grows and at some point -- I don't know
what you're hearing from your constituents, but at some point you --
the public is either satisfied or dissatisfied with the level of
service that they currently get, and so far I think we've been able to
keep them fairly happy.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Jones --
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- did you have any new facilities
come on line in the last fiscal year?
MR. JONES: The estates branch was its first full year
of operation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that have any impact on the
proposed budget that you're showing us here today? Is that partially
responsible for the increase that -- that we see?
MR. JONES: There is no increase today, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's not. Then I guess I have a
misprint on mine here that it says it's 9.4 percent.
MR. JONES: Yeah. But I -- I -- What it is, I -- we --
Our total budget is made of ad valorem from 307 and 001, so I'm giving
back the 125,000 from 307 and the normal operational increase you see
in here. So my net increase is about 2 percent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the general fund.
MR. JONES: To the general fund.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we just move along then?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can. I'm ready.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, what I'm hearing
from the public is you guys are doing a great job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's why we hired you, Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: Well, you know, as I say to you often,
you've provided the money to make the library successful, and we
appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we're being --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you could waste it --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we're being --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or make it successful, and we
appreciate that.
MR. OLLIFF: We do want you to try that dial-a-story,
the most recent thing. It's a great service. It really is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dial-a-story.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I just put the phone in my
daughter's crib and --
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, I -- I have one last
question before we leave the libraries. The -- The lines for people
checking out books -- I mean, you said they're getting longer, but the
wait is not yet intolerable?
MR. OLLIFF: It hasn't been. I -- You know, it's like
everything else here; it's seasonal. And what John tried to do in
this budget is offset that with some temporary part-time seasonal help
so hopefully at our circulation desks we can keep that fairly steady.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Gottcha. Okay.
MS. SNOW: The museum.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could we just go forward?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can't?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the museum the one thing
we wanted to look at -- I had mentioned this before, and we would need
to do this -- I know the TDC isn't scheduled to meet prior to when we
finish up all this. Maybe we need to call a special meeting. We had
talked about an expanded level of service possibly but doing TD --
doing TDC money for the museum. It qualifies under state statute. And
I think particularly this year, as I mentioned to you before, with the
Marco Cat exhibit and all that, it shows it can be a draw if done
properly, and so I'd like us to explore removing this from ad valorem
and putting it into TDC. Now, we need -- need to change our current
ordinance in order to do that, but I'd like to see if there's some
support for doing that and taking it -- sending it to the TDC, having
a special meeting of the TDC before the budget season is over.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The TDC's next scheduled meeting is
the last Monday of July.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we need to send out our
TRIM notices about a week before that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I personally like the idea
of partial or full subsidization -- subsidy from TDC funds. It would
allow Mr. Jamro to grow more than if he continues to be constrained
solely by ad valorem and -- and we can be assured that growth would be
positive.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, why don't we -- Why don't
we leave the two seventy-eight in the ad valorem for the time being,
do the TDC and -- and have the 278,000 which is a small amount of
money in the TRIM notice, and it's something we can -- we can cut in
the final days in September.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that $300,000
is a small amount of money, first of all, but as we struggle to go on
here, I -- I -- if we can have that out of TRIM notice, I'd prefer to,
and I wondered if we might call --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't -- I just don't want to
prejudge what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I know. If you'd let me
finish, I -- I would suggest that we leave it in here for the time
being but call a special meeting of the TDC in the meantime, have the
item presented by our staff and by the Friends and -- and try to get
it back to the board by the meeting of the 16th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But do we realistically expect
that in a special TDC meeting they're going to recommend to the board
that we -- So why bother? And if we want to make the change --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we're required by
law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But -- but -- But we can
know what we're going to do despite their recommendation or -- you
know.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So why call the special meeting?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why call a special meeting when
we know what they're going to say?
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I think you're required to bring the
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- the Tourist Development Council first.
And I'll tell you, we did do that last year, and I can tell you what
the response was last year, and it wasn't even a friendly kind of a
response last year, and I expect the same response this year, but I
think you are required to take it through that board before it gets
here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: More importantly, we've all
talked about bettering our relationship with the TDC. So, you know,
let's -- let's at least make an effort here to -- to accept their
input and to -- you know, to use as a part of the process. So, yeah,
I'm in favor of the meeting, and I'll even have, you know, discussions
prior to that with members of the TDC to try and make that as good a
process as possible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm in favor of the meeting.
What I -- What I mean to say is I think it's unreasonable to expect
that they're going to support such a request. And, frankly, I doubt
that I'm going to support such a request, so I'll go ahead and tell
you that, because I don't think that's what the tourist tax was passed
for by the voters.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think this is going to be
all a part of clarifying exactly what that tourist tax is intended
for, and that needs to be done anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd prefer to hear a
presentation before I prejudge how I'm going to vote on the issue, and
I think that's all I'm asking, is let's go ahead, have a meeting of
the TDC prior to the 16th and then --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There's two.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- have it on our agenda the
16th, and we can adjust the budget accordingly before the TRIM notices
go out if we need to, or it will go out exactly the same. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's two right here.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We will see the TDC budgets tomorrow as
part of your special revenue fund, but in category C we do receive in
the neighborhood of $650,000 a year, and there's a substantial reserve
of almost a million and three quarters budgeted next year. As you
know, we've encountered problems with meeting the criteria of -- of
the category C. So a substantial reserve has built up in that fund.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, would you notify Miss
Gansel that she needs to schedule a TDC meeting?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. In addition, you have a couple
of speakers on the museum and -- and handle those at the end of this
division. That's what you said. And we also had a program tally from
three members of the board on museum program expense called museum
exhibition service.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what we're hearing is
that rather than right now trying to -- to make cuts in the museum's
proposed program since they're only projecting a 5 percent increase,
that we try to fund it out of TDC, take it out of the ad valorem, and
everybody benefits. Is that a fair assumption?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute now. I've been --
I've been chairman of the TDC, Commissioner Constantine has, and
Commissioner Norris is right now, and I -- I -- I would fair to --
fair guess that all three of us have been told at various times that
the money collected for a specific purpose has to be used for that
specific purpose, and if we change the ordinance, any monies collected
subsequent to that change can be used for the new purpose. So we
can't -- we can't use this one million whatever it is for the museum.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the six fifty annually, a
portion thereof can go for that and whatever is collected if we were
to change it --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we were to change it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- July 16, whatever is
collected after that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I -- I -- I just want to,
you know, correct the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good point.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I understand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good point.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- presumption that we could use
a million seven for it, and we can't. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. SNOW: Parks and recreation, parks increased 12.7
percent. Thirty-seven percent of the increase was found in the
expandeds, 67 percent was found in personal services. As a result of
the pay plan, fringe benefits, and also a lot of seasonal and
part-time employees go into other salaries and wages.
If you'll go -- I don't know if you're in your big book,
but if you'll go to the third page where it says your expandeds -- it
lists your expandeds.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Page 89, is it?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Or, actually, in your summary book on
page -- page 31 is a list.
MS. SNOW: There's 170,000 in the expandeds for Sugden
Regional Park site. That includes two park rangers and ten summer
part-time lifeguards. There were operating costs of twenty-nine
seven. Also they were going to buy a truck, some communication
equipment, some radios, and some other machinery and equipment which
all totalled a hundred seventy. Then outside of Sugden, there was a
program leader two position for the Golden Gate Fitness Center. There
were also four part-time park attendants. There's a total of 22,000
for seven personal computers to connect to the county network for
7,000 and to purchase five new --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's even more than the $1,000
per. 3,000 per.
MS. SNOW: Commissioner, I get very nervous every time I
say that number but --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't wait for IT.
MS. SNOW: The 20,000 -- 22,000 is five new computers at
3,000 a piece, and then the rest is to connect them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it is only $1,000 a piece to
connect them.
MS. SNOW: It's needed to connect them and/or support
them. In other words, you can have a computer that you couldn't
connect, but you're still going to pay the 1,000 to support it. Does
that make sense?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 3,000 is strictly
purchase then?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That doesn't have anything to
do with before --
MR. OLLIFF: Those are again '-
MS. SNOW: Those --
MR. OLLIFF: -- the same computers at each of the
community centers to do the same thing that we talked about in fund
111 for telephone registration --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whoever is beeping, please check
that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Please. Who's got a beeper?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my pacemaker. It's
okay.
Tom, capital outlay for Sugden, the park ranger truck,
the necessity of that is because -- because I also see the ATVs, and
I'm assuming getting around the park itself could be done on an ATV
but --
MR. BRINKMAN: Actually, they're going to have to be
doing a lot of running around, picking up supplies, equipment, and
other things on a daily basis generally. So that's just to travel off
site to pick up various items.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do we have two ATVs instead
of to start off with? Is that in case one is down, you always have
one available or --
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, there are going to be times when we
have additional staff there, maintenance staff, and things as well and
it -- it's -- gives us the capability to have an additional one plus
if one does break down.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's a truckster?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A truckster is a little
cushman-type utility vehicle. It's like a -- I call them cushmans,
the little --
MR. BRINKMAN: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The wheels -- golf cart size
wheels, but it's a gas engine in it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's got a little truck bed on them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Part of your explanation on
the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, oh, okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- two ATVs was that you'll
have maintenance people running around. I assume the maintenance
people would be in the truckster.
MR. OLLIFF: Let me relook the truck and the ATVs and
the truckster and see what minimally we can get away with there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I did notice at least
this truck was a $15,000 truck instead of the $18,900 truck. But,
yeah, I'm just curious. And maybe it's necessary. I don't -- I don't
know what they need to run off site daily for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- Let's look at those
vehicles and see if we can, based on the scope of proposed development
for that park, tailor this first-year acquisition specifically to that
at a minimum and -- and then we'll go from next year. I'd like to see
a reduction of at least one ATV and maybe more.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see one ATV
total, maybe a truckster, no truck.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What else?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Hac'Kie
covered the computer concern.
MR. OLLIFF: Nothing. I -- I do want you to be aware of
what our operational plan is for Sugden. That's not a heated swimming
facility. It's a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. OLLIFF: -- natural lake. So we -- we are only
intending to have that open with the lifeguards present for swimming
from June when school gets out through Labor Day in September like a
typical sort of northern swimming location would be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All other times of the year the
swimming area will be closed; is that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. Good. I think that's a
good idea.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tell me a little bit why there's ten
lifeguards there.
MR. OLLIFF: These are all part-time position
lifeguards. So it's actually five FTE equivalents, if you will, and
the park is actually going to be open some 92 hours a week, and to try
and cover what we think we have in the way of requirements in terms of
lifeguards to numbers of people swimming --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So it will be how many stations?
MR. OLLIFF: We have two lifeguard stations for the
swimming area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: And -- And just so you're aware too, we --
this is a very minimal staff. We have two FTE rangers which provides
you 80 hours a week of ranger coverage for a park that's open about 92
hours a week during the summer. So there are even some gaps with the
staffing that we've proposed where there aren't rangers on site, but
hopefully we'll be able to have at least lifeguards on site and
concessionaires.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we're on -- on the subject,
quickly, Mr. Olliff, have we -- I know the school board has some areas
in which they allow a deputy to put a house trailer on site and live
on site for evening security. Have we investigated that for this
site?
MR. OLLIFF: We've actually started some talks about
that, and I think that might be a possibility on this location.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I would really like to -- It
doesn't show up in the budget, but I'd like to pursue that because I
think everyone would benefit. It's a nice place to live too.
MR. OLLIFF: The site lends itself well to that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: The other item that the budget office asked
that I -- I walk you through is the four part-time park attendants
that are listed here. Those four part-time park attendants are -- are
two -- are 20-hour-a-week positions for Veterans', Vineyards, and
Hackle, and East Naples Community Park, and it's primarily so that we
can have two individuals in the park in the community centers in the
evenings. Today we only have enough coverage to have two people there
during the peak time which is during the day when we've got
after-school programs, but in the evening time we don't have enough
bodies to have two people in those parks. So we're proposing to --
and we've done the same thing in 111 for the Immokalee Community Park.
What we're proposing here is to add a half-time, part-time body that
we can have at least have that two-person coverage there in the
evenings.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Back on the prior -- I'm
sorry. Go ahead and finish your --
MR. OLLIFF: They want me to explain the fitness center
position as well and I -- Today the fitness center that was installed
at the time Golden Gate Community Center was far more successful than
we had ever anticipated it would be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People love it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: People love it.
MR. OLLIFF: What's happened is that we are to -- We
only had one person budgeted to try and cover that, and it's just
simply not enough to cover the hours. So we have contracted out, and
what we've determined is that we can actually have a full-time
employee for about $4,000 cheaper than we are paying the outside
contracted people to come in today and do it for. We are also
proposing some rate increases that will generate about $11,000 of
estimated increased revenue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- that was -- My question
on that is I think part of the reason that people are so thrilled with
it is that compared to the market cost of similar facilities, it's
peanuts. Not that it shouldn't be. I mean, it should be less, but I
don't know if it's not way underpriced.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's apples, not peanuts.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, apples.
MR. BRINKMAN: That is our increasing -- We are
anticipating increasing the fee substantially at the fitness center
this year as well as a number of other locations too. I think almost
all our facilities this year you'll see a very substantial increase in
rates.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is substa -- Would substantial
increases on those -- all of those kinds of facilities, it would put
you at what percentage below market? I mean, do you have a target for
that?
MR. BRINKMAN: I -- I would say that probably we're
going to be very close. We're probably going to be within maybe 10
percent or 15 percent maybe of a lot of the commercial or the YHCA,
for example.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than using market as a
factor -- I mean, these are obviously additional services. These are
not base-level services. As long as they pay for themselves --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they don't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- let them -- let them be as low
as they can, but we need to try and make them as close to or
self-sufficient as possible because, again, we need -- we're telling
people we're funding base-level services, and anything on top of that
you have to pay for.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But these aren't even close to
funding themselves; right, guys? I mean -- MR. BRINKMAN: The fitness facility does, in fact, fund
itself.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- But do you count Little
League as a base level or not? Because it doesn't pay for itself. Do
you count after-school --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're digressing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're digressing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm talking specifically
about the fitness center but -- you know, we can -- we can take them
individually as you like.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, back on the prior page,
lighting systems, $20,000, upgrading Tommy Barfield.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where is that?
MR. BRINKMAN: That would be improve --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 90 of the big book.
MR. BRINKMAN: That would be improvements at that park
area to -- The existing lights at the tennis facility there needs to
be changed out. So that would give us the funds to go ahead and do
that.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the difference between
the new lights and the old lights? MR. OLLIFF: Twenty years.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. That's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For me standing under them at
night.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. The system has been there for a
long time, and we would be able to use glare control this time which
we didn't have in the past.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Would be able to
use what?
MR. BRINKMAN: Glare control on the lights.
MR. OLLIFF: We -- We end up spending a great deal of
money in contract electrical repair at that particular site, and it's
primarily just the age of the lights that are there. I think it is
the oldest ball park that we currently have in this system with I
believe the original lights that were there --
MR. DORRILL: He's -- he's --
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. It's --
MR. DORRILL: -- looking for pay-back, how much you're
going to spend this year, how much did you spend last year on
maintenance of the 20-year-old light system.
MR. OLLIFF: I'd have to get those -- those numbers for
you, but I will.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1,000 bucks? 10,000 bucks?
MR. OLLIFF: He's saying about $3,000 annually the last
couple of years we've spent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So about seven more years.
How about the resurfacing -- I still have a question on the lighting
systems, by the way -- resurfacing tennis and basketball, Golden Gate,
East Naples, Veterans'e
MR. BRINKMAN: That's something we normally do on an
annual basis at all of our courts and they -- Normally after two or
three, or four years in some instances, with the use on those courts,
the ones at the community parks generally we have to resurface every
two to three years because of the intense use. That's where we're
focusing those at -- at this particular time so -- and that would be
because of the very heavy use at those locations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are any of these -- Would we
be able to stretch any of these for a year?
MR. BRINKMAN: I -- I think that we have -- actually,
that would -- we have actually cancelled this from -- These are things
we actually asked for last year, were put in the budget last year that
was reduced also, so these are actually --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Been there, done that?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. We -- We actually try -- tried to
put this in the budget last year, and because of some reductions then,
it was reduced at that period of time so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens if we don't
resurface this year? I mean, are we doing permanent damage to the
courts or it's just --
MR. BRINKMAN: The -- The public would just have to put
up with the -- or, you know, accept the quality of the courts that are
out there when they play.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what I'm asking.
What would happen to the quality of the courts?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, the quality of the courts
diminishes every month that they're used, so it will continue to
diminish.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have grass growing in
the cracks on the tennis courts, do we?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What cracks?
MR. BRINKMAN: Generally not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. What -- What cracks is
my question. Are we looking at major degradation, or are we looking
at --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: How bad are they, Steve?
MR. BRINKMAN: No. They're -- Well, they're -- they're
nothing -- I mean, they're just resurfacing the courts. It's not a
major rebuild. So all we're doing here is resurfacing.
MR. DORRILL: You don't have any asphalt work associated
with this?
MR. BRINKMAN: No.
MR. DORRILL: It's just the athletics, just surface --
MR. BRINKMAN: The color coat that's on --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's the latex coating.
MR. BRINKMAN: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all. I'll tell you, I've
-- I've played on public courts around the country, and there are
none I've seen better than in this county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you consider a 36,000
one-year deferral?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would consider that because --
Likewise, I play basketball at two or three different parks, and I
haven't noticed conditions that -- that -- I haven't noticed
conditions less than perfect, to be honest with you, which is
commendable to you, but for this particular year I -- I think a
one-year deferral may be appropriate.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's what we said --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- last year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see a third.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No. Last year we were
talking about ball field maintenance and so forth, and if anyone goes
touching that, your -- your phone's going to go screaming by the time
you get back to the office because we're seeing some real problems
with that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I've made mention of
touching that, and my phone has been ringing steady.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What was your vote on the resurfacing?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Defer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's three defers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody want to keep the
lighting changing in?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we spend 20,000 on lighting
this year, what's our maintenance going to be next year?
MR. DORRILL: You'll be in a warranty period next year,
so it -- it'd be the following year, but he -- he said earlier that
he's been spending about 3,000 per year on those lights.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- It's going to have to be
done. The question is, do we do it this year or next year. What the
heck. We're in a tough year. Why don't we say next year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This year.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: This year.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think this year. We've put
that one off long enough.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three this years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other item on that same
page, other machinery and equipment -- and I'm bitterly disappointed.
Other machinery and equipment, 127,000. Is there anything under here
that --
MR. BRINKMAN: All of these --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we can milk another year
out of?
MR. BRINKMAN: All of these are at least an average of
seven to eight years old, and they are well overdue as far as trading
them in. Again, this is a list that we had in the budget last year,
and as a part of our park maintenance cuts last year of I think close
to 400,000, these were removed at that time. So we're --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Brinkman --
MR. DORRILL: Primarily mowers and the -- like in-field
raking machines and -- and the like.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How much use -- How much use -- Excuse
me. How much use do you anticipate getting out of your bobcat? Is
that something that you use on a daily basis? How much use would we
have for a bobcat?
MR. BRINKMAN: You want to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anytime we have to move clay from
the pile to the field. It's the only way to get it there.
MR. BRINKMAN: So it is a daily basis.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He says we use it daily.
MR. BRINKMAN: It is a daily basis.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It is a daily basis? Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, for one, based on just the
conditions I've witnessed myself, think that we may have cut back a
little too much last year in the maintenance of ball fields
particularly, and I haven't seen the soccer fields. I do have some
phone calls on those.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Awful.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got some --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Awful.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- phone calls on those.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of course, I've never seen a
soccer field that's used a lot that looks good to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm -- I'm not in favor of --
of cutting back on the equipment that's being asked for this year and
let me prefa -- let me ask --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's two.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we going to see an improved
maintenance with this equipment this coming year than what we had this
past year? Are we going to see noticeable improvement in conditions
of the fields?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, because -- because most of the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay. You don't need to
go any further. Yes was what I was looking for.
MR. OLLIFF: Especially if you leave that item where we
are -- have the opportunity to replace some of the sod. The kind of
sod we've got on most of the fields requires that it be replaced,
especially as heavy as we use it, every third year or so, and we've
been putting that off for a couple of years.
The other thing I want you to know about that machinery
and equipment is -- is we don't come up with that list ourselves.
Your -- Your fleet garage does, and they tell us when they think a
piece of equipment is so old that it -- it becomes less effective to
keep it than to try and trade it in, and that was the list from last
year so -- I mean, that list has just gotten a year older.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm for keeping the
machinery and equipment list. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So from those --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Three.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's three.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So from those pages, it's the
36,000 on the resurfacing, and then you're going to get back to us on
the park ranger truck and one of the ATVs? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe try and tailor that a
little bit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gonna cut that.
MS. SNOW: There's also an onionskin on this parks and
rec.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know. We're still crying
from peeling it back last year.
MR. OLLIFF: We tried to do it a little differently this
year, and it's one page --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page on -- on the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You feel the danger of giving us
too much information last year.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, no. What we did was we showed you an
onion where the first -- the first level went down to the middle of
the onion to start with.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give me pages, please. Oh, in
your onionskin memo. Sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not numbered but --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got it.
MR. OLLIFF: Generally there are three different service
levels from what are currently existing, and it's easiest probably if
you just look at the FTE count. There are 3 -- 3 FTEs cut in the
first, 7 cut in the second, 18 cut in the third level. The fiscal
year '97 dollar cost with each cut are associated and show there
90,000 for level one, one eighty-one for level two, and five forty for
level three, and generally it's just a reduction from what we're
currently doing. It's just mowing the grass. The -- The first level
would be one time every ten days as opposed to our current level of
service which is one time a week, twice a week during the heavy
growing season.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But nobody's even thinking about
that.
MR. OLLIFF: Well --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: From the bottom of his heart.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Current service level is what
we're going with.
MS. SNOW: Social services.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
MS. SNOW: Social services increased .9 percent and can
be attributed to increased demand in the client assistant programs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As -- As we're switching, Mr.
Chairman, the clerk was here and -- and asked if we could give him
some kind of an idea when we might get to his budget because he has
meetings this evening and some meetings tomorrow. So I just wondered
if you wanted to try and give him some kind of an idea or if we might
take him out of order.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't have any idea because we've
taken so long to get to the point where we are.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Glad we could be of help. Mr.
Brock, how is that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anything we can do, Dwight.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know. Does anyone have any
questions on his budget?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there were only two
mentions in our budget reductions on this, and I think the mentions
come in -- I saw two -- two points at which the phrase "safety net"
Was used or '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Being the clerk --
MS. SNOW: Are you on social services?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in social services, yes.
MS. SNOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. Excuse me. Just -- Just
before we go on to that, is this an appropriate time to hear our
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: You can either hear them now, or you can
wait until you get to the bottom of this division. I didn't know --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How much more do we have on this
division?
MS. SNOW: Very little. It -- it's -- it goes --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very little? Okay. Let's finish it
up then.
MR. DORRILL: It should go fairly quickly.
MS. SNOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead.
MS. SNOW: Mrs. Skinner is here, and she believes she
can represent her --
MR. OLLIFF: I think we can go through these a little
quicker at this point. Social services, frankly, hasn't had a budget
increase in probably four or five years. And I'll tell you, they had
some salary increases just like every other department, and they've
just cut services in order to be able to swallow that and not have a
budget increase again this year and they're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're kidding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's tough to tell MArtha Skinner
no on anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, especially when she cuts
her own budget to fund her pay raises. I -- That's what I don't want
to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bye, MArtha.
MS. SKINNER: Let me just say one thing. There are
things going on in state government right now that may come back to
haunt us, and I might be back with a large increase on -- on
state-mandated Medicaid payments. We've been able to hold our own
there, but they look like they're really going out this time. So I
wanted to keep it as low as I could knowing that I'll probably have to
come in and ask for more money.
MR. OLLIFF: If you would, what she's talking about is
-- you remember annually, we basically find Medicaid billing problems
where we save three hundred to $350,000 a year. Well, they're getting
tired of us not giving them their 350,000, so they're working and have
been for several years on some systems where they get flat-rate,
county-type billings where they are going to decide just a monthly,
flat percentage, and we've been fighting that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We weren't able to defeat that
this year?
MS. SKINNER: They are --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last year we did.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're working around it.
HS. SKINNER: The FAC meeting I'm going to next week --
this is -- The state people are going to be meeting with us then and
trying to see how they can let us know how that's going to be. We are
going to fight it as we have for years.
MR. DORRILL: You'll recall, we're adjusting our bills
when they make mathematical errors in their bills, and what they say
is they don't want that to count anymore. They want us to pay their
flat rate that includes their error rate, and so we're taking a strong
exception to that.
HR. OLLIFF: To compound the problem, other counties
have been --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's exactly right.
MR. OLLIFF: -- mimicking what we're doing. You know,
other counties have been mimicking what we've been doing for years
now, and so there are more and more counties that are starting to make
those same deductions and -- and their revenue continues to get --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Skinner, are you getting the
assistance of our state representatives on this?
MS. SKINNER: Yes, I am. In fact, they saved my aging
program this year. I was real pleased. There was some legislation
that was buried in a bill that went to the -- It was passed by the
House and Senate that said if our CEO made more money per year than
the Secretary of the Department of Elder Affairs, we couldn't contract
or get those grants for the program, and that would have knocked out
Broward, Dade, Hillsborough, Pinellas, many counties that have these
programs because most CEOs do make more. And so I got ahold of that
and notified a lot of counties, got ahold of our delegation who went
to bat, and we were able to overturn that when the appropriations
committee was meeting to put the two bills together because they had
already been passed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Hartha.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hartha, are you going to need
county commissioners to attend your committee meetings next week to
vote?
MS. SKINNER: I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. SKINNER: But if I do --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Holler.
MS. SKINNER: -- I hope somebody will be there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you do, let me know because
I'm the delegate, and if -- if I can't be there, I want to send
someone.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. But we -- Each of us --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- are one vote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can all --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let us know.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can all go. I mean, it's
just across the state.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let us know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Hiss Skinner.
MS. SKINNER: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We could actually outvote Dade
County if Dade County doesn't show up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. How many
commissioners do they have? Don't they have like 26 or something?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But you can only vote if you
show up.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On veterans services I'm fine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He too.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next.
MS. SNOW: On agriculture there's a new program, revenue
program. That's a first-time home buyer's program. It's going to
increase revenues by 8,000 in the first year in'95/'96; and in
'96/'97, 24,000.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me get that. We're going to
increase revenues by how much?
MS. SNOW: 8,000 in the first year, forecast'95/'96.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. SNOW: And 24,000 for next year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how does that happen?
MS. SNOW: Well, it's a four-year operation.
MR. OLLIFF: It's partial year this year, full year next
year.
MS. SNOW: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: It's the first-time home buyer's program
where we're actually being paid by part of that banking consortium
here locally to go out and try and -- and generate more low-income
family first-time home buyer loans using the existing staff that's
there at the ag department.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- What is that existing
staff doing now that they won't be doing then while they're out trying
to encourage that?
MS. BLANTON: Denise Blanton. We won't be doing some of
the farm worker educational program we've been doing in the past.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which was mentioned on some of
our sheets. Hoot point. I do have one question on -- on -- under
agricultural under fiscal year '96/'97 on page 97. It said personal
services increased 35,000 due to pay plan and associated fringe
benefits expenses. A lot of the positions are co-funded by University
of Florida and Collier County, and just for the number of employees,
that 35,000 seems a little high for co-funded positions. What -- What
am I missing there?
MS. BLANTON: That -- Those were all mandated county
increases, and it was primarily the three clerical people in the
office.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many?
MS. BLANTON: Three clerical people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not a person. It's our
share of three.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I understand that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 11,000 each.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But that -- that's my
point, is that it's a co-funded position. The county bumps its pay
plan up. The University of Florida funding, I assume, stayed the
same, and ours made up the difference. Is that --
MS. BLANTON: No.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. BLANTON: There's no -- It does not have to
parallel. So there was -- For the co-paid -- co-paid positions, there
were no increases in those co-paid positions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. These are just -- Just
county employees received --
MS. BLANTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the co-pays, none of those
were affected?
MS. BLANTON: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've raised another
question for me though, and maybe I just misunderstood what you said,
but that's for three employees, so it's over 11,000 per employee we
bumped up this year?
MS. BLANTON: No, sir. There are other associated
increase -- increases in retirement, et cetera, for all county paid
employees, but only three were affected by any bumps in increases in
salaries.
MR. DORRILL: That doesn't sound right, so I sent him to
get the list.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. BLANTON: Yeah. We'll verify that.
MR. DORRILL: There -- There were no increases in FRS
contribution this year of that magnitude, so I've just asked him to go
get the list to see if there's a mistake.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So before we leave this item,
we'll know? Because that 35,000 just doesn't make sense.
MR. DORRILL: He'll be back in three minutes probably.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm having trouble finding in
this -- the little book -- Where are we?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, on page 97
in the big book --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you'll be surprised to know
there are four computers at $4,000 for --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No!
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the operation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you'll be the first to have
that circled.
MR. DORRILL: We're on page 29 in the summary book under
public services, general fund.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So there's not a page.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- four items on page 96 in
the big book. Minimum support for county, slash, university link.
What is that minimum support for $45,0007
MS. BLANTON: That's me, your county extension director,
and that's a -- in the associated support, office space, things like
that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's not all salary? That's
MS. BLANTON: No. No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You wish.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So that's your share of square
footage, the whole thing?
MS. BLANTON: All the proportioned fees, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next one, environmental
safety and production efficiency in farming and ranching -- and that
was one of the ones we discussed before -- I'd like to see us cut.
Provide research-based information and education to producers and
consumers of ag products. The ag farms out there are almost all major
producers at this point. We have some smaller farms but --
MS. BLANTON: Can I distribute a fax sheet on that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please do. There are --
MS. BLANTON: We have 254 farms.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We just need you on the
microphone when you speak. That's okay. Come on up, but just when
you speak, we'll need you back on the microphone.
MS. BLANTON: I believe the opening paragraph does use
1992 ag census data to show the 254 farms, the acreage in our county
which is substantial that's devoted to agriculture.
And then in the second paragraph, one of the things I
address is while it seems that we get an awful lot of press about the
large farms, especially the recent buy-out that we had, it's one of
those tip of the icebergs kinds of things that sort of obscures the
bigger picture of what agriculture is in Collier County.
And then in the third paragraph, one of the things that
I address is the farmings for the future study that indicates the
amount of ad valorem taxes that come to the county and ag uses of
those taxes of 38 cents on the dollar and the 62 cents that is
returned to the general fund and then --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: To me -- if I -- If I can
interrupt, I just thought that was -- that was a point that Denise and
I had discussed prior to this meeting that was very surprising to me
because I think of ag land as the cheapest, the least, you know,
income -- I mean, property tax producing from a revenue standpoint,
yet what these stats show us is that they only use 38 cents of every
dollar they pay. They only get services with the value of 38 cents
for every dollar they pay on ag land. That's a -- That was a
surprising number to me and I -- I do think this board has tried to be
attentive to returning services for payment, and -- and we need to pay
attention to that on ag land too.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, a couple of things. I
mean, realistically you're not going to have on a large piece of ag
all the same services that you require when you have a number of
single-family residences, and realistically we don't have in the
county a dollar-for-dollar return for every single place. There are
some who get more than they do and some that they get less than they
should and --
MS. BLANTON: Exactly and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But also the -- this 302,000
acres is what is zoned ag. That's not all in current production, is
it?
MS. BLANTON: It's either in crop land or pasture land,
and that's ag census data. The one thing -- Some of that is in public
ownership and, of course, is no longer on the tax rolls, and one of
the things that is we feel an important contribution --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know how much is in
public ownership?
MS. BLANTON: No, sir. I do not happen to know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No idea? 100,000 acres?
200,000 acres?
MS. BLANTON: If I were to say something, it would be so
wrong.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 10 acres?
MS. BLANTON: I -- I -- I -- I -- I wouldn't even
hesitate -- I would hesitate to tell you anything on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to just guess it's
a large percentage of the 302,000 acres.
MS. BLANTON: Oh, no, no. Those are -- that's not a --
Those acreages are -- I believe I stated how much is on the tax rolls.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what it says but
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you said farm land in
Collier County totals almost 302,000 acres. So the question --
MS. BLANTON: That's -- and there's -- There's not that
much that's in public ownership. I'm talking about there is a large
portion of our county that is in public ownership, and the issue being
keeping it in what we call sustainable agriculture. That is, year
after year it can keep itself going as -- as a viable resource to the
county. And what your extension office seeks to do -- and you see the
three major categories there that are at issue are regulatory
compliance, water conservation issues, and alternatives to chemical
use. For example, Stewart Swanson -- who is one of the one and a half
people in this area -- is -- so he's one of the one and a half -- is
working on an issue with your solid waste department where you may not
realize it, but you have 300 million pounds of plastic from -- at the
Immokalee landfill that is -- that's currently at issue, what -- what
to do about it, and we're working on a bailing system so that
agriculturalists when they gather that plastic, it can be more -- it
can be cleaner so that it -- it's more salable.
Also we're working on something called paper mulch so
that at the end of a season, it can actually be disked into the bed
and doesn't have to go to the landfill at all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can I interrupt for a minute?
MS. BLANTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a very interesting discussion
we've been having for the last 15 minutes, but I don't think any of it
has anything to do with the decision that we need to make whether we
should be subsidizing $78,000 to provide research to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Profit-making companies.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't understand why farms
should be treated any differently than any other company in the county
and -- and when we provide -- You mentioned Horseshoe Drive and how we
expect those people to pay for the services they get and why we should
be subsidizing for the farms, and they are in the business to make
money --
MS. BLANTON: A lot of these --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but they need to be
carrying that load themselves.
MS. BLANTON: A lot of these are the family farms that I
see -- I think that Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Hancock had
an opportunity to see in our 4-H banquet Monday night, that they're
farmers because they grow a lot of what they consume, and then they
sell a little bit of what they consume, and in order to maintain that
lifestyle, that's what we do, and that's a large portion -- There are
four large agribusiness firms that you're well acquainted with here in
Collier County, and, of course, they get a lot of the play, a lot of
the splash. But there are those 250 other farms that many times are
actually a vet -- Collier County's version of Ma and Pa Kettle in
Collier County.
And so, Commissioner Constantine, you are correct, but
they are not business enterprises to the extent that I think that --
that you have in your mind's eye when you think about the large
producers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but if I own a Mom and
Pop store selling soda and gasoline, it isn't a large Exxon
enterprise, but I'm still trying to make a profit selling gasoline,
and I have to take responsibility for that, and there's no difference
if someone has a Mom and Pop or a giant Monsanto agriculture business
MS. BLANTON: And one of --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and what -- I guess
what's a little frustrating is we hear both sides of the argument.
Yesterday we couldn't give up four or 500 acres of farm land because
it is so far and few between in the county, and today we have 302,000
acres all over the county. I mean, which side is it? Which -- Which
is the truth?
MS. BLANTON: Well, I think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then we have a census
here from 1992 that there's been a lot of activity from those four
major players you mentioned purchasing in the past four years. So we
don't know if it's 254 farms now or 154 or 54. We don't have any
idea. We don't have any of that information.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And none of that is the point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And none of that is the point. The
point is, should we subsidize private research for private businesses
at this level, and that's the question we need to answer right here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- The problem I'm having
reconciling these is -- you know, when I was at the banquet, yes, I
saw the Diaz family. You know, I mean, there's people that are
raising, you know, cattle and -- and -- and so forth, and I understand
that. But when I went out there and rode with Stewart Swanson, went
through his daily activities, we weren't at the Diaz's house.
MS. BLANTON: No. He --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We were out there on a large crop
area doing work that the -- the work being done would be of use to
that large farming tract much more to the extent than the small
farmer, you know, than the person who -- who's doing 10 or 15 acres.
What we were doing was a large-scale project and -- and that's where
I'm having a tough time reconciling my individual experience with what
you're saying today.
MS. BLANTON: Okay. Let me share a lumen -- a further
clarification on your concern and question. You saw a results
demonstration and that -- many times the large -- 99.9 percent of the
time the large farmers, of course, have paid consultants. But there
are times when we will go to them and ask them to use a portion of
their farm to do a results demonstration that is open to the public
that is not proprietary knowledge, and they actually in kind us by
allowing that portion of their farm and their workers to not apply
chemicals, to release the wasps or whatever it is that we're looking
at as an alternative to chemical use and so that we can make that
information known because many times you can appreciate that a farmer
will tell you, yes, I understand that I could release wasps, and other
people have done it in, you know, Timbuktu, but show me that it will
work here in Collier County, that I should quit using certain
chemicals.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And you've answered my
question. From the day that the University of Florida and Collier
County joined in a partnership, there was a funding ratio from that
first year. The county said we'll fund this, and Florida said we'll
fund that, and we ended up with a partnership. MS. BLANTON: Mmm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was that funding ratio
initially, and has the county's share in that ratio increased or
decreased over time?
MS. BLANTON: The county's share in that ratio has
remained the same for the agreed-upon faculty members. As a matter of
fact, the only thing that gets boost is when you boost your -- the
county portion of what you pay, and -- and then we go up that way, and
that is all mandated by county personnel policy and it's not necessary
-- and because we're -- we're your employees, you treat us the same
as you treat your other employees for that portion of what you pay.
That -- That's the only change, and it's changes that -- that you deem
appropriate countywide.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. What's the pleasure here?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is, why -- if --
If we're going to subsidize the farmers and do their research, why
shouldn't we do it for sign makers or construction debris recyclers or
-- In my mind, I'm not sure what differentiates this from any other
business.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you're --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm going to suggest
cutting the seventy-eight four. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- the --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Leave it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem I have is -- I agree
with what you're saying. If that's the only function that Kevin Hill
did out there is to help the farmers, I -- I'd be with you lock step,
but I've watched his involvement, interaction, and some of the things
that I don't want to reduce or eliminate such as the 4-H youth
development program and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right now we're only on --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's a different line
item. That has 152,000 of its own money.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm aware of that. I can see
that that is a different paragraph on our sheet, but if you eliminate
this all together, how many -- what staff are we going to lose, and
how does it impact the 4-H youth development?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You lock into other parts of it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, that -- it's so -- it's
so -- and -- and what -- You know, it's so commingled out there that
it's tough to tell from this page what we're actually doing when we
eliminate that paragraph.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then what is the purpose of
this page where it breaks each of those down into individual things?
We -- We asked for a budget that broke down expenditures and what
items if we did or didn't want and what each one of them costs. It
has 4-H under a different line item. If this is included in 4-H, why
isn't it under that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- Can I say too on this
subject -- I -- I just said to Commissioner Constantine, I wished that
we had started this discussion with $113,000 for landscape products
and services, producers and consumers of landscape products and
services because --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same idea.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I don't understand what we're
doing subsidizing them.
MS. BLANTON: That's everybody in Collier County that
calls up or brings in a dead leaf or a worm they can't identify. It's
everybody's back yard.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if they went to -- you know,
I don't want to advertise for any particular nursery -- and took that
in there, they'd sell them that product too. I -- I think -- I -- I
-- I -- Gosh. It's hard for me to say on the farmer one, but I can
sure see it on the $113,000 for landscape, you know, being able to
call up and ask about the aphid, you know, call a nursery who's in the
business. And frankly -- I guess I'll go ahead and say it. I think
we shouldn't be spending 80,000 bucks on teaching farmers how to farm.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I'll --
I'll support what we need to do to maintain the 4-H program because
it's a great program. As our budget has been presented to us, the
seventy-eight four doesn't include that, and the one thirteen six
doesn't include that. I'd like to see those cut. Now, if there is
something we need to do to look at making sure 4-H is maintained
separate from those, I'm willing to do that, but these two items as
they have been presented to us -- just as you just said, they're --
they don't belong in our government's role.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I see them as research and
development. I see them as -- and I'm telling you this so you'll tell
me if I'm wrong -- that -- That this is university kinds of functions.
It's appropriate, but that local government doesn't need to be doing
it.
MS. BLANTON: What it is I think the -- The differential
is who is the clientele.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- and let me '-
MS. BLANTON: And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- Let me real quickly
there -- that's why 4-H and the master gardener program I like. I
like the master gardener program because these are volunteers. The
people who pick up the phone out there that are master gardeners are
volunteers. They just need the resource of information to get
qualified and to keep the books up. So if we can keep 4-H and master
gardener, I'm -- I'm with you but --
MS. BLANTON: You're -- Should I say something?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we do a poll?
MS. BLANTON: I think that -- I think that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We're going to --
MS. BLANTON: -- Commissioner Hancock makes an excellent
point to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, that the clientele you're
talking about -- and you're talking about volunteers -- and the
particular one that you're talking about is landscape, and as proud as
John Jones is of his library, I put these up against him any time, and
I'd walk away with a blue ribbon as far as --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, if it's all volunteer, why is it
$113,000 with two and a half full-time employees?
MS. BLANTON: It's -- it's not -- It's not all volunteer
but use -- the volunteers under the direction of a staff member.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask if we reduce that to
one position, eliminate a position and a half on that, and I'll -- and
-- and I'll agree with the -- the rest of it. That -- I just want to
see the master gardener program continue because it is important to
people that live here. I mean, it's -- it's not helping businesses
solely. It's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- what -- What does it do
that they couldn't call up Driftwood Nursery and find out? I don't --
I mean, educate me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Driftwood Nursery or any other
nursery has a reason to sell products. The advice from a master
gardener is based on research information solely. It's not to push a
product. It's not to sell anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't they get it off the
Internet? I mean, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the master gardener will
often not even give you a chemical.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead and -- and poll the
board. I've -- I've left it where I'm -- I'm comfortable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's poll the board. We've
talked about it long enough. Start at that end.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Start down there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You start with me every time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want to leave the program
alone.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maintain 4-H and master gardener
and family consumer sciences. The rest are subject to elimination, in
my opinion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're saying cut
seventy-eight and one thirteen, assuming we can keep the 4-H intact?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 4-H and master gardener which is
a part of that one thirteen. They're going to need somebody to
control that program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He wants to keep one full-time
employee in that item there that's environmental safety, efficiency,
and landscaping.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to say cut
seventy-eight, cut the one thirteen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You too?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That leaves you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would like to keep the one full-time
employee and the master gardener program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we have a dollar figure
on that?
MS. BLANTON: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 40,000. 40,000 of that.
MR. OLLIFF: Forty-five four forty.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Forty-five four forty.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you cut seventy-eight?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the cuts there would be about
$250,000?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the next item, family and
consumer sciences, I have -- We had this discussion once before here
at the board if I remember, but the question has arisen whether or not
this information is all being provided from the public sector -- I
mean, from the private sector without us doing that.
MS. BLANTON: Those issues have been ironed out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
MS. BLANTON: Those issues have been ironed out, and
we're working collaberatively together.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I need to be informed
because I don't really want to spend 100,000 bucks if somebody else is
offering the service.
MS. BLANTON: It's -- It's working out that we're all
working together, and -- and that is -- We're providing the service
that jump-starts the rest of it.
MR. DORRILL: We'll get you a letter from that
organization.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not just that
organization. I mean, do -- do we need to be spending 100,000 bucks
doing this?
MR. DORRILL: Well, that's -- that's your call. I -- I
-- I'm sorry. I thought you were asking, you know, are we still at
odds with that not-for-profit group.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's part of it but I just
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think -- I think this -- this
portion of this budget is a real entry-level, ground-level -- below
ground level, frankly, of the economics of -- of -- that they're doing
entry level whereas the private sector is doing something beyond that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask this, if I may, of
Hiss Blanton.
MS. BLANTON: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does family consumer services,
does that 100,000 include the -- I believe it's two ladies that work
in -- in Farmworkers' Village working with the families?
MS. BLANTON: That is what we were eliminating.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's already been
eliminated.
MS. BLANTON: (Nodding head.)
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's no longer -- So
these are just the staff people that are supposed to coordinate
volunteers and help channel people in a program so they become more
self-sufficient and all that kind of stuff?
MS. BLANTON: (Nodding head.) And -- and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me exactly
what it is then? Because I -- I -- I guess I don't understand.
MS. BLANTON: Right now it's working with the trained
volunteers who do the family financial counseling. It's such things
as Heart at Work which is a commission program. It's also such things
as the first-time home buyer's program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is Heart at Work?
MS. BLANTON: Heart at Work was the -- what the
commission asked the county manager and others to do regarding
maintaining the health of the county employees through blood test --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Heart.
MS. BLANTON: -- analysis.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's Heart at Work.
MS. BLANTON: H-e -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Heart.
MS. BLANTON: H-e-a-r-t.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Heart.
MS. BLANTON: Heart, h-e-a-r-t.
MR. OLLIFF: A large portion of this particular program
will be spent on the first-time home buyer's program that we talked
about, and so you can at least look at an offsetting revenue of -- of
$25,000 off of that ninety-nine six cost that you have. So your net
cost is still -- is down about 75,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so we have two volunteer
coordinators essentially here? I mean, that's -- We could have the
argument with the library and the museum and everybody else as to how
many volunteers -- I mean, what do you need a volunteer coordinator
for?
MS. BLANTON: That's one pot -- That's one portion of
what they do. And by leveraging volunteer time -- and our volunteers
are retired CEOs, bankers, an accounting professor who wrote an
accounting book who -- who want to volunteer but need somebody to help
them connect and deliver that service.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Somebody or two somebodys?
MS. BLANTON: There's two somebodys. One is in the
volunteer financial counselor programming, and one is in the
first-time home buyers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you think maybe it would
make sense to have one person doing those volunteers instead of two
people?
MS. BLANTON: The breadth of the work when you have 120
volunteers and you have something like 200 people coming through with
home buyer issues is where we stand, and that's just the large chunks.
There's all the other 4-H work that is done and all -- and the family
community educators work that is done. There's all those other
things.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many volunteers do we
have at the library, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. OLLIFF: We have about 13,000 hours worth, I
believe. So that works out to about seven or eight full-time
equivalent positions.
MR. DORRILL: But it's spread across, I think, 50 to 80
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. We had over --
MR. DORRILL: -- different individuals.
MR. OLLIFF: We had over 200 at the volunteer
recognition luncheon that we had.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And how many volunteer
coordinators handle them? Half? MR. OLLIFF: One-half.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm supportive of this in
-- in some form and major form for the simple reason that we have
kind of adopted a policy that we would rather see home ownership in
Collier County than affordable housing rental units. We'd like to
push people to -- to be able to own that, and if we can do something
to help make that transition or get people into that home ownership,
it benefits everybody, and -- and so more than just a volunteer effort
is the track to put people in that position, and those two things
together I would like to see maintained. I'm not sure what the
staffing level to do that is, but that's my interest in that category.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree, but I like
to see some actual result, and you've been asking for that on each one
of these and rightfully so. "It's okay. Can you quantify it?" Can
you?
MS. BLANTON: We are --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, it sounds wonderful
and feels great but --
MS. BLANTON: Our targets are 500 people that we would
contact and see if they're interested in home -- they are -- see what
their interest and capability is in home ownership and that we would
take 200 of those 500 contacts and put them on the road to home
ownership.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're soliciting. This
isn't even people who are -- have the wherewithal to do this on their
own and are looking for assistance. This is -- We're going out and
saying, "Hey, do you want to buy a home?"
MS. BLANTON: No. These are --
MR. OLLIFF: These are people who probably have the
financial wherewithal but don't have the understanding about how to
access the system, and there are --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How do we find them?
MR. OLLIFF: -- bankers on one hand who have money.
There are people on the other hand who -- who could afford a loan and
don't know how to get into the system, and -- and we are out there in
the field dealing with primarily Spanish-speaking people, people who
just are at that lower economic level and don't understand that and --
and trying to get the two together.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm willing to give this one more
year, but I want to see quantified results after the next year is what
I would like to see.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm obviously in the
minority, but for me that falls into the personal responsibility
category. If they want to buy a home, they ought to take that on
themselves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I call it an enabler. And,
again, I agree with Commissioner Norris; I want to see a little more
concrete results, but I think it -- it enables people to spend more to
create more disposable income which particularly helps the communities
such as Immokalee, and if we can show results in that, then let's
pursue it, but I agree; we need to see something more than -- than
targets for this to -- to last another year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, if anybody wants to dispose of
their income, I'll take it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Blanton, this program,
family consumer services, it seems that we've -- we've agreed to
continue it at -- at least one more year, but it seems to me your
explanation to me of -- of this program is that it's -- it's much,
much broader than what we've -- we've talked about today. It -- it in
-- It includes education and budgeting. It includes education in
home -- homemaking, home repairs. It -- It's a very, very broad,
broad program that -- For really a small amount of money, we're
encouraging an awful lot of people to be better citizens.
MS. BLANTON: We also -- A component we haven't touched
on is working with -- with families at risk because of domestic
violence because one of the issues are the finances involved and
whether or not a family can move forward if there is an abusive
situation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those all feel great and
sound great. Let's just see some results when we do this next year.
And -- And I guess it bothers me a little bit when we've been
bickering all day about $2,000 items to hear 100,000 and $300,000
items referred as small-dollar items because we've spent, like, 45
minutes on a $2,000 item earlier today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are no small -- are no
small-dollar items.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 4-H.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On 4-H my only question was --
is, what are the fees for participating, and could that be higher.
You and I talked about this briefly. They don't even pay for, like,
their catalogs or something.
MS. BLANTON: They do not currently pay for what is
called a record book that they are required to turn in for every
project, and so they -- they could pay fees for record books. There
is not a membership fee in order to encourage as broad a participation
as possible, and what we tried to do to leverage -- to offset that is
have the 4-H foundation fund-raise and also the volunteer leadership
which does enable us to reach more than 3,000 youth -- I think the
number is 3,144 -- and have over 1,500 families involved in 4-H. And,
of course, we do have more than one sibling many times from one
family, but that only helps to me strengthen and make it holistic in
-- in orientation.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only -- My only reason for
bringing that up -- I don't want to do anything with the 4-H budget,
but I want to encourage you to do some more revenue generating for
your -- because some of these things that we're cutting are kind of
scary to be cutting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the 4-H foundation is -- we
do generate those revenues every year to try and offset it and reduce
-- Sure, we can do more. Why don't you write a check, and we'll --
we'll pick it up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- I mean, the thought
of our -- our Little League or whatever, there's a minimal
participation cost and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there may be some families
that we need to work with and do exactly what you're saying, but I'm
sure there are some who can afford a minimal cost to help offset some
of those.
MS. BLANTON: I agree with you, and that's one area that
we've discussed and -- and make headway on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe before we get through
on Monday we can have some idea of what kind of gener -- revenue we
can expect to be generated from that.
MR. OLLIFF: We can talk about a $5-per-child
participation fee which is equal to what our current Little League or,
you know, similar parks and rec type of program is. Denise opted
instead, I think, to -- to talk to the 4-H leadership and see if they
wouldn't fund-raise an equal amount of money and -- and turn it in as
revenue. I -- I don't think you care the source as long as I think
there is some -- some rational --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that revenue reflected in
this budget?
MS. BLANTON: No. No. Not currently.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will it be before we get
through the budget process?
MS. BLANTON: That's what you want on Monday afternoon?
Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not only for the -- for the
fees but for the 4-H group that said they're going to try to raise
money. Is that reflected in here?
MS. BLANTON: They would want, I think, help cover the
fees is what we talked about.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. For those kids who -- who
couldn't afford the -- MS. BLANTON: For those kids that couldn't -- couldn't
afford --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The scholarship program.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Which is what we did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that finish agriculture then?
MR. OLLIFF: So we will -- we will include that as a
wrap-up item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless you want to review
family and consumer science.
MS. BLANTON: I think we do need -- For my benefit, I
need a review.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Agriculture I think we finished then.
We're going to take a little break.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene. Before we start up
again, let me poll the board members. How late do you want to go
tonight? Six, eight, ten o'clock?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't think ten o'clock
but I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll go to 8:00.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight o'clock's fine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We all want to be rested and refreshed
and with bright, smiley faces when we meet the sheriff tomorrow so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like a bad western movie.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's hit it then.
What's next?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two -- two -- Two questions just
before we leave with -- As I was talking to Miss Blanton on the break,
there's some confusion about what our intention is and -- because this
is the first, like, cut of any significance, frankly, that we've done
today. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How can you say that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I'll tell you how I
can say it. Thank you for asking. My tally shows $227,200 cut so far
out of the $12.4 million gulp so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That hardly seems right since --
MR. DORRILL: I'd also add in the $288,000 cut in the
unincorporated area fund that may be replaced by fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That may be what?
MR. DORRILL: Replaced by higher development fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- and -- And I'm hoping
it's more than two eighty-eight. I'm hoping it's a million bucks. It
ought to be a million. But the cut so far are two twenty-seven.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that doesn't include the
museum and the -- and the --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. And the potential fee
increases in EMS and/or agriculture. Those are unknown at this point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Point well taken. It's
frustrating to be here all day and have little to show.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And knowing that we need $12.4
million, I've got -- got the answer to that question to get our $6
million if we have no franchise fee and no partial year and 6.4
million to reach our 1 percent goal. So 12.4 is what we're looking
for, ladies and germs. But on -- on Denise's budget we told her to
cut the program for research and advice to farmers, the underwriting
farmers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We told her to cut the program --
all but one person in the program that has to do with gardening.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that apparently is -- The way
this was set up, it's not as clear as that. For example, in that
$78,000, part of that is rent, part of that. I mean --
MS. BLANTON: Building office space, et cetera. So I'm
asking for clarification on that because you would be cutting Stewart
Swanson's position, Kevin Hill's position, and you would be cutting
Bob Peterson's position.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And unfortunately I don't know
any of those. They don't mean anything to me.
MS. BLANTON: And -- and maybe --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I go right back to what
I said before. We asked for a budget breakdown that listed particular
services and what their associated costs are, and you gave us that,
and we asked you to cut that service of seventy-eight four. Now, how
you -- how you need to do that, you need to figure that out. That --
That's your job.
MS. BLANTON: But part of that is the building which is
not going to go away.
MR. DORRILL: If there are no other associated cuts,
then we're going to roll that back up into base level because -- I
mean, it's still space that -- Our private janitorial contractor is
going to get paid to clean certain space unless we cut it out of the
contract.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then you need to do a better
job breaking down what your budget is because if we say we do no -- we
no longer want a particular item and that item has associated -- MS. BLANTON: So I should put all --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish,
do you -- and that has a particular cost associated with it and we say
we don't want that anymore, then that cost should disappear. I don't
want to hear, Well, okay, that cost isn't really it; it's X, Y, Z. If
-- If we're presented with this and we say we don't want that, then
the associated cost should disappear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there -- there may be
something -- and Commissioner Hac'Kie, if you don't agree with this,
tell me, and -- and I'll drop it. But in eliminating those positions
-- by eliminating Kevin Hill, our Collier County fair is affected
greatly, the 4-H program is affected greatly, and that's why I was
alluding to not cutting the 4-H.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those aren't in the summary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I understand that but
now '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the human beings are because
those FTEs are -- that -- that's not just one person. That's a quarter
of a person and a quarter of a person. That's a half a person. You
know what I mean?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A tenth of a person.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not like --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my -- My personal feeling
is the -- the -- Stewart Swanson goes out and does all the stuff for
the ag and everything and -- and I -- I agreed with you on that,
Commissioner Constantine. I agree with you in reducing the -- the
landscaping down to one person for the master gardener.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't break it down to
individuals. There is a program that is put here --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Try and break it down to
functions. I gave them a name hoping you might understand who I was
talking about. If not, never mind. The function is one that serves
not just ranching but serves our county fair that we support every
year that serves the 4-H significantly. I think the livestock program
of 4-H would be -- would be probably all but eliminated without that
representative. And if that's not enough clarification for anyone to
change their mind, then I'm spinning my wheels and we'll move on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if those things suffer
in any way, I place that blame on whoever put together this program
because it doesn't outline any of that for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And, frankly, for my vote,
more importantly than placing the blame on it, I would ask you to
bring back in wrap-up something that gets us close to cutting the
dollar numbers exactly as we've said while still accomplishing the
concerns we have about 4-H and the fair.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- Let me just interrupt here.
The direction of the board is to cut $78,400 and the program --
environmental safety and production efficiency and farming and
ranches, cut that program and cut those dollars. The other direction
of the board was to cut back the program of environmental safety and
production efficiency and landscaping from $113,600 to the $45,400
that Mr. Olliff mentioned and we agreed upon. Now, that's the
direction of the board. I don't want to hear personalities. I don't
want to hear names. That's up to the director of the department to
figure that out from there. You -- you -- you have -- You have a
reduction of $78,400 and a reduction of whatever that other one would
be, fifty -- $48,200 -- $58,200. You have those reductions, and you
lose those two programs. So you figure it out from there on, and
let's move on.
MS. BLANTON: Can I clarify one question Mr. -- What Mr.
Olliff said?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to end this at
some point?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- We need to end this discussion,
Miss Blanton. I mean, we've '-
MS. BLANTON: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I need to ask you -- I'll talk to Miss
Blanton through Mr. Olliff, and we'll -- we'll get it straightened
out.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we -- Can we ask Miss
Blanton too to consider some sort of fee structure rather than cut the
program, if she can institute fees to make up this money, for her to
come back with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, according to board
direction as Hr. Norris just surmised -- or summarized, $192,000 has
been cut. How -- how --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a hundred forty-seven.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who -- Who it affects and how it
impacts that department --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One forty-seven.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the manager's decision.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. I think the answer
to your question is yes. I mean, I -- I don't see why not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the revenue is on the
other page. I mean, can she increase the revenue to offset the --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course she can.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm just wondering.
MR. OLLIFF: The next budget is David Lawrence, and --
and their contribution hasn't changed over the last few years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm fine with this one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't need to discuss this one.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent presentation. It's not
even day eight, and we're testy already. Moving along rapidly.
MS. SNOW: The medical examiner, did you have any --
There's been no changes to the medical examiner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Medical examiner's a reduction.
I don't have a problem with that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How about public health?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we -- we skipped over
public health. Are we coming back --
MS. SNOW: No. No. We're coming to that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. SNOW: But we're okay with the medical examiner?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine.
MS. SNOW: Okay. That brings us to public health.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need a page. I've lost myself
again.
CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: tot.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 29 in your detailed book; page tOO,
101 in your -- I'm sorry, 29 in your summary book; 100, 101 in your
detailed book.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So health -- public health unit
is just under public services in our summary book? That's the only
place it shows up?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, sir. In your detailed book, it's
page 100. In the general fund, there's a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But in our summary book,
you said 29 which is all public services.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. It's there. In your detail book,
it's page 100.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because in the summary book we
don't get any special pages unless there's an increase. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gottcha. Okay.
MS. SNOW: It's basically -- it's the -- in the total
appropriations there was a slight decrease, but the net cost of the
general fund increased 4,300.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have some questions based on
information that is provided both in the annual report put out by the
public health unit and some information I received from other sources.
First is -- Maybe you can help me understand this. Last year we went
through a whole rigmarole on a contract to Collier County. What is
it? CC --
DR. POLKOWSKI: CHSI. Collier Health Services, Inc.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I was -- I was going
to get that wrong. In addition, there were some services undertaken
by Naples Community Hospital, I believe, in the Immokalee area that
previously had a charge of about $350,000 that was contained in your
budget; is that correct?
DR. POLKOWSKI: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three hundred.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: $300,000?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. The children --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you identify yourself?
DR. POLKOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm Jane Polkowski, the
director of the Collier County public health unit. The money that is
going to Immokalee went through the district, not the Collier County
public health unit.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- but --
DR. POLKOWSKI: District eight.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So those were state funds?
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
DR. POLKOWSKI: They're not health unit funds. Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
DR. POLKOWSKI: They went through the district.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Either way, but it -- it's
-- it was still a part of your budget, wasn't it?
DR. POLKOWSKI: No. Not for Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For what then?
DR. POLKOWSKI: The money for Immokalee, for Isabel
Collier Read is state dollars that went directly to Isabel Collier
Read through the district, not through the health unit. So it was not
part of our budget.
MR. DORRILL: It's here in -- It's here in Naples. When
-- When she went through the contract and privatization -- She has
privatized all of her clinical services in the clinic. Patient care
was privatized here in Naples last year, and the provider is a joint
venture between CHSI and Naples Community Hospital. That's the
$300,000 issue.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I'm talking about is
-- and maybe these are --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. I don't think that's
right. That's not right, is --
DR. POLKOWSKI: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- it, Doctor?
DR. POLKOWSKI: We -- We did privatize the maternal
child health services in the clinic in a partnership with CHSI. That
has nothing to do with the $300,000 that went to Isabel Collier Read
which was strictly for Immokalee. That's a totally separate
arrangement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, let me ask you another
question. Now, on -- starting back in November, did the Naples
Community Hospital take over one of your functions from you concerning
pregnant women and child care?
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's in partnership with CHSI. The
partnership is between CHSI, Isabel Collier Read, which is really also
with Naples Community Hospital, and the health department, and in that
partnership CHSI provides the in-clinic type of services. We provide
ancillary services. And I provided you written information on that I
think at least a couple of times and also verbally presented that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, the question is, what is the
dollar amount of those services that you no longer have to provide.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. We were cut by the state last
year by $370,000 approximately and we -- and that was mostly in the
primary care area, primary care services. In the primary care program
area, we have several different types of services that are provided,
maternal health which is listed as IPO. There's child health.
There's adult health. There's chronic disease. There's school health
and WIC. All of these are listed in the primary care program area.
The primary care dollars that we get from the state and we got from
the state included money, some of which was very specific for child
health. Other monies were not. They were general primary care which
then covered a number of these different services. We elected, rather
than reducing services from a lot of different areas, to concentrate
and privatize maternal child health in this partnership, and in this
partnership CHSI supplies the physicians, the nurses, the clinical
aids to provide the services on our clinic's site. You know, that's
when we had talked about the fact that they're using our clinic space.
At the same time, we're providing the ancillary services for the
patients. And if you recall, you know, there's a sheet that I sent to
you a couple of times which had three columns. Last year this is what
the health unit provided and then two columns for this year. The
middle column is what CHSI provides to the patients. The right-hand
column is what the health unit provides to the patients. And the
health unit provides the kind of ancillary services such as
pharmaceuticals, pharmacy services, social work counseling, field
work, case management in the field, nutrition counseling, HIV
counseling and testing because they don't do that.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Dr. Polkowski. I
don't feel like we're getting any closer to an answer to a question
that was just asked.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I try and ask it?
DR. POLKOWSKI: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you repeat the question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The question was, what is the -- what
is the dollar value of the services that you no longer have to
provide.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In 30 words or less.
DR. POLKOWSKI: The -- The value of their services -- I
think we sent that to you in a report that just went out recently,
what was their cost, you know, and the privatization.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. No. No. Not their cost. The
cost that you no longer have to provide.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much does it save you?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. What -- what --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How much does it save you?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. We had a net effect of about
$450,000 on us as a result of this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how did that budget
differential show up in your request or in your budget last year? In
other words, where is that money?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, we redu -- We had our budget --
total budget reduced by about $400,000, but we also had some increase
in categorical money from the state at the same time, such as
immunizations and WIC. So if you look at our budget last year as
compared to this year, we had a reduction of about $400,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me point to a single item in
your 1995 annual report that causes great concern for me, and I want
to make it very clear. Your level one programs under communicable
disease, I -- I don't have any desire to tinker with those. I think
that is, in fact, a function that local government needs to be
involved in. It's important, and I think it should continue.
However, under level two programs, primary care -- which the
definition of primary care is something I -- I'm seeking -- I notice
under comprehensive adult primary care in 1995 you served 58 clients
total. The cost of those services was $284,219, working out to $4,900
per person for comprehensive adult primary care.
DR. POLKOWSKI: That doesn't sound right. What page --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well --
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- are you looking at?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm on your -- your 1995 public
health unit document which was received in my office not too long ago,
and I am on page -- The pages aren't numbered.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. I'm sorry. That was an incorrect
reporting number. We are seeing now on an annualized basis -- I'm
sorry. I didn't catch that at all -- about 1,800 patients on an
annualized basis --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So somehow --
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- now, and that's increased over last
year, but that 58 is incorrect.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's level two?
DR. POLKOWSKI: I should have picked that up. I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Level two?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, that's adult health. Level two --
If you look at level two programs, there are several -- several there.
There's chronic disease prevention. There's WIC. There's family
planning, maternal health, healthy start, comprehensive -- Well, you
-- you can see those without my reading them. There are several
within level two. That's the primary care program area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is if I receive a
report on my desk that shows a 5,000-per-client amount and that was
missed completely, I don't have a lot of confidence in the balance of
what I'm looking at. For someone not to see that is -- is a gross
oversight, and I'm -- I'm rather surprised, to be quite frank with
you, and disappointed. Primary care to the tune of county funding
according to this of $852,000 of which WIC is not a part of -- DR. POLKOWSKI: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of which communicable disease
is not a part of --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Hmm-hmm.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I need a little better
understanding of -- and I asked this question of you and got a
memorandum back that threw in communicable disease and -- and the
kitchen sink and everything else with it. I want to know what is
primary care, and who qualifies, period.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- And it's in light of that
when you were here lately, you said people have a misconception about
public health. We -- we aren't -- We don't -- don't provide care.
That's not what we do primarily. I'm confused. I'm real confused.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. Public health is not indigent
health care. Okay. That's -- That's important to know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so who -- So answer that
question. Who --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. But a part of what public health
does is helping people access -- access basic primary care that
they're otherwise having difficulty accessing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does that mean you provide it, or
you introduce them to it? What does that mean, helping them access?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Either one. And in our case we have
been providing adult health chronic disease and maternal child health
until last year, and that's because the people really had a difficult
time in getting the services in the private sector and so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not in this best budget.
That's not in here anymore so --
DR. POLKOWSKI: The maternal child part is not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- but the adult health and chronic
disease is still there. We're still providing that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And tell me what that looks like.
I mean, what do they do? Do they actually come to doctors or -- or
nurse practitioners or somebody -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- at public health?
DR. POLKOWSKI: It's just like going to your private
doctor's office. Host of the conditions that we see in our clinic are
due to high blood pressure and diabetes. Those are the two most
common conditions, and I think you have to understand those are
chronic conditions that if there is not continuing management, you
wind up with much more expensive costs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question on that?
Maybe I'm just missing the point here, but you just got done saying it
is not indigent health care. If it's primarily high blood pressure or
those type things --
DR. POLKOWSKI: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- why don't they just go to
their physician?
DR. POLKOWSKI: I'm sorry. Public health as a whole has
a misperception in the public and for a lot of people that it is just
for the indigents. It is not. Public health is concerned about
protecting and promoting the health of everyone in the community.
Part of what it does is addressing the needs of the indigents. That's
a part of what it does. And those needs are addressed in primary care
area. Some of them also in -- of course, in communicable disease
because certainly many of the poor have also very high rate of
infectious diseases. And also in environmental health when it comes
to, for example, migrant camp inspections. So one of the areas --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Set aside the indigent care,
and explain to me the other people. Why are they there? How did they
get there? Who are they? If they're not indigent, I -- I'm not
getting it. Maybe I'm all alone.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I've got one remark.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't understand.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even if they are indigent, how
does this tie into that we have a hospital that turns nobody away?
-- So if the hospital is going to turn nobody away, what do we have
to pay out of property tax dollars for? I mean, it seems it's
either/or.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Polkowski, I'm afraid your
numbers as presented in your '95 report verify that you are, in fact,
primarily dollar-wise providing indigent care. Under level one
programs, the county portion is 275,000. Under level three programs
which are environmental health -- and we'll get into those in a few
minutes -- is 180,000. But under primary care, of which no county
funds go to the WIC program, $852,000. So of $1.3 million, 850,000 is
actually going toward indigent care. Am I wrong in making that
statement?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, if you -- Yes. I -- I would say
that that's not quite correct, and the reason is, when we look at
other programs such as school health, school health screenings are
required by statute, and it is done on children regardless of income
level. That's not indigent health care as an example.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's in the eight
fifty-two?
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's -- That's in there, yes. The --
And I think, you know, when we look at the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's 45,000.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's $45,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So now we're to eight o
seven. So what's in the eight o seven that's not indigent, and why
can't they go to the emergency room and get that care since --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, it's much more expensive, of
course, and then we wind up with, you know, a lot of other problems.
If you really do expect people to get their care in the emergency room
for -- for these conditions, I think you -- you know, the conditions
would be really very difficult for our community.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not it. We're not sitting
here trying to redirect people. What we're trying to do is -- as far
as I understand, is gain an understanding of what Collier County tax
dollars are doing in the primary care area, and by being told in the
past that it -- that your function is not primarily indigent care, yet
seeing the numbers in your '95 report and hearing what I've heard
today, I'm hearing different stories, and before I go committing
either the same or, God forbid, an increased level of local tax
dollars to a primary care area, I want to know something about
criteria, I want to know something about who decides how much the
county should fund. I looked at this comprehensive adult care, and of
the total amount funded there, which is 285,000, county funds are 61
percent of that. Who determines whether the county pays 61 percent or
the state pays more? How are these ratios defined? Because I am
answerable for the tax burden on the county taxpayer, and I'm not sure
why every ratio in the primary care area is different county versus
state, and I'm not sure why we're there in the first place.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. As far as the ratios, it does
depend upon whether there's categorical money coming or whether there
are fees coming or Hedicaid coming, and the distribution has changed
based upon that.
The indigents that -- the medically indigent that come
in for chronic disease and adult health are adults who for about 90
percent are -- have no third-party coverage. Only about 10 percent
will have a source of payment like Hedicaid, and they're almost all --
I mean, they're predominantly less than 100 percent of federal poverty
level. The federal poverty level for a family of three right now is
less than $13,000. So that means six dollars and a quarter an hour
for the wage earner. And from the information I got from our local
Chamber of Commerce, we have thousands of employees here that are
making less than $7 an hour and are not getting health insurance.
Health -- You know, basically what we're doing is providing a service
to help these people stay productive, healthy workers, to stay out of
the hospital and the emergency room which is much more expensive and
there's -- They just don't have the resources to pay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I need -- Before we go any
further on this, I need someone to help me put this together here.
Page 100, the big book, I look at the grand total of five million
eight hundred and I look over on page 101 and I see net cost to the
general revenue of one million one twenty-six. And in my summary
information on page 29, the only mention of the public health
department is the one million one twenty-six. What is -- Help me put
this all together.
MS. SNOW: I can tell what I know, is that I -- I asked
Roger that very same question, and I am new, but evidently last year
they decided to do it this way. He said that about 23 percent, Roger,
of each of these levels are part of that one million one twenty-six.
And the real person to ask I think would be Roger Evans.
MR. OLLIFF: If you look on page 101 of the budget --
the big book I guess as you're calling it -- the two forty-eight
number that you see in -- in the fiscal year '97 column, that's
actually money that the county pays directly to support building,
janitorial services, and support of the utility cost for Building
H-related expenses and some, I believe, in Immokalee. The
distribution figure is the cash number that we actually give to the
health department which then, as Commissioner Hancock was showing in
different percentages, they break it out into all the different
programs that they provide. So the actual out-of-pocket cash from the
county each year is that one million one twenty-six number.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Well, what then --
MS. SNOW: But you're trying to tie it; right?
MR. OLLIFF: On page 100 is their total cost for each of
those different levels, and ours is only a percentage of that total
cost.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the difference is state tax
dollars and payment through Medicaid or -- I assume -- I assume if
someone has private insurance, we're not dealing with them? DR. POLKOWSKI: That's right.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Well, then the only -- the only impact
to ad valorem is one million one twenty-six is what you're telling us?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
MS. SNOW: Yes. Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: We also -- As part of the -- the contract
that we show you, we also show at least the county contribution in the
form of rent which we are providing to -- and -- and we went into that
whole discussion, but it's about four to -- $450,000 I think is the
value of the rental space that they're in. CHAI~ NORRIS: Then -- well --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know what I find a little
frustrating, I guess, is out of a million one twenty-six which is a
portion of almost 6 million, this is all the information I have. We
-- we don't -- And I know during the year you give us everything. DR. POLKOWSKI: That's all we were asked.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this is -- for -- For the
budget standpoint, this is all I have which doesn't break it down at
all. And Commissioner Hancock has gone and taken the annual report
and broken that down, and then we're told on three or four of his
items, "Well, there must be an error. That's -- That's factually
incorrect." And so it's very, very frustrating to have that as -- as
the primary source of information and then be told, oh, that -- that's
mistaken.
DR. POLKOWSKI: We'll be glad -- glad to supply details
for you, but this is all that we were -- we're requested to submit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me -- let me ask if
another -- DR. POLKOWSKI: We would be very glad to submit other
data.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask if another item I have
is correct. Under primary care, chronic disease prevention program,
253 people served at a cost of $258,000 at $1,020 a person to prevent
chronic disease. Again, I'm missing something here, and my -- my --
my concern here is that you were getting to where -- the point that I
was asking in a memorandum to you some time ago which is, you began
talking about poverty level, about how we have a federally set poverty
level and that those people below that poverty level, I assume, is a
target area for the public health unit.
DR. POLKOWSKI: For certain primary care programs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. For certain primary care
programs. If I come in and I'm a three -- three-member family making
17,000 instead of 13,000, am I seen by the Collier County public
health unit at no charge with no repayment? DR. POLKOWSKI: No.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So only those people who have
verified incomes less than the federal poverty level are seen?
DR. POLKOWSKI: No. No. The reason I said no is
because you said no payment. We have a sliding fee scale for those
that are just above poverty. Host of the people that we see are below
poverty, but when you have somebody who's making $10 or $20 above
poverty, they're still pretty poor, but we do have a sliding fee
scale. So that -- that's the reason I said no, because you said that
you can go in and get free care.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- What is your collection
rate, and where does that show up in your budget?
DR. POLKOWSKI: That is included as part of the whole
budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How much --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Our collection rate is -- Let's see.
Roger maybe can give you that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tell me how much was billed and
how much was collected last year. The reason I'm asking is I get this
sneaky feeling that, yes, we are recognizing the federal poverty
level, but we're providing services well beyond that without
collecting substantial funds, even on a sliding scale, for those
people. You know, there -- there have got to be limits that we set,
and when we -- we push that envelope up a little bit and do more and
more and more, eventually it -- it hits home, and I look at some of
these numbers at what the county is expending versus what the state is
expending, you know, and -- and it just doesn't sit well with me.
There's something wrong here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even though I absolutely agree
that the emergency room is not where people should be getting their
primary care, the reality is -- is we're told every day that we're
paying the fees that we're paying at Naples Community Hospital because
nobody's turned away. So that gives me some comfort in -- in -- in
being willing to cut some of these -- these budget numbers rather
significantly. And I'm saying that, Dr. Polkowski, so you'll tell me,
put a face on who's not going to get care -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if I would say --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Roger --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: .... Let's cut a million bucks."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear the answer
from Roger.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. I'd like to hear the answer
from Roger.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I was just talking during
the looking-it-up phase.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- What was billed last
year, and what amount was collected -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on this sliding scale?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Roger is -- is collecting that. To
answer Commissioner Hac'Kie's question, there would be 1,800 people
that would not be served through adult health chronic disease. If
dental was limited, that's also about 1,800 individuals would not be
served.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not talking about
elimination here. I think what you're saying is that if we reduce a
portion of the funding --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- how does that affect this
sliding scale thing we're about to hear about?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who's not going to get served if
we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those 1,800 people are whom?
They're all indigent --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many of them are below
poverty level?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Host of them are below the poverty
level. The remaining are going to be between 100 and 120 percent of
federal poverty level because we have to draw the line somewhere, and
-- and those fees are going to be 17 percent of the usual and
customary fees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 177
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What percent?
DR. POLKOWSKI: I believe it's 17 percent --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One seven.
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- for -- for those that are between 100
and -- and 120 percent of federal poverty level because they're not
going to be able to pay the full fee that we can pay. So there is a
sliding fee scale that actually the state sets the intervals for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You started off by saying
most of the people.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that 51 percent? Is that
99 percent?
DR. POLKOWSKI: For the adult health and chronic
disease, it will be about 80 percent or below poverty. That's the
poverty level, and the others are going to be very -- you know, just
slightly above it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You said -- I think I heard you just
say that the state sets your sliding scales for you?
DR. POLKOWSKI: They set the intervals.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They set the intervals.
DR. POLKOWSKI: We set the fee amounts --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you --
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- through you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have the ability, then, to charge
more --
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to these people?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Right. But they set the intervals. In
other words, we can't go ahead and say, well, we'll charge 33 percent
of the full fee for those between 100 and 120 percent of federal
poverty level. They set the intervals for the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if we --
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- different poverty levels.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we cut the funding in this
area, that percentage will grow; am I correct? You can still serve
people up to 120 percent if you go from 17 percent to 30 percent.
DR. POLKOWSKI: We can -- We can serve people above 100
percent, yes, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- What I'm asking is --
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- I'm -- I'm missing something.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, your
question earlier was, what happens if we cut, put a face on it, and
what I'm saying is that 17 percent has been arrived at, how we don't
know, but if we cut the funding for primary care, in all likelihood
that 70 percent -- 17 percent will probably grow to try and make up
for it, or the client base will be reduced as to those people that are
served, neither of which I'm opposed to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. The second one concerns
me. The client base will be reduced. Does that mean that people will
go without health care?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll go to the emergency room.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the Collier County public
health unit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll go to the emergency room.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not -- Not for dental care or
not for -- That would be at the upper echelon of that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This thing's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of those who are getting
it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Dr. -- Dr. --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's kind of -- kind of like an
octopus, trying to get your arms around it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Dr. Polkowski, how -- how do we
arrive at 17 percent?
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's by statute, I believe. Is that
right or is it -- That's a rule by the state. That's not us.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So --
DR. POLKOWSKI: How is that derived?
MR. EVANS: I'm sorry. I was concentrating on the other
issue. What was the question?
DR. POLKOWSKI: The intervals --
MR. EVANS: The intervals for the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait. Wait. Wait. Let's get
you on a microphone, if we may, please.
MR. EVANS: Roger Evans, Collier public health unit.
The intervals that are set on the sliding fee scale are handed down to
us as mandated sliding fee scale intervals. They are set at 17
percent, and they start at less than 100 percent of the poverty and --
and stop at 200. At 200 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mandated by the state.
MR. EVANS: At 200 percent, individuals are responsible
to pay 100 percent of -- of the local fees. And in between, the fees
are set based on the 17 percent interval.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What about my first
question? Do you have an answer to that? How much -- MR. EVANS: Your -- Your first question based on -- I
want to give you some figures for half of the current year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine.
MR. EVANS: That's real life, a little more current
reality. For half of the current year, the county fee component of
what we're talking about, level two primary care-related programs,
amounts to $27,000. Now, that's in the -- across all of those
programs. That's -- That's the actual collection. The actual amount
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you repeat that again?
I'm sorry.
MR. EVANS: The actual collection for October 1 through
March 31 for the level two primary care programs in total was -- I
have in my records indicating $27,000. Now, I can't -- I don't have
in front of me here what's that out of in terms of an accounts
receivable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. In other words, how much
was billed.
MR. EVANS: Yeah. I -- I'd have to go back and -- and
query our accounts receivable records on that. I just have what we
show as collected for that time period. I will tell you that in -- in
the -- in the total amount of -- of revenue to programs, specifically
level two programs, you're not talking about big dollars here. You're
talking about 2 percent of the entire total revenue for the level two
programs. So we can scrutinize the collections, but I will tell, you
just looking at the sliding fee scale, as you can well imagine, with
more than 80 percent of our clients, less than 100 percent of the
poverty, the remaining number of people being charged some dollars and
those dollars are progressively increasing small amounts at 17 percent
intervals, you're not talking about very much money of a fee
generation. It's -- it's -- It's an area that just is not the
producer of the revenue to operate public health programs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the -- the purpose of my
question was to focus on your efforts to collect those fees and see
what success rate you were having because obviously if there's a
sliding scale and a great number of people that are -- are using it
are not paying, what's the purpose of having a sliding scale?
MR. EVANS: But the number of the people that are
responsible to pay is what I was trying to get across. The number of
people that are -- that are responsible to pay, less than 20 percent.
And of those 20 percent, the amount that they are responsible to pay
is -- is a very small amount.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question? There's
$2.6 million in level two primary care, and there's a one point --
1,126,000 coming from ad valorem. How much of the million one
twenty-six goes to level two primary care? Eight seventy-eight three
hundred? How much is -- Is that -- the question clear?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The question is clear. I can --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's the
right answer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That can't be the right answer though.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that would eliminate
county contributions to level one and level three programs.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this -- While they're looking
at it, this brings up what I was saying about how the percentages for
each line item -- it almost looks like the state sets an amount, and
-- and whatever the county pot that's thrown in kind of makes up
whatever the total is at the end of the year rather than setting a
county-shared percentage in any of those areas.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what I'm interested in
knowing is, what does the county pay for level two primary care. Just
-- What's the dollar amount? Because then I will be able to make
some assessment about whether or not I think that's an appropriate
amount, but I can't tell from what we have so --
And while they're looking, let me see if I'm getting
this straight. Nobody is talking about monkeying with level one,
communicable disease control.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Although we don't know how much
of this -- these funds are targeted for level one.
DR. POLKOWSKI: You have staff that are working in both
areas though. It's not like you just have staff working in level one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. That's the same
argument we heard --
DR. POLKOWSKI: So they're working in both areas.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
DR. POLKOWSKI: You know, but this is the way legally we
have to do our budget. That's the way legally we have to do it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. But you can still be
prepared to answer questions --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- from us even though --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Sure will.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- you have a format.
DR. POLKOWSKI: All right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then you can still --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yeah. Looking at this year's contract
budget, the county portion for the -- for the -- for this year's
budget is about $555,000 for level two, and level two includes a lot
of different areas.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So how much -- and that was --
That's last year's budgeted amount?
DR. POLKOWSKI: No. That's this year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's in this budget we're
looking at?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much in level one --
DR. POLKOWSKI: No. That's this --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and level three?
DR. POLKOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm -- I'm -- I apologize.
When you say last year, I'm thinking this year on'95/'96 and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, on these pages.
DR. POLKOWSKI: On these pages. Okay. At this point we
do not have our state allocations yet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, there's your answer.
DR. POLKOWSKI: We won't have it until the end of July
or early August. We don't know yet what the state is going to give
us. Every year we go through this and -- you know, we're before the
commissioners before we know how much the state is going to give us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That five fifty-five just to
-- Looking for a very quick answer here. Five fifty-five primary
care, what's the rest? That leaves you 575,000 or something and of
that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's last year's number.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all right. How much
DR. POLKOWSKI: Current -- Okay. For level one it's
five ninety-seven. For level three it's two fifty-six.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask -- Let me ask another
pertinent question here. Is there a state-mandated match to their
funds? When they give you their -- their funding in July -- DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- are we required to give a specific
percentage match to that?
DR. POLKOWSKI: In the -- Act 154, it addresses the
partnership between the county and the state in providing public
health services to the local population. But to answer your question,
there is no specific dollar amount that is written in the act.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or percentage.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Or percentage. So it's very variable
between counties, and I believe I sent you that per capita rate
contribution per county for the -- the prior year, and although we
ranked third in per capita income and although we had a higher poverty
rate than those who had high per capita incomes, all the higher -- all
the other high per capita income counties gave a larger per capita
contribution to their health unit than Collier County. I gave you
that breakdown.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I remember that very
clearly.
DR. POLKOWSKI: It was in these long sheets.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I hate to say this, but I'm
not swayed at all about what -- by what other counties do. I'm more
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think you hated saying
that. I think you enjoyed saying that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I go back? I just asked
-- We asked a minute ago for a breakdown, and you said five
ninety-seven, five fifty-five, and two fifty-six. That's -- That adds
up to 1,408,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's 300,000 more than what
we're being asked for.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's 300,000 more than is
in the current year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Plus that's operating.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Plus another two forty-eight
which is operating. So that gets you up to one six fifty. DR. POLKOWSKI: That includes the fees.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- The question that I
thought was asked was, how much is -- DR. POLKOWSKI: The revenue, the fees collected, because
we collect also environmental health fees --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't the question.
The question before was, how much was Collier County's contribution to
level two, and you said five fifty-five. And I said how much was our
contribution to level one and level three, and you told me, and that
all --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What were those numbers?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That all -- It's five
ninety-seven, five fifty-five, and two fifty-six which tallies
1,408,000 which does not equal either the existing years or the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Prior.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- proposed year, or the
prior year for that matter. And -- And so that -- Either you didn't
answer the question that was asked, or we have wrong numbers.
DR. POLKOWSKI: The budget includes all the fee
collections which is not included in your other sheet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that something needs
to be subtracted, but I need to know what that is. Can you -- Can you
tell us?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question again was, what
was the county's contribution. The county's contribution --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So minus the fees.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- doesn't include those
fees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So subtract the fees, and tell us
what the answer to the question is.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. We'll have to subtract the fees.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How come in your budget there's
no mention of fees?
DR. POLKOWSKI: There is a mention of fees in the
contract budget in the last several pages. It's part of the contract
budget. There's a detailed description of how many fees we collect,
what fees we collect that you approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sitting here looking at your
program budget summary for nine -- you know, as of 9-30-1995, and
there's state expenditure and county expenditure, services, clients,
FTEs, total expenditure, no mention of fees. They're not on the page.
They're not in your '95 report. They're not in our budget. You know,
what has been happening all along, I think, is because this is so
unwieldy blindly, we have been kind of moving along and saying, well,
how much more is it than last year.
DR. POLKOWSKI: We would gladly give you more
information. We would gladly give you more information, but this is
what we were asked to provide, and this is the way the budget contract
legally is developed. The fees are a part of the budget contract. If
you have the budget contract in front of you, you'll see the last
attachments describe our estimated fees that -- that we -- the fee
collection that we anticipate through Hedicaid, through environmental
health, through patient pay. All of that is included in the budget
contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much did the county
contribute to level one, to level two, and level three?
MR. EVANS: Commissioners, I think I can help you with
your question --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. EVANS: -- since we're --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're going to get it.
MR. EVANS: -- trying to help you understand, and you
have hit the nail on the head. It is extremely complex. Somebody
used the word "octopus," in getting all the arms around it. It really
is very difficult. It's an extremely complicated, integrated process.
You're absolutely right; you don't have the contract in
front of you. If you did, many of your questions, specific dollar
amounts would be able to be answered.
Let me answer your -- your -- your question that's still
on the docket right now. Your question as I understand it is, how
many of the dollars that the county is providing through what you see
before you as the county budget dollars -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. EVANS: How many of those county budget dollars are
actually integrated into level one, level two programs.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And level three.
MR. EVANS: Okay. And level three. $874,000 which you
will see as a figure that's related to your contribution to the public
health unit line item on the pages that you have in front of you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. EVANS: That is the figure that is used in the
spread across all of the programs that we've been referring to several
times as part of your contract document which is presented to you in
October. It's the $874,000 which is spread program by program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you'll tell us how much in
each, please?
MR. EVANS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. EVANS: There -- There are quite a number of
programs here. Do you want them one at a time, or do you want --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Level one, level two, level
three.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And level three.
MR. EVANS: All right. I think Dr. Polkowski mentioned
those figures to you a little while ago, but because you have a clear
-- a clear understanding of it now -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They didn't add up.
MR. EVANS: Okay. Well, they didn't add up to the
figure that you have in front of you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because of fees.
MR. EVANS: -- because there are more than just the
county --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can someone please --
MR. EVANS: All right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- answer the question?
MR. EVANS: Level one, county dollars, five hundred
ninety-seven thousand --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That can't be right.
MR. EVANS: -- four hundred and fifty-six dollars
because 597,000 includes the part of the 800,000 and its part of fees
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Subtract the fees, please. Five
ninety-seven minus how much collected in fees, actually collected in
fees, not billed, equals how much paid by county taxpayers for level
one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this really that hard of a
question? I -- I thought you had it when you -- when you -- when you
pointed out a minute ago what we're looking for is from this money
that's being contributed in this budget right in front of us --
MR. EVANS: Let me give you a figure to subtract --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and you said eight hundred
seventy-four, and of that eight seventy-four --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's got it. He's got it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What goes into each of those
three?
MR. EVANS: Let me give you a figure to subtract from
the $500,000 figure that I gave you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do this math for us. Okay? Five
ninety-seven minus --
MR. EVANS: $218,850.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those are fees collected for
level one programs?
MR. EVANS: We're working on equal numbers here. I've
given you equal numbers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three seventy-eight six o six is
-- is the result --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say it again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: $378,606 is the resulting number.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Got it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Level two --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the time frame?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five fifty-five minus --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you give us that same ratio on
level two, that will get us there, or same relationship. Excuse me.
MR. EVANS: $156,770.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So 555,000 even? I just
want to be accurate.
MR. EVANS: Thank you. $555,469.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four sixty-nine, and we're
subtracting --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One fifty-six.
MR. EVANS: One fifty-six seven seventy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have the resulting amount of
three hundred ninety-eight thousand six hundred ninety-eight -- six
hundred ninety-nine dollars.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So add those two together.
MR. EVANS: Now you want -- Now you want level three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Level three.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the result of that
one?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Say that figure again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three ninety-eight six
ninety-nine is the resulting figure for level two.
MR. EVANS: Your level three figure off of the level
total is two fifty-six four o five.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two fifty-six four o five, and we
are subtracting --
MR. EVANS: Wait a minute. Uh-oh. I've been giving
them a mistake. I beg your pardon, Commissioners. I have given you
state fee figures, so I am very sorry. We have figures broken down
between state and county revenues. I know that's frustrating to you,
but it's just an example of how extremely complicated these elements
are. Let me --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it make any sense to --
MR. EVANS: Let me -- Let me give you two numbers--
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just do the public health
item another day when they're prepared to be able to answer the
questions?
MR. EVANS: Commissioner Constantine, if you'd be kind
enough to provide us with your questions, we will be certain, because
this is so -- The matrix of potentials is so incredibly extreme, the
combinations of individual elements subtracted, extruded, compiled is
so incredibly immense that we would like to answer your questions as
specifically as you want. It would be much more beneficial for us to
have those, at least in general terms so that we know the general area
of your interest.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask the board to -- If you
indulge me, what I am looking for is -- We had started off trying to
find the gross numbers for levels one, two, and three that -- that
come out of this $1,126,300. I want to see a breakdown on that
amount.
MR. EVANS: Okay. What I -- What I'm offering to you is
that -- obviously what you don't have in your budget book is an
example of how this gets broken down. I would suggest that what we
can provide to you and would probably answer the vast majority -- at
least the questions that have been posed to us here today, is a copy
of the elements of the budget parts of the contract. It has all of
these very specific figures that you've been asking us to respond to
you verbally on. We can provide you with that, and once you peruse
that, you can formulate your questions around the information that you
see in there --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a better idea.
MR. EVANS: -- or any others, of course --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't -- Why don't I --
MR. EVANS: -- but it would help -- but it would help to
structure --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't I tell you what I want,
and then you can provide it. Okay?
MR. EVANS: That's -- That's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. EVANS: We're very happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what we're doing.
MR. EVANS: But it -- it -- it's -- it's easier --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty-five minutes later.
MR. EVANS: -- for us to be able to put these parts
together which, believe me, the matrix of the potential combinations
is so extreme that it's making it difficult for us in front of you to
do that. It's not that we can't answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It scares me just a little --
MR. EVANS: It's just hard to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It scares me just a little
bit -- It scares me just a little bit that you're asking for $1.1
million and you don't have any idea how much is going toward level
one, level two, or level three. There may be some wild complex
formula that gets you to the 1.1 million, but I've got to assume you
have some concept.
MR. EVANS: Commissioner, we -- we know.
DR. POLKOWSKI: We know.
MR. EVANS: It's just that it's not in a structure that
we can immediately respond with a number to you. The structure in the
format is inconsistent with the method that -- of the questions that
you're asking us. We have the information. It just simply needs to
be derived in a way that we can answer your question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, based on the little -- the
lack of information that we've been -- the information we are unable
to get today, I can't support this budget item. I don't see -- I
don't see what in here I should be spending so -- I mean, for my vote
we can cut a million dollars. We can bring it back at wrap-up and see
if there's something to spend the money on.
MR. EVANS: If you had the copy of the contract before
you -- again, many of these -- many of these questions would be
answered. Dr. Polkowski has indicated to you what we have provided to
you in terms of the budget process is exactly what we have been asked
to give.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. EVANS: It's also consistent with what we've given
in the past two or three budgets.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We understand that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're paying attention this
year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We understand that, and I'll tell you
what. We're not really concerned with what you do with all that state
money at this point today. We don't care about that. What we care --
What we care about and what we're charged with the responsibility of
is taking care of this one million one hundred twenty-six thousand
dollar -- three hundred -- and three hundred dollar request for next
year.
MR. EVANS: And we will break that down in any method
that you want it broken down.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- And maybe we can help you on
that.
MR. EVANS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe we can help you bring back a
request for --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to say -- you --
You just threw out a million. I'm going to say we won't cut
everything, but I -- I -- I'm not comfortable -- I'm sure there is
some necessary expense in here. I see operating expenses of 250,000,
so I know we need to leave that. You -- You have to turn the power on
over there and do a few other things but --
MR. EVANS: It's the overhead for the building.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the -- you know, that
still leaves 900,000, 875,000 that we can't be told what it all is
for. So I -- I'm sure there's maybe two or 300,000 that you can tell
us off the top of the head what that's for. So I'm going to suggest
we cut 500,000 out of this now. And if you can come back and justify
that to us, we can look at that at another time, but we've been --
we've been on here almost an hour. We've been asking the same question
for 35 minutes and haven't been able to get an answer. We were told
an answer twice that was incorrect.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I can give you an answer to how much
you're contributing for primary care. There are about $56,000 in
fees. So you subtract the 56,000 from the 555,000, and that's 500,000
for primary care.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how much in -- in level
one and level three?
DR. POLKOWSKI: In level one you subtract 190,000 from
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five ninety-seven.
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- five ninety-seven.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What was that two eighteen
number he gave us?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the state --
DR. POLKOWSKI: He was giving the state --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- state fees.
MR. EVANS: Commissioners, I -- I had indicated to you I
was using the state listing, and when I started to give you the county
side, you decided to move on but --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's do this again.
MR. EVANS: -- Jane was --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute. Those two by
themselves still add up to more than $874,000. I mean, it doesn't add
up, and -- and for 35 minutes or 45 minutes you haven't been able --
DR. POLKOWSKI: The reason --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to add it up for us.
DR. POLKOWSKI: The reason why it also is more is
because the operating costs are also included in that budget part.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I --
DR. POLKOWSKI: The budget includes the operating costs
plus your direct contribution, and the operating costs are going to be
a fraction of what that part of the budget represents. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. But can I -- can I try --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to go right back to
my comment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm going to go right back to his
comment. This -- this is -- This is not going to be presented to us
in a format where we can make the kind of decision -- and we shouldn't
be making the decision on what they do with their state money --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but the county money we can, and
Commissioner Constantine has suggested we lower the contribution by
$500,000. Is there any support for that suggestion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if -- And if they can
come back and make sense of it, then great. We can take it another
day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- Can I recap to see if I
understand so I can decide how to vote on that -- is level one we
think that we're spending about $400,000 of county money on; level two
we think we're spending about $500,000 of county money on -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It can't be.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course, that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're told now that includes
the operating, the electric, and everything else too so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we must be spending about two
twenty on level three because that's all that's left? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. One twenty.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the -- the suggestion is we're
not going to get clear answers here that we will be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- able to make our decision on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just thought we might be almost
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's just pick a number and let them
live with it.
MR. DORRILL: That -- That was my suggestion, is -- I
sense your level of frustration, and if you want to give me some
general target number now, I'll make sense and I'll --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll be the third vote for that
five hundred.
MR. DORRILL: -- report that to you on Tuesday, and then
this will need to be a wrap-up discussion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 626,300. That's what they get from ad
valorem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if I could ask my colleagues
-- this format in the budget which shows state expenditure, county
expenditure, I assume that is an exercise they would have to go
through to estimate what they're asking for from the county since they
don't even know what they're getting from the state yet. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in order to justify anything
over what is being proposed here to re -- to earn back any of that cut
amount, I would like to see this format showing itemized county
expenditure in programs level one, two, and three for our
consideration. At a minimum, this level of detail needs to be
presented to us, and it needs to jive with the number in front of us.
Is that fair direction?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pretty basic.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It's very, very basic.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I wish we had that information before we
came here because we were informed to only provide the kind of
information you have. We would have been glad to give you more
details.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Polkowski, to identify how
much you are asking for, you had to do this exercise.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just troubling that -- that
we can't -- that you don't know, that you don't have some ball park
idea. That's frightening.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I have a ball park, but I assume you
want to have more precise than a ball park -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't accept ball park.
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- because we have, you know -- That's
right. And I would have to calculate in front of you and -- you know,
and -- and that's -- would take time.
We'll get the information for you as you requested.
$500,000 will significantly reduce services to your constituents.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for the threat. We'll see
you in -- on the wrap-up.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Took that break too early.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in time for natural
resources.
MS. SNOW: Just one more line item to the public
services' general fund. If you notice, there's 52,500 in the expanded
column and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Where are we? Get me
on a page, please.
MS. SNOW: I'm sorry.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Transfer to the -- Transfer to the
Golden Gate Community Center, page 29.
MS. SNOW: On the public services' general fund.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just -- Just to remind you again, there
was an expansion of that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A $52,000 expansion.
MS. SNOW: Yeah.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that was for?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: But there was an expansion of the Golden
Gate Community Center of which a portion is funded is of countywide
benefit, and -- and we subsidize that with a transfer to the Golden
Gate Community Center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what is that portion?
MS. SNOW: It's for playground. It's $100,000 for
playground equipment. That's being split between one thirty and the
general fund.
MR. OLLIFF: Because it has no playground equipment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where are we?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're on page 29 of the summary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The $52,000 transfer from general
fund into the Golden Gate park.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we already committed to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That we already committed to so
__
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that capital, though, Mr.
Dotrill? It's playground equipment. MR. DORRILL: Good question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can that be -- can that be --
come -- Can that come out of impact fees instead of ad valorem?
MR. OLLIFF: We -- We just raised that question
ourselves over here -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- because the reason that we didn't in the
other community parks, because it was replacement and non-eligible for
impacts fees.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aaahhh.
MR. OLLIFF: But this is different because --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is new, isn't it?
MR. OLLIFF: -- it is new --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- and it may be eligible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would -- let -- let's -- Let's
at least give direction that we make that out of impact fees instead
of ad valorem unless you found out otherwise. Just took out another
50-some-odd thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Wait. Let me write this
down.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Cut fifty-two five, the transfer to
Golden Gate Community Center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we just cut the fifty-two
five? Just kidding. Just moving it from impact fees instead of --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, the equipment's in
place. We're going to have to go take it down now. Yeah, that's
going to come out of impact fees if it's -- as long as the county
attorney doesn't have a problem with it. I'd rather see that happen
than pay for it out of ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
MR. OLLIFF: The last two budgets for services for
seniors which is -- is basically no increase, and -- and you're
returning about a million dollars for your investment of 100,000 for
the aging program there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine.
MR. OLLIFF: And the medical examiner's budget's
actually decreased of 1.6 percent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're out.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No objection to either of those.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the public services.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you do have some speakers
who wanted to speak at the end of public services.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to those public
speakers who wanted to speak.
DR. BILES: Wait. She just went to the rest room.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. Break -- We had break time
a while ago.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fay, just open both doors.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any other member of the
public that would like to speak on any of these issue or whatever
we're getting ready to look into? Now would be a good time to do it.
MR. DORRILL: Yes. Yes, sir. Ms. Young, are you still
with us?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Laura Jean has left.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Watler.
MR. WATLER: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: If you would, please, sir. He -- He has a
general comment, and he wanted to make it at the conclusion of this
division because it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- entails general revenues.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's where we are.
MR. WATLER: I'm not sure it's a good time of day
considering what just happened, but there we are. Firstly, I'd like
to say that this -- just statement -- this particular method of
presenting the budget, I think, is much better than we've ever seen
before.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you tell us your name, please.
MR. WATLER: Sorry. Eric Watler, GNCA.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. WATLER: So there's -- We don't get many
compliments, but I think it's much better. Thank you, Mike. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This method of budget
presentation has certainly generated a lot of activity on this board.
MR. WATLER: Well, it's not perfect, but it's a hell of
a lot better than it was, so that's good. We can follow it. The
other was very difficult to follow and understand.
One brief question -- One brief question, not quite as
valid as it was, because Commissioner Mac'Kie just said now we're $12
1/2 million over our target, and we've only got "X" amount of dollars
done so far. So my question is, is it still the commissioners' intent
to reduce that overage to zero?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It -- it -- That 1 percent?
MR. WATLER: The 12 1/2 million needs to get to zero as
I understood the game. Is that still the intent?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could get to zero by -- If we
can have a franchise fee and a partial year assessment, we can raise 6
million. And -- And even if we do that, we still have to find 6 1/2
million to cut to reach our 1 percent goal.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're a little early in
the process to -- to make final policy statements because what is
going to happen is we are going to have to make decisions as to
whether or not to cut what may be near -- nearly essential services to
meet it, and I at this point, for one, am not ready to say that at all
costs I'm going to get there because there are some costs that are too
extreme.
MR. WATLER: Yeah. That's why --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we did was set it as a
goal, and I think that --
MR. WATLER: That's why I tried --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- goal still exists.
MR. WATLER: Okay. That's why I tried to use the word
"intent."
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It -- it -- It's a goal
but, to be quite frank, I'm -- I'm reluctant to -- to tell you I think
we're going to get there, but we'll -- we'll do what we can. MR. WATLER: Okay. I think I understood what
Commissioner Cons -- That's all I had to say. No medical examiner
stuff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Chenery.
MS. CHENERY: Mary Chenery, treasurer for the museum.
I'll be quite brief, but I just want to bring up a couple of points.
I know Commissioner Mac'Kie was concerned about the relevance of the
museum and the TDC, but I understand that in the documentation from
the state it most definitely qualifies, and we did generate and have
evidence of visitors coming from 7 different countries and 40
different states as well as people within the state that were
interested -- particularly interested in the cat. And what you've
done so far for us is help us to get it to a state where we can have
an annual, very fine exhibit.
We got feedback from the hotels that they were plea --
We provided informational or promotional information, and we got very
good results back, and we feel that what we can do is at least an
annual one as well as working on our historic site things. And I have
with me a -- sort of a recap of what we think this minimum budget will
be for the Red -- Robert's Ranch to take care of the safeguards of it,
and I'd be happy to give you that, and I thank you for your
cooperation in the things that have happened. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MS. CHENERY: Did you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
MS. CHENERY: We made it bare bones, but I think it's
adequate, and I do appreciate everything. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just that?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I guess we're ready to go to
the next one.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next. Okay. That's community
development. That is in the general fund. That's on pages 32 and 33
in your summary book and -- and one o --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- six.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- 106 to 109 in your detailed book,
beginning with natural resources.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make a quick
suggestion? I know you mentioned earlier that Dwight's got another
obligation before we start a new one. I don't know how much -- how --
His actually meets --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- meets the role of that
goal, and I bet we can get through there in 15 or 20 minutes and get
him on his way.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's do it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we do that? Can we jump ahead
since we're '-
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. Let me --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're throwing Mr. Smykowski into
a tither now. We're out of order.
MR. BROCK: What's your question?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: My one question is with this --
We're seeing huge numbers in the information technology department at
the county -- at the county management -- blah, lah, lah. I'm tired
-- at the county manager's agency level, and I am hopeful that some
of those responsibilities that have been taken over by the county
manager's IT department that were formerly performed by your IT
function are -- result in reductions to your budget. It seems that
you used to do it. Now he's doing it. Did we save any money?
MR. BROCK: You'll have to identify for me those
functions that I am reducing. The way that the HIS function is
allocated -- the costs are allocated in that is we -- we determine
what our budget is going to be, and then based upon a formula of
usage, CPU time and -- I mean, there are all sorts of various --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: -- functions or factors --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, Neil, I'm going to be coming
to you. Can you tell me what it is that Dwight used to do for you
before you had your own IT department so I can ask him if he saved us
that money?
MR. DORRILL: And -- And she asked me earlier today, and
I told her I didn't know. Are the FTEs the same as they were last
year with respect to the all-in-one system or any number of people or
costs that you had that you used to bill us directly for that we would
be invoiced for, because he still provides as part of what he calls
the OGF system which is the financial management system, and we access
that through purchasing, or we access that through human resources for
payroll information. But just the -- the old all-in-one system and
the -- the -- the cost that we had, she's trying to find out if your
overall HIS budget has -- has gone up or down and whether the FTEs
would be the same.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that something if we don't
know right now we might know --
MR. BROCK: I wasn't aware that we were, in fact, doing
the all-in-one system. I thought that was being done through IT. We
may be doing some peripheral stuff. You know, I -- I think what Neil
and his staff are doing with IT is they're beginning to migrate. I
mean, it is a process that doesn't happen over night. You're
migrating from one type of platform which is a mid-range, centralized
computer system into a distributed processing environment. That's not
something that happens over night. I would love for them to be able
to just take their stuff and do it themselves today, but I don't think
Neil or I or the IT or HIS department believes that is a reality. And
eventually, as I understand it from my staff, the goal is to migrate
to a separate process. But, you know, Neil and his staff are not
going to be able to do that in a short period of time. They're having
to develop the distributed process, having to establish their own
network, their --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my '-
MR. BROCK: I mean, it's a long process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question then, Neil, when we
get to IT, among other others, is going to be, what -- what percentage
of what Dwight used to do for you are you now doing in-house. And
then I'm going to ask Dwight how that's reflected in his budget as a
reduction since he didn't have to provide those services anymore.
Okay. So I -- I'm going to want to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I missed that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You'll hear it again.
MR. BROCK: The processes are all taking place. They
haven't gone away. And in addition to that, there are continuously
people who are beating the system. When I say "beating the system,"
that are using the system. For example, the criminal history records
that are contained in my system, they grow every year, and for
purposes of providing that information to the various and sundry
users, we are not purging today that information off of the system.
We're in the process, however, of talking to the various and sundry
users and seeing if we can, in fact, purge some of that information
from the system, but all of that stuff costs money to maintain. As it
grows, the financial records, they grow. We're still producing many
of the department's financial records through my HIS department and --
I mean, to be honest with you, I have asked the same question of my
staff, and what my staff tells me is nothing's going away. Now, I
don't mean that literally, but I mean it's not a significant impact to
the overall operation of my HIS department. For --
Let me give you an example. You know, when I took over
as clerk of the circuit court four years ago, there were very few
people, if any, over in the sheriff's department that had access to
the fine -- not financial -- the criminal records. It's like everyone
over there now cannot operate without having access to my criminal
records. So, I mean, it's growing by leaps and bounds in terms of
uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in some places you're
reducing, while in others increasing and -- MR. BROCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and that -- that's fine.
MR. BROCK: And, you know, I don't mean in any way to
cast any negative impact upon the IT department. I mean, they're out
there doing their thing. They're moving from one system to another,
but, you know, it's not impacting me in any significant way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- That's bad news for --
for our budget.
MR. BROCK: And I -- I will bring you all in tune to
what is going to take place here in the next few years, and we're
working with Leo and the various and sundry departments in the county
manager's agency and a task force to try to look at new applications
for the county come the year 2000, because come the year 2000, all of
the software that we have in existence in this county are essentially
useless in its present state. Now, this is not something that we can
wait until September of 1999 to deal with. This is something that
we're going to have to deal with in a large way within the next couple
of years so that we are going to be able to parallel for a period of
time to make sure that we don't have any down time and that we are
able to keep all of the functions and the county operational, but this
is something -- and it's going to be a large chunk of change in the
next year or so. I mean, that's just --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like beginning phasing
that item in next year into a separate account.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I asked the question
yesterday have we established a sinking fund on this yet. That's the
magnitude of it, and I was told not yet so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does anybody have any other questions
on the clerk budget?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I know I don't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Brock.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That appears to be it then.
MR. BROCK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have a good time tonight.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was worth the wait, wasn't it?
MR. BROCK: Oh, boy. I'm sure it was to the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is not a political forum.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was going to say, that was a
campaign plug.
MR. DORRILL: I think we're back to community
development.
MR. KUKULSKI: Under -- For the record, my name is Tom
Kukulski, budget analyst with community development. The -- On page
35 of the summary sheet, we have the listing of the various
departments within community development in the general fund. The
first one I'd like to discuss is natural resources. The largest
increase in that area is involved in the expanded service request. So
I'd like to turn to page 37 of the summary to begin to go into the
expanded service request.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- And at this -- at this
point -- I was going to say at this one time, but we got confused, I
think, this morning talking about $288,000, or whatever it was, that
was identified as general revenues that support development services.
My interest in finding -- and I think the county attorney heard this,
and he's going to do the research. But my interest in -- in this
budget is, why can't it be 100 percent supported by development fees,
including natural resources, including all -- everything in this
division? So I won't say it every time, but that's just a floating
question. And -- And so that it's taken seriously, are there -- is
there a majority, or am I on my own on this one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we need to maximum
what we can through those. I don't -- I know there are certain parts
-- and we had that discussion on code enforcement that may not be
realistic, but there are certain parts where perhaps we can do better
than we are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So to the highest percentage
legally possible we'd like to see this division supported by user
fees.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's exactly the direction we
gave the attorney this morning. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any other previous
decisions we want to revisit?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well put. Okay.
MR. KUKULSKI: The first request is for $35,000 for
exotics removal. It's in a larger area within the conservation
easement than was originally planned in '96. There was two phases of
exotics removal. One phase was -- was delayed, and this request is to
provide the exotic removal in a -- in a larger area within the
conservation easement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't we have that
discussion just a couple of weeks ago?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That was --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This was --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was left in.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This went back as part of the budget
discussion. This is, you know, the -- the Pelican Bay, the $95,000
expanded. So this is the opportunity to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cut.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's two.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got two votes to cut.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me get --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The exotics removal?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me get this straight. The
board's going to approve 95,000 in NRPA and then a couple of weeks
later cut it from the budget?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. We approved --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've been consistent on my
feelings with NRPA --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for the last three years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I do not want to cut
that money.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do want to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let -- Let me make a couple
of quick suggestions under this category and see if there's any
support for any of them, and if not, we can move on. I'd like to see
the following items cut, the --
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are we?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 106 and 107.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see the -- we'll
be starting on 107 and going backwards -- Clam Bay NRPA monitoring,
$15,000; I'd like to see the Clam Bay NRPA exotics removal of $35,000
-- I have a little trouble with the turtle monitoring. We want to
put in two full-time turtle monitors. "What do you do for a living?"
"Oh, I'm a turtle monitor."
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I walk on the beach every
morning.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is an upgrade of existing
positions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I realize that's actually
TDC funded anyway but -- has been up until now. I assume it will
continue to be but I -- I don't know. That seems like a little
overkill. Maybe it's required as part of our beach permits and --
MR. CAUTERO: The -- The program is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It is.
MR. CAUTERO: -- required by our beach renourishment --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, why -- why --
MR. CAUTERO: -- permit. Haura Kraus can address that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why can't we --
MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why can't we -- I'm sorry. Why
can't we fund this, though, with beach renourishment?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did. We are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But there's 143,000 from the
general fund it says.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a transfer from TDC to
general fund for the amount of $143,000 to pay for our turtle
monitoring program? There should be. I want it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There better be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was operating under that
assumption. Maybe we need to verify that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. If you'll look on page 108
-- and this is -- This is what got me back on the health department
too -- grand total is six eighty-three. And then if you'll go to the
next page, 109, which deals with the general fund, a portion of it,
net cost to the general revenue is five fifteen, the difference being
the one -- part at least, the one forty-three.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Did the public health unit do
this budget too?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. That was clear. I followed
that. That was clear.
MS. KRAUS: The hundred and forty-three -- Maura Kraus,
Collier County natural resources. The hundred forty-three thousand
eight -- or 143,800 is not only for sea turtle monitoring. It is --
also includes a beach lighting compliance program where we go out and
do compliance inspections as part of implementation of Land
Development Code. It also --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much of that comes out of TDC
money, and how -- how much of it comes from general fund?
MS. KRAUS: A hundred thirteen thousand of this total
comes from TDC, and that fulfills state requirements for beach
renourishment activities.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm for cutting 30,800 of
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As am I.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- What does that cut do?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought our Land Development
Code, though, requires that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It cuts that lighting compliance
just -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Our Land Development Code
requires us to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we do a lot of other code
compliance with -- with complaint-based system. Why can't we do the
same thing on this one?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would we be in violation of any
of our beach or necessary permits by making this a code enforcement
issue instead of a special category under natural resources
department?
MS. KRAUS: At this time when -- when the -- The state
has a point system for funding a beach renourishment project, and in
their point system we currently do not have state funding; however, we
are still looking for state funding for beach renourishment. And in
their point system, beach lighting compliance is included as a sector
where they judge who in the state gets funding for the beach
renourishment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we don't get any state
funding, and nobody was really seriously thinking we were going to
last year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We didn't get it this year
either.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. So come on. 30,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: $30,800.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As long as we're not violating
our own code, I -- I don't have any problem with it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. That thirty thousand --
what was it -- eight hundred?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eight hundred.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's ad valorem based?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll go with that. I'll go with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll still keep the other
hundred and thirteen in there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that a third vote?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the -- So the turtle
monitoring program remains intact; however, the beach lighting
compliance element that is funded out of ad valorem is removed to the
tune of 30,800?
MS. KRAUS: The beach lighting compliance does not cost
$30,000. There's -- there -- I -- I didn't get to finish.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what else gets cut if we cut
30,800?
MS. KRAUS: Okay. Any public awareness type work that
we do which is -- Last year we spoke to 5,026 people. Okay. We have
brochures and handouts people request from us on the beach while we
were out there doing our beach work, the report -- the data entry and
report preparation. We have beach compaction which is also related to
the beach renourishment program, and the TDC has not -- They funded a
hundred thirteen for this current year. We're going to be asking for
more next fiscal year, another $10,000 to fund beach compaction
studies that are also required by state permits.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems like that would be
the appropriate place to seek the funding for that, is TDC. And the
other is, obviously if we can do public awareness, we should, but this
is only listed with a half FTE, so it has to be -- MS. KRAUS: Yeah but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for all those things. So
it has to be fairly limited.
MS. KRAUS: Okay. It says half FTE, and that is because
the way the budget process is working. We -- The FTEs are only
allowed to include permanent staff. The two persons here are
temporary, so they're not included in the FTEs. I also have two recap
personnel that are -- are part time, and they're also not included in
-- in those FTEs because they're not permanent positions. So they're
-- That is actually 2.5 personnel.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By eliminating the 30,800, we are
not eliminating any personnel associated directly with the monitoring
of nests and hatching activities; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It better not be because they
better be getting funded out of TDC money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- That's fine. It's
only from TDC.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is the allocation from TDC,
is a hundred thirteen? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. KRAUS: That was the allocation from TDC last year.
Eighty-two thousand is in personnel, and 21,000 is in operating
expenses.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I just say get that from the TDC.
John, have you changed your vote?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you --
youlre still cool on the 30,800?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Are you still cutting it?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Yes. Is he going to weenie out
on this or what?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The answer is -- The answer is that we
can live without it; is that correct?
MR. CAUTERO: Maybe Mr. Kukulski can help me with this a
little bit. My understanding is that the -- the number of staff
members that do participate in that program, their salary increases
from the pay plan were in that $30,000.
The answer to Commissioner Hancockls question is that it
would not eliminate staff, but this money would probably -- weld need
-- I would recommend we go ask the TDC for it and -- and would ask
you for your blessing to do so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as Commissioner Norris
has said a couple of times, I mean, our -- our roll isnlt -- once that
cut is made, you have to decide -- Obviously doing some public
information type things are still important. You have to decide as a
manager how youlre going to juggle and make sure that still happens,
but for what is presented to us and how itls outlined here and then
what youlye added to that verbally, that 30,800 I think we can live
without.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can you -- Can you answer for me, Mr.
Cautero, because you made a good point, how much of that 30,800 is the
-- the salary readjustment?
MR. CAUTERO: I donlt know the exact figure, but
venture to say itls a large amount. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Could we --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thatls not what it says in
the summary. It doesnlt refer to that at all in the summary.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Well, a half of an FTE and -- and
I -- I donlt want to take back what we just gave.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor do I, but thatls -- I
mean, thatls not how itls presented. It talks about the turtle
program which welve already dealt with, and that will be funded out of
TDC but -- and the lighting compliance and those things. It doesnlt
say anything about personal increases. We -- Obviously we donlt want
to take that away.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On page 107 the two position
upgrades itemized at $9,900.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if that --
MR. KUKULSKI: Thatls for benefit costs to make them
permanent staff, the health insurance and medical insurance to bring
those two positions up to full.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Does that money come out of TDC,
that 9,900?
MR. CAUTERO: Welre -- Welre requesting that it does.
While Maura is looking up the answer to that other question, let me
just talk about that for a minute. Those positions are temporary full
time, and what we had requested is that the benefit money be added to
make those positions permanent because we've had a problem with
turnover in this those motions, and since the monitoring is required
by state regulations, we wanted to keep good people on staff that --
that we have now.
Mr. Dotrill had requested that we do a brief analysis
that we had submitted to him on potentially privatizing that function,
and we looked at some consulting firms across the state and some
not-for-profits that participate in this type of activity. The
Conservancy locally does it for the City of Naples, but we were -- we
-- We would not recommend that they do it for us because they
indicated that they're not interested in expanding your scope, and we
-- we don't want to press the issue with them. There's two firms
that -- that do it, and one contracts out with Broward County at a
cost higher than what we would propose to you even with upgrading the
positions to be permanent which would be $153,000 and change.
Broward's is at one hundred sixty. We will ask for that to become
part of the TDC funding, however, if the board approves it. If the
board doesn't approve it, the employees are still there, but they're
-- they're merely temporary rather than permanent.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of concerns. The
$9,900 -- I mean, you just made the point. If the turtle monitoring
is required, it's part of our beach renourishment, that addition
should be funded through TDC. So I'm not comfortable. I -- I --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It is. It is proposed that way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's part of the -- not
part of the five fifteen, this 9,900?
MR. CAUTERO: Correct. The 9,900 is proposed for TDC.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we ask for -- Excuse
me. Why don't we ask for what makes up the 168,000 in revenues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a better way to go about
it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I was going.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got a hundred thirteen so
far and then the ninety-nine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can see a hundred thirty-five
real quick: A hundred fifteen seven from sea turtle monitoring which
is TDC; 20,000 to bill to other departments. That's one thirty-five.
We've got thirty-three to go.
Why don't we do this. Why don't we -- Rather than
killing time right now, why don't we -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think I can answer your question
quickly.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeahhh!
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 110 under natural resources,
second to the last paragraph of the expanded services, it says, The
proposed funding includes the following, signs and navigation lights,
20,000 from voter improvement fund, 5,000 from derelict's boat grant.
There's $13,000 from the general fund. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then it confirms that the 9,900
request we offset by tourist tax revenue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: By tourist tax revenue.
MR. KUKULSKI: Right, because on -- on page 111 of the
expanded requests, there's a total of ninety-seven thousand nine,
9,900 for the --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. KUKULSKI: -- upgrades from TDC. There's 5,000 in
the derelict boat grant and 20,000 in voter improvements. So the net
cost of the general fund would be 63,000 from those expanded requests.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going back -- I never got an
answer to my question before. On the turtle monitoring, staff
conducts daily inspections, lighting compliance, and staff reporting.
FTEs listed in that item is one-half, and -- and so I'm still at a
loss for how that 30,000 is going to impact several people's raises.
It only references half an FTE for that item. MR. CAUTERO: Go ahead.
MS. KRAUS: The two positions are envir -- are
environmental specialists ones, and their pay increase was 23 percent,
okay, which brought them up to 27,000 each without the benefits.
Approximately 10,000 of the 30,000 would impact -- would impact their
pay -- their pay estimates.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So let's -- let's -- let's cut --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twenty.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- 20,800 then.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can do that, and I -- I'll
agree to that, but where then are they shown as FTEs?
MS. KRAUS: They're -- they're -- They're not shown as
FTEs here because this is supposed to be existing personnel, and since
they are temporary and they're not permanent personnel, they will not
show up in the FTEs because that's the way the budget is set up. You
cannot show people that are not permanent in the budget, and that's
what I was told.
MR. CAUTERO: I think the answer to your question maybe
-- and -- and Hike can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the -- the
funds to -- to supplement their salary increases from the pay plan are
showing -- are -- are for other people in addition to this, if I'm not
mistaken, because this only shows a half FTE, but there are other
people working on the turtle monitoring program that are temporary.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before we get too bogged down, let's
see if we can agree to cut 20,000 out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty thousand eight hundred I'm
fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did -- Was there any
agreement or disagreement on my other two suggestions, the 35,000 and
15,0007
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I heard no agreement on this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I had two others, the
Clam Bay NRPA, a hundred twenty-one three. I just as soon cut that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the level one --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. No?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I see --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- three no's.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Level one, 259,400, I just as
soon cut.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much of that level one is --
All of that is ad valorem, isn't it? And of the sixty-one, why didn't
you target that one, the 61,0007
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's -- That's probably the
heart of the department. I mean, that's -- that's what they're
supposed to be doing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aren't we supposed to be seeing
something on habitat protection standards in the very near future? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if it's approved, why we'd be
spending monies on funding efforts such as development of habitat
protection standards when we're about to either see it or kill it? No
pun intended.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or both.
MR. CAUTERO: It's -- it's -- It's a program that's
called for in the comprehensive plan, and it's part of the level one
program that Mr. Lorenz put together for next year. It's on his work
program. That's why it's merely stated.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do we actually have all of
these things in the works? Endangered species guidelines, are we
working on them? And estuarine management plans, are we working on
them? NRPA management plans, we have one. I don't see a lot of
interest to have any more than one. Acquisition and analysis of
environmental data and information -- you know, how much of this stuff
are we actually working on that we would be stopping or eliminating by
reducing this funding amount?
MR. HARTWELL: Richard Hartwell, natural resources.
We're working on the -- There's several proposed NRPAs that are being
worked on now. They just went through the process of the EPTAB
committee. They are strictly county-owned property, and we have
eliminated working on any NRPAs that has to do with state -- state
properties or private properties. So that's -- function is going on
right now.
The -- The habitat -- habitat protection ordinance, as
Mr. Cautero said, is just beginning the process at this point and --
What was the other question, Commissioner?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Estuarine management plans. I
know we have water quality testing -- MR. HARTWELL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in some estuarine areas
established, ongoing, doing it. MR. HARTWELL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have -- do we -- Are we
actually working on management plans, and why? MR. HARTWELL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And why can't this be funded by
development fees?
MR. CAUTERO: There's no development associated with it.
It's a --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You don't have to manage the
systems if you don't -- if we're going to leave them in their pristine
natural condition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Too late.
MR. HARTWELL: There is -- My understanding is that they
-- they are working on these management plans for the estuarine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask this. Of the
$259,000, how much of that is personnel costs? I see 4.25 FTEs at two
fifty-nine. How much of that is personnel costs?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Probably 50,000 a piece.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With full benefits.
MR. CAUTERO: It's 47.2 percent so I -- of -- of the two
fifty-nine from -- from here. Can you figure that out?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. Forty-seven percent of the
two fifty-nine is the cost of personnel?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So around 120,000 bucks, a
hundred twenty-three?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. That's not the cost.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what's the rest of that being
spent on if we're only spending a hundred twenty-three on human
beings?
MR. CAUTERO: Can you answer that? I --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's incorrect. The percentage of
personnel just says of the total of seven in the department, 4.25 are
in base level. That is 47 percent.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So of the two fifty-nine
four, how much is that for human beings --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Salary and benefit package for
those four and a quarter?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hike, can you tell us that?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I can't answer that. I don't -- I don't
know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the point, is -- is if --
you know, we know that the -- and from my experience, the folks in
natural resources are pretty busy as is, but if there are additional
costs on top of personnel that by reducing some of those funds we are
just pushing out into the future when some of these things may be
accomplished, I don't have a problem with that, and this is the year
to do it but I -- you know, what I don't want to do is kind of what we
did under agricultural, is make funding decisions that -- where
someone turns around and says, well, you just cut this person and that
person. You know, I -- I --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many of those -- Don't you
have one person in this department who sits at Horseshoe Drive and
reviews development applications? MR. CAUTERO: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Used to.
MR. CAUTERO: No. We don't have any --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody from natural resources
looks at any development applications?
MR. CAUTERO: Oh, no. That -- That's not correct, but
no one sits at Horseshoe and does it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. But -- but -- So at least
the person who reviews development applications for natural resources
should be paid for out of development fees.
MR. CAUTERO: People are used from time to time to -- to
provide assistance, but on -- in Horseshoe there's four environmental
specialists spread over two different departments, but staff from
natural resources from time to time is used. I can't tell you with
certainty the percentage of -- of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are those four who are at
Horseshoe paid for out of ad valorem or out of fees?
MR. CAUTERO: One is a code enforcement type, so it's
one eleven. The other three are development fees.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- Commissioner
Constantine, you recommended total elimination.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd say -- and that may not
be -- be realistic, but like Commissioner Matthews just said -- Wow!
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just said something that
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The blonde.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- gee, they're probably --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forty.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 40,000 each --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- which when you include all
the benefits, they may be. So you've got a hundred sixty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A hundred sixty.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the other 100,000 for?
Assuming that that number is accurate, what's the other 100,000 going
toward? Because I'm looking -- This just seems to me -- Like you just
said --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cut it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if there are some of those
items that can be pushed, let's push them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to suggest a reduction
of $60,000 to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about a hundred?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll say a hundred.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll say a hundred.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in wrap-up it's either going
to be justified or not. So we'll target a hundred and see what the
justification is when salaries and programs come back.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: A hundred thousand from level one?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It will be one fifty-nine four
hundred.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you understand, Mr. Cautero,
in wrap-up how we need to address that? MR. CAUTERO: (Nodded head.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to cut a hundred
from the Clam Bay NRPA too?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm good with that one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just checking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I really appreciate you offering
though.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next year we will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's -- What's next? Pollution
control?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait. A couple of items.
Capital outlay has increased due to the purchase of an ATV and cone
penetrometer -- I can't say that -- in conjunction with beach
renourishment. Did we use to walk the beaches and now we ride them?
We'd replace an old ATV. I don't have a big objection there. I'm
just curious what happened. Apparently we purchased in the existing
year?
MS. KRAUS: In the current year, we did have to purchase
an additional ATV. Beach monitoring can only be conducted by ATV
because of the distances of the beach and the amount and the supplies
that need to be taken on the beach. We need --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can use those horses we
have at animal control.
MS. KRAUS: We bought -- we bought an addition --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Goat.
MS. KRAUS: We bought an additional ATV this year
because we're required to monitor the beach seven days a week. People
work seven days. And we were having a problem last year when an ATV
broke down to getting it to be repaired by fleet maintenance because
it's also small engine season for lawn mowers breaking down, and we
could not be assured of getting an ATV in a one-day turnover.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's a cone penetrometer?
MS. KRAUS: The cone penetrometer measures the beach
compaction.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has the turtle lay their eggs
there.
MS. KRAUS: No. That -- that was directly -- We have
not purchased that yet. That was directly -- We're borrowing one from
somebody right now. I don't know how long we'll be able to keep it,
but it's required for our studies for beach compaction which --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Both of those have to do with
beach -- I mean, do they come out of TDC, or is that general fund?
MS. KRAUS: It comes out of TDC.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Interesting design. You know where the
first sea turtle nest was this year reported in the county?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I heard it on the news.
MR. DORRILL: In front of the Ritz-Carlton.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where all the rocks -- Where all
the rocks are.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ahhhh. Dug through those rocks.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom Conrecode's ears perk up.
"Someone say beach?"
MS. KRAUS: There's 533 nests right now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One question. On the cone
penetrometer --
MS. KRAUS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- once we -- once we take our
measurement with that, how are the turtles notified of the results?
Really. I mean --
MS. KRAUS: They can ask me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The point -- point being is why
bother. I mean --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just like the sea grass
map atlas we put out a couple of years ago for the benefit of the
manatees. I asked the same question. How do we distribute the maps
to the manatees?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You could run the beach at night
with flashlights directing them.
MR. CAUTERO: Commissioner, I have a question to your
answer that I'd like to propose. Based on some calculations we've
done of the 259,400, approximately 221,000 is salary, and the rest is
operating expenses. So 100,000 would mean layoffs and if that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two twenty-one is -- So if we
wanted to not lay off --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So 38,000 operating --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know that for a fact,
or is that an estimation?
MR. CAUTERO: That's -- That's my best estimation based
on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll bring that back at wrap-up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would leave it at a hundred.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll take a look at it.
MR. DORRILL: We haven't had many wrap-up items today.
Y'all have been rather cold blooded so some of these things we can
bring back.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're cold blooded?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What did we have last year?
Forty dollars the first day?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twelve and a half million being
the goal, we are at seven, eight -- We're almost to a million bucks.
We're almost to a million of the 12 1/2, so don't be getting
softhearted on me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're over a million.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Moving right along.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well over it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Speaking of dinner --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's next?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Regional Planning Council next.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one quick question on
the natural resources. The ATV and the penetrometer -- we've all been
able to say that word now -- those are capital outlays, and you said
they're paid for with TDC money? MS. KRAUS: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The ATV and the cone
penetrometer. Now we've all said it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some better than others.
MS. KRAUS: Yes, it is paid for by TDC money. The only
reason it's showing up in the 001 classification here is because
that's the way we control our money, and we can see where everything
goes. It's reimbursed. We go -- TDC and it comes back out of the set
amount of money that's been allocated by them for sea turtle
monitoring program.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Which shows up in
revenues?
MS. KRAUS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council. We have no -- no choice there; right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The next phase then.
MR. KUKULSKI: The next one is the housing and urban.
Housing and urban, the major item there is an expanded service request
for $122,200 to -- It provides the economic development coordinator
with resources that are needed. The proposed source of funding is
going to be occupational licensing from fund 111 of 68,200 and a
transfer from an urban improvement grant in the amount of 54,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there's some good news, isn't
there, Mr. Mihalic, about actual collections versus budgeted -- I
mean, the -- the punch line here is we're probably going to be more
than able to fund the $68,000 out of the actual collected occupational
licenses versus the budgeted, the sixty-eight?
MR. MIHALIC: I'm not sure that's true, Commissioner.
I'm not sure we'll have 68,000 of additional funds on top of what we
budgeted in that account. We're looking at the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, based on the first six
months.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, based on the first six months, it's
higher, but we looked back in the last hour, and there was like a
$300,000 financial input into that account in December, and it doesn't
look to be collections. We're not sure what the reason for that is in
the occupational licenses.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Those are collected at one time during
the year. So when we collect that money, that's it for the year
essentially. We -- We collect in -- in the neighborhood of 450,000
per year, no more.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- And we budget in the
neighborhood of --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 450,000 per year. This is -- This is
the proposal to enhance the economic development program by increasing
or adding a surcharge onto the occupational licenses.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Greg, what are the
contractual services we expect to get for $75,000?
MR. HIHALIC: Those -- Those contractual services are
basically contracting with an advertising and a marketing forum to try
to get the image of the county out, to try to place the advertising
that we have budgeted here, to try to place articles about Collier
County through -- throughout the area. That's at least initially what
we're -- what we're considering for that -- those contracts.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express a concern
here. I -- I am supportive of trying to do economic development.
It's kind of like the question at the state level. Gee, do you support
education? Well, everybody does, but then throwing money at it may or
may not be the answer. It depends on where the money goes. My
concern is we have our Council of Economic Advisors not yet completing
their task, and they are going to set a specific direction. One of
the things they've talked to us about -- I know I've talked to them,
and I think they've talked with all of us -- all of us about -- is
trying to maintain -- putting an emphasis on trying to maintain and
enhance the businesses that are here, and what I see is $108,800 for
contractual -- for -- for a P.R. Firm and advertising to go out and
try to attract new -- new folks, and that is the bulk of that one
twenty-two two. And it seems as though that may be inconsistent with
the CEA, but also we don't have a final report from the CEA yet, and
it seems like we may be a step ahead.
I want to pursue the economic development. I want to do
it wholeheartedly, but I'm not sure that's necessarily where we want
to spend the bulk of our money.
MR. HIHALIC: I don't think this marketing and
advertising will be primarily external. I think it will probably
primarily be internal, regional and county. I agree with you that
probably 85 to 90 percent of the jobs we create will be expansion
jobs, expansion from people who are here right now and want to start
their own businesses here, bring a division from somewhere else that
they own or have an ownership interest in and bring it in to Collier
County or expand their operation that they have on a smaller scale
here. Yes, that's the direction, and that's where most of the money
will be spent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize P.R., but explain
to me what kind of advertisements you run in your own hometown.
MR. HIHALIC: I think there will be advertisements in --
in the local papers. I think there'll be advertisements in some of
the regional business information that's put out in Southwest Florida.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the subject matter of
those advertisements will be?
MR. HIHALIC: Collier County is a good place to do
business. We have enhancements. We have the lowest millage rate. We
have these things to offer you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And early on
Commissioner Hac'Kie asked a question. Of that hundred and twenty-two
or of a portion thereof, how -- how much of that will be funded
through enhanced fees?
MR. HIHALIC: Projected right now? None. This will be
-- This will be funded by taking a portion of the existing
occupational licensing fees, not by additional occupational licensing
fees.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I thought he was talking
about a surtax or a surcharge.
MR. HIHALIC: On occupational licensing? Is that what
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hmm-hmm.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I thought that we were
going to try very hard not to increase the occupational license fees
so that the business community didn't turn on itself. I mean, it's a
-- it's a bad precedent to set that they've been paying these license
fees all this time. They haven't been getting anything for them.
Now, as soon as we want to, you know, spend it for something related
to the fee, you have to pay more. That's -- That's not a good way to
go to the business community and say we're here to help.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but on the other hand,
you've been saying all morning that this department should be paying
for itself, and this is a way to try to make that happen.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This department should pay for
itself?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That -- That anything in
community development on Horseshoe Drive and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But then -- but -- But this
department, this economic development is already more than paying for
itself if you'll give them all of the occupational license money. I
mean, they're already paying those fees. Give them to them and
they're -- just let them use them instead of putting them in someplace
else. It's not right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're not -- we're not
funding the entire cost of it. Fifty-four thousand is coming from
urban improvement grants. And I assume, Mr. Hihalic, that is the cost
of the funded position plus or minus?
MR. HIHALIC: The funded position is a portion of it.
We were going to use that for part of this money, part of the office
automation, part of the telephones, the furniture, some of the other
data processing hardware, the hookup to the system that's required.
Whether we fund the 54,000 into the personnel cost or whether we fund
it into -- into the support cost, it becomes one or the other,
Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question -- the -- The
question I have is -- Commissioner Hac'Kie, I agree that if we can
find a way to fund $68,200 without raising the occupational licenses,
that we should do that. At this point we simply don't know that. We
don't know if we are going to be able to or not. What I would suggest
is that we ask this -- for review during wrap-up, and at that point we
have a decision to make, whether we increase occupational licenses to
make this happen or whether we create enough room in the budget we can
make it happen in another way. And you can add that to your $12 1/2
million list.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I've got a -- I have
a number of problems with this. The coordinator -- What do we need
the contractual services for if we have a coordinator? Hopefully you
have someone who could do that. That would be part of the intent of
hiring on a coordinator specifically for that purpose.
Secondarily, I do understand the needs in part for a
marketing or P.R. firm, but 75,000 bucks is -- for what's being
offered here, a $38,800 annual expenditure for advertising and 75,000
bucks is an awful lot of money for that service, and -- and -- I mean,
marketing P.R. is what I do in real life, and -- and you don't usually
get double as much of what you're spending in advertising for placing
that and -- and putting -- and doing service there.
MR. HIHALIC: We're trying to have ball park numbers
here, Commissioner. Our economic development phase two study is just
starting. We don't know what direction that's going to take. We have
a fairly good idea of what we're going to need to enhance Collier
County's image. The -- The marketing contract or the contractual
service contract is not only going to be to place the ads. We may
have some -- some other data analysis or data gathering that's
necessary outside the consulting contract we have ongoing. There may
be some specialized services we need to contract for. So that isn't
meant to be 75,000 to place $38,000 in ads.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to remember.
We have -- At the Lee Port Authority, we have a firm that has an
annual contract to do all the P.R., release everything, do their --
They do little -- the same thing, promotional advertising, different
places. They're responsible for it all, and it is a considerable
amount of work and it -- I -- I can't remember, but it seems like it
is equal to or less than this amount, and it seems like that would be
a much greater -- You've got a few million passengers going through
there, an activity -- They have several releases weekly and it just --
That seems like a high number. If -- If you take the leap that we
need to hire a firm, that seems like a pretty high number.
MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, Gravina was one of the firms
that we talked to about what they thought we'd have to allocate to --
to run this kind of effort, and that -- that was one of the firms that
was talked to about what their general ideas were for marketing the
program like this and -- and getting off the ground and what we needed
for advertising budgets.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me see if I can bring this
home. How many occupational licenses were issued last year in Collier
County?
MR. MIHALIC: I don't -- I don't have them --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 15,0007
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It should be 15,000.
MR. MIHALIC: Probably. Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what we're talking about is a
surcharge of $4.50 per occupational license to meet $68,200.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where does the rest of the
hundred twenty-two two come from?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fifty-four thousand is --
MR. MIHALIC: Fifty-four thousand from the grants
administration.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not talking about
a tremendous amount that's going to cause anyone not to renew their
occupational license. Again, I would like to fund this not from an
increase in occupational licenses, but if that ends up being the case,
we're talking about four and a half dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it isn't exactly computed
that way but I -- but I will agree that this is a question we should
leave for wrap-up and see if we can find a way or let the case be made
by the business community. I don't think we've had that presentation
made yet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've had them
individually.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think that's also
what today is for. We have an opportunity for public speakers.
Susan's here in the back and -- and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, the opportunity is
here and now. Just one other item. It's a tiny-dollar item, but it
ticks me off every time. Office furniture, 1,500 bucks, and every
time we have an auction, we have surplus furniture that -- chairs that
still have four legs and desks that still have four legs and -- and we
go out and buy brand new and -- and I'm -- Somewhere in the county do
we have a desk, a chair, a file cabinet?
MR. MIHALIC: I wish that true. When we -- When we went
looking to set up offices, we cannot find -- we cannot find a desk, a
chair, a filing cabinet, and the other minor things to set up an
office.
MR. CAUTERO: I'll find it if it's out there. I'll find
it.
MS. PAREGIS: Hi. I'm Susan Paregis with the Economic
Development Council for the record. I would just like to state that
we've looked at the projected occupational license fees for this year
to be 454,000. As of the 19th of June -- and we're not through the
fiscal year -- I believe they are 441,000. So we have quite a few
months left, and we think from the business community that this should
be funded from current collections. Absolutely. We're looking at
$68,000 from 454,000 that is 100 percent generated from the business
community. I'd love to answer any questions specifically you might
have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you understand the
impasse; however, in that if we're faced with either raising ad
valorem taxes to pay for this versus a two or $3 increase in
occupational licenses, that there's a decision to be made there also
because we do have to create --
MS. PAREGIS: I would concur.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- these funds because they were
being used for something else, and the inappropriateness or
appropriateness of that is water under the bridge unfortunately at
this point.
So what the suggestion I'm making is, let's bring it
back during wrap-up. In the meantime, if we can make the cuts
necessary that this can be funded with existing fees, great, let's do
that. If we can't, I don't want to throw it out the window and it not
happen. So at -- at the risk of -- You know, I'm not -- not willing
to commit that we're not going to look at raising occupational fees at
all because that may be committing this project to -- to, you know, it
not happening so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: An additional point, Commissioner, is
the occupational licenses are in the unincorporated area general fund.
We are at the rollback rate currently in that -- in the unincorporated
area general fund. So we would either be increasing taxes if we -- if
we opted to fund this program utilizing existing collections, or we
could obviously reduce reserves, but obviously taking seventy grand
out of reserves before the fis -- three months before the fiscal year
has begun is --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I think Commissioner
Hancock makes the point well.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- a danger as well.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if -- if something
has happened in the past and it's inappropriate, so be it and -- and
-- but if it's a matter of making this program work or not work for
an extra four bucks or extra four fifty, I would hope the business
community would see the benefit in that.
MS. PAREGIS: I would also just want to clarify that I
think it's very important that we understand that this is just not a
hard expense. This is an investment, and this is really the way the
business community is looking at this. We would not have proposed
this to you for any source of funding -- and I would -- I would want
to quickly remind you that this is matching funding. The private
sector is currently putting up about a quarter of a million dollars a
year to do economic development. And I would share with you, Tim,
that -- that the thrust of this is toward the local business
professional in the market now. When we're talking about local
advertising, we think we have a captive audience here of people that
have just not expanded, whether they don't know the resources are
available or they're having trouble with labor pool or whatever the
issues are specifically for their business. It's very important to
the business community that we see some kind of outreach from the
Board of County Commissioners that this is important to them, and what
we're trying to ultimately do is reduce the percentage of
non-residential -- or increase the percentage of non-residential ad
valorem taxes to the Board of County Commissioners so that we can have
a broader --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Pardon me.
MS. PAREGIS: -- business base.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me just a second. Let me put
in my two cents' worth. I don't think this is an item that needs to
come back on a wrap-up because I don't think there will be any
information that we don't know today. I think the decision ought to
be made to either do it or don't do it and my -- I -- My vote would be
to go ahead and -- and if we need to increase fees, go ahead and do
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I'm still with
Commissioner Hancock for let's bring it back to wrap-up if we can
possibly fund it out of the existing fees that they have -- I mean,
somebody ought to do the math on how many years $400,000 has been paid
for -- you know, there's an obligation there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock also
pointed out that it may boil down to a question between increasing ad
valorem taxes or the business community paying for something that
enhances the business community and -- again, I've got to agree with
John. We're not going to have a whole lot of new information. There
are some items nobody's been able to answer our questions. I think
this item you have very clearly, and we have the information now.
It's going to make us -- If it makes us feel better to say, "Well,
let's bring it back," we can do that, but I think realistically the --
the need may be there.
MS. PAREGIS: When we do that, might we make one request
to see what the actual occupational license fees have been collected
year to date --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly.
MS. PAREGIS: -- say for the last three years? From --
From the numbers that I have in front of me, we have 441,000
collected, four hundred fifty-four projected, and outstanding from
last year, we have 311,000 collected in the month of September. So
maybe we need to clarify what exactly the occupational license fees
that are collected compared to the budget, and that may give us some
-- some insight on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's where I was starting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are those due -- When are
those due? At the beginning of the fiscal year?
MR. MIHALIC: September, I believe, they -- they collect
them, but they do stagger -- stagger in around the year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have some new business
come in, but the vast majority obviously are going to come in early?
MR. MIHALIC: Are going to come in in September and
October and pay when they're supposed to pay. I looked at those
monthly numbers, and I thought they were clear until I went back and
had them checked. And, again, some are transfers in. They're not
revenue collections. I -- I can't honestly say, yes, you know,
300,000 came in in September. I'm just -- I'm just not sure what year
they were put into.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's just leave that for
wrap-up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- Again, I would like to
see this at wrap-up to see if some of those things can be worked out,
but I do want to point out again -- you know, I'm not going to carry
the guilt of misappropriation of occupational fees by -- by, you know,
10 or 20 years past or this idea of not being suggested 10 years ago
and being a part of our fund. I'm not going to carry that guilt. I'm
going to try and find a way to get it done this year, but I -- I'm not
going to eliminate the idea of an increase in occupational fee because
I think it's too important to pursue. Let's see if there's another
way to do it, and let's see it again at wrap-up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's two two.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask -- I want to ask a
question. Miss Paregis, are you suggesting that September the
occupational license fees collected will -- MS. PAREGIS: In '95.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in '95 '-
MS. PAREGIS: Were $311,000.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And that was in last
year's fiscal year?
MS. PAREGIS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we have 441,000 already this
year?
MS. PAREGIS: Year to date as of the 19 of June.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So you're -- you're saying
there's a potential '-
MS. PAREGIS: I'm asking.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- a potential '-
MS. PAREGIS: I'm asking. Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for six -- six hundred,
$700,000 collected?
MS. PAREGIS: And I think what Greg is saying is -- that
-- that that might be misinformation. We are not clear, and we need
some assistance from county staff to clarify. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The last two years --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that's the case, I don't
mind bringing it back for wrap-up.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The collections at FY '94 --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three for back to wrap-up.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's find out what the real
number is.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The collections in FY '94 were four
hundred fifty-four thousand o six three. Last year's actual, four
thirty-two o o three. I think the issue is that they're paid at the
end of September, and sometimes they are accrued to which year they
should be posted to because it's paid September 30 because it's due
October 1. I think it's crossing the fiscal year line.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- We've got three
commissioners that want to see this at wrap-up, so let's go ahead and
schedule it for that and get the information for that at that time.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final comment, and that's a
compliment. Forecast operating expenses, 25,000 less because in-house
staff was going to complete the housing element. Congratulations.
Job well done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Next is -- Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Quickly, the two transfers there, 0
percent increase, and we talked about the other one as well, the
transfer to the HSTD. That's for the prorata share of growth
management. We discussed that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we -- Are we on 1167
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm on 33 in the summary.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. Thirty-three of the summary.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. The final transfer is to HPO for
100,000. That's for your transportation disadvantaged. It was
increased this year from the 75,000, as you will recall.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on that. Mr.
Dotrill, we talked several months ago about looking at other vendors
because TECH, while they did a wonderful job at what they do with
children, don't do a wonderful job with the transportation, and it
seems like we -- when we had this discussion -- I'm not telling you
anything new. But we -- there -- There have got to be companies out
there that specialize in transportation that might do this contract at
the same or better price but do it more effectively. Where are we in
that process?
MR. DORRILL: I don't know. I don't know, frankly, if
we've done anything. I'll need to check on that and see. That was
one of the elements that we had discussed potentially with Lee Tran,
was to see if they would be willing to give us a separate bid on that
program, and we can pursue it from that angle if we haven't already.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see that in time
for the new year because I thought that was the direction we gave
anyway, but we've had numerous problems with TECH this past year and
not for lack of great effort on their part, but that's just not what
they're cut out to be doing, and if we can get somebody who is
professional at that, we ought to take advantage of it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What are we doing?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pollution control. MPO,
actually.
MR. DORRILL: Go ahead, Tom.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like this one. It's got
$50,000 with no people. What does the $50,000 go for?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. Essentially what this is, the
pollution control ordinance is -- The pollution control is actually a
separate fund that is supported by countywide taxes, but the ordinance
does not allow for estuarine monitoring as part -- under that
ordinance, so that is paid for by the general fund. Essentially
George gets reimbursed for performing the estuarine monitoring by his
staff. So that essentially is an expense to the general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And when we monitor estuarines --
back to that manatee question -- what do we do with the report after
we've created it or after the monitoring is done? Where does that
information go?
MR. YILMAZ: Estuarine monitoring -- For the record,
George Yilmaz, pollution control. Estuarine monitoring is required by
Growth Management Plan, and the data we generate is -- basically
targets public health in terms of food chain as well as sediments,
oysters, as well as water column and sediments. So, secondly, also
the monitoring include environmental health in terms of biotox, what
kind of impact there is into ecosystems.
So data is generated for the purpose of public health
and environmental health and distributed to the state, local, federal
agencies, mostly utilized by local engineering firms as well as
planning firms and utilized by our citizens in coastal zone who are
interested in what kind of water quality we're up to and what kind of
food chain quality we're up to.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For -- Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, why don't -- why don't --
Why don't those firms -- if -- Here's what I heard. I heard -- I
heard important issues that are monitored. I heard that the
information then goes to public health and/or to private development
interest, development consulting firms. So to the extent it goes to
public health, why don't they do it themselves, and to the extent it
goes to public -- I mean, to private enterprise, why don't they do it
themselves?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm also a little concerned,
though, at all this estuarine monitoring we're doing, and the
estuarine areas are not doing so well right now and no one --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Quit monitoring them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- no one threw me a warning flag
saying, "By the way, we've got problems."
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The NRPA is not looking good up
there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- Can we answer both of
those? Why don't the private engineering firms and so on do that
themselves at their own expense?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, if they need the data,
let them do it.
MR. YILMAZ: I think the answer is in -- twofold. Their
project is site-specific. Our scope is countywide. So our monitoring
program includes all countywide central stations, and we watch the
trends over the time period. But engineering firms usually interested
in our data for the purpose of a local project and for the purpose of
utilizing our data under public records, 119, and incorporate into
their permit application. But as far as we concerned, our primary goal
is to provide data to this board for the purpose of understanding
countywide what our water quality is, what the trends are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then -- Excuse me the
interruption, but Mr. Hancock's point is perfect on that issue, is if
we're spending $50,000 for, you know, gathering this information so
that we can know about it, apparently, you know, it's not being
communicated adequately so that Commissioner Hancock could have saved
his mangroves ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The impression I have is that
we gather -- and you can help me here because this may be completely
mistaken. The impression I have is that we gather this information,
and we store this information, and then if someone like an engineering
firm wants it, they can come and get it. And you said, well, we can
look at trends and so on, and I'm sure we can but -- again, what --
what the two of them just said, we're apparently not --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait. Wait. Wait.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to a great extent not
utilizing that. So I'm -- I'm wondering, what are we doing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're using it -- Let him get an
answer.
MR. YILMAZ: I'm sorry. Basically monitoring, as I
mentioned -- The answer to your question, yes. It's all board's
interest. If this board -- If this board is not interested in seeing
the countywide trends and monitoring countywide estuarine and coastal
zone quality in terms of -- of water as well as sediments as well as
the food chain, fishing and recreation purposes, but on the other
hand, we need to also keep in mind that we are the one at local level
gets most of the calls, if not all, and we are the one expected to
respond to and provide the service, and we share frustration on our
customers' part for them to get result from federal and state
government because of the fact that they are under significant amount
of number crunch. Red tide was a very good example. No one could go
in and do any monitoring in red tide breakout. We had to jump in and
do it because of the fact that the data was simply demanded by the
general public. So we have to provide in some cases data on a weekly
basis to the public because the demand is there, and also we have to
have data for long-term trends in terms of let's say sediment quality,
what kind of pH, hydrocarbons, what kind of lead accumulation we have
in our sediments.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if -- if we were to be
looking retrospectively and wanted to find out that information -- MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- state and federal agencies
have that? It's just a little more difficult to find?
MR. YILMAZ: We are the generator. They don't generate
the data. The normal data they will have in -- in most part what we
generate as well because we do share our data with water management
district as well as state for FDEP.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt -- Can I
interrupt this? Because it's -- The Lake Trafford restoration task
force is a good example of using this information. Over multi years
we've got lots of data points because pollution control has been doing
this. We've got data information that we can't access through the
state or -- or the federal government. So I -- I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see the county manager
shaking his head no.
MR. DORRILL: This -- He has an ongoing pollution
control millage that he can use for what I just simply call fresh
water bodies, but if he steps foot in a salt water body, he cannot use
his one-tenth mill funding for that. So this is salt water --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is strictly salt water?
MR. DORRILL: -- monitoring only. And the big answer
is, the state is not otherwise doing it. It is very frustrating when
on a whim the DEP goes tearing off to Marco Island last year to do
expansive water quality testing in the canals on Marco Island which
wasn't budgeted and -- but suddenly money exists to do that when they
otherwise don't do water quality monitoring, say, at specific points
throughout the -- the coastal or inland salt water bodies of Collier
County. And your Growth Management Plan obligated us to do and have
ongoing research to have a database so that scientifically we could
monitor trends over time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to suggest we cut
this item and you flag it in the next Growth Management Plan cycle.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How does the Growth Management
Plan make us do this?
MR. DORRILL: You'll need to elaborate. What -- What's
the specific condition within the coastal and natural resource element
that obligates us to do this?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes. Specifically it indicates that we
have to do water quality monitoring and provide a report to the
general public on an annual basis as well as sediment quality
monitoring and provide the report to general public by annual basis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to agree with the cut
and say let's look at it in the cycle for amendments because I don't
-- I don't think we can afford to do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only element that -- that I
would like to retain is the red tide monitoring or at least funds on
an annual basis. If they're not used, they're rolled into the next
year, because when we did have red tide, it was important to get press
releases out to people as to what the counts were and whether, you
know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got reserves. We've got
reserves.
MR. DORRILL: That would be my suggestion because we
don't have a red tide outbreak every year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We've got reserves.
MR. DORRILL: He is the man to send in to do the -- the
immediate research, and you just reimburse him out of the general fund
for that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. The additional expense is
identified in the forecast, the 80,600. The margin above 50,000 is
actually the cost associated with red tide. So Mr. Yilmaz, as part of
his department, has a regular estuarine monitoring, and the red tide
was above and beyond what was budgeted for already.
MR. YILMAZ: For the -- For the point of information so
that you have in very brief summary visual description and -- and
explanation of what kind of monitoring we have, one estuarine surface
water quality station per 6 linear miles of coastal zone and one
sediment station per 5 square miles of estuarine beds per zone. So
these are the numbers from scientific standpoint as bare bone as it
can get. It gives us indications. It gives us ideas, and it tells us
in general what kind of trends and if there are some troubled areas in
terms of specific estuarine zones. So we're not -- we're not for one
of the largest coastal zone managers spending as much as we could
spend into the resource as valuable as it is.
So $50,000 in my scientific opinion as bare bone as it
can get but gives you a lot of data and a lot of planning tool as well
as marketing tool in terms of clean environment, clean fishing beds,
clean waterways for the purpose of growth. Lack of data always
creates perception with this kind of scientific data -- Indeed,
scientifically we can say we're proud of our environment. There are
some problems out there but for us to be able to be monitoring a
couple. So just -- just for your information, we are doing something
bare bone.
MR. DORRILL: I can think of one pertinent question
because we have obligated ourselves and DEP requires permits for inlet
management plans and dredge-related activities. Is -- Is any of the
sediment or ongoing random water quality sampling going to be required
for the scientific data for inlet management plan permits? I mean,
are we theoretically going to end up paying Coastal Engineering
$70,000 a year for this associated research?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If so, it would be funded out of
TDC, tourist development tax.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right.
MR. YILMAZ: I'll go one step further --
MR. DORRILL: I -- I don't want us to get caught a year
from now when we process some inlet management plan and the state puts
a condition just like sea turtle monitoring --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see Mr. Conrecode shaking
his head no.
MR. YILMAZ: For the --
MR. DORRILL: No water quality and no sediment samples.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine. Cut it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cut it?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Cut it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cut.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cut it. There's four cut-its up here.
MR. DORRILL: Is that all of community development?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a short break.
(A short break was held.)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Public works, is that where we
are?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Actually, we're -- what we're going to
do right now is we're going to move a bit to our -- our state attorney
budget, I believe it is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good. Let's go to jail.
MS. GANSEL: On -- On page 47 of your summary book, 143
of your detailed book is the state attorney's budget. We appreciate
your taking --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 143 and 47.
MS. GANSEL: In the summary.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Court related.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Commissioner Matthews, ask
your questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How much of this is article five
costs?
MR. PEARLMAN: Article five costs --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Article five costs -- article
five of the constitution that our state government is supposed to be
paying for.
MR. PEARLMAN: Dennis Pearlman, the executive director
for the state attorney's office. When you talk about article five
costs, these are not article five costs that we're looking at. These
costs are associated with Statute 27.34 where it mandates that the
county provides us with communications and transportation. It does
not refer, and we are not asking, for any salaries or personnel in our
budget.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But isn't that statute -- Isn't
that statute implementing legislation for the article five issues? I
mean, isn't the point of that statute that we have to do it if the
state doesn't -- to the extent the state doesn't?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, can you help us
with that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're probably going to need --
MR. DORRILL: We -- These are what I would call support
costs and -- and -- He's correct. They do not include salaries for
lawyers or -- or legal secretaries.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this where we clean judicial
robes?
MR. DORRILL: No. This -- This is where you are paying
certain department operating costs and transportation. And
specifically he is, I think, the largest remaining subscriber to the
clerk's HIS function, and so you're paying the cost for him to access
the clerk's criminal justice information index. You are paying the
cost to provide vehicles, county cars that are on your asset list that
are provided to the state attorney and paid for by the Board of County
Commissioners for investigators and like the lead attorney --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't make sense to me that
we have to pay for those. Why isn't that article five? I think it is
article five.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I -- I don't know enough about the
statute that he has quoted to know whether it is -- is part of the
enabling legislation of that constitution amendment.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Jerry Brock's car in here?
MR. PEARLMAN: I believe one of the cars that we are
going to replace is -- you -- currently used by Jerry Brock. There's
three cars that we're asking for for replacement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do we pay for state
attorneys' cars?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Has our fleet maintenance
recommended replacement of those three vehicles?
MR. PEARLMAN: Yes. Yes, sir. Dan Pucher each year as
part of the budget process sends us his recommendation for
replacements and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That -- that's -- That's
all I needed to know on that question. MR. PEARLMAN: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why do -- Pam Hac'Kie just
asked why do we pay for those as opposed to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why does the county pay --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for the state attorneys' cars?
MS. GANSEL: As part of the statute that Dennis had
referred to, one of the items is transportation services that the
county is required to provide.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I see the statute?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the statute require
carpeting and a $6,100 overhead projection system? There's a big turk
next to that one.
MS. GANSEL: The -- this -- they are -- We are required
to provide office space, carpeting. They -- We had done some
renovations, and this would finish the renovations that was done to
the state attorney's office.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- What's currently on
the floor?
MS. GANSEL: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's currently on the
floor?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Old carpet?
MR. PEARLMAN: As far -- Yeah. As far as the carpet
issue, the county had started renovating our office space a year ago
or so or -- or -- I'm not sure however long, but what's on the floor
now is original carpet back in '82 or '83 when we took over in the
office, and that was a thin brown car -- carpet.
MR. DORRILL: He's --
MR. PEARLMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: He -- He's correct. That -- That carpet
is the original carpet at the time. They occupy all of the sixth
floor and a portion of the seventh floor, and those floors were added
to this building I'll say in '84 or '85, and so that carpeting is
probably 10 to 12 years old now and is scheduled to be replaced with
the same type of carpeting that's in this room which is off of schools
contract in Dade County.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what about the overhead
projection system?
MR. PEARLMAN: The overhead projector is something that
we use in our courtroom presentations -- I hate to say it -- much like
in the O.J. Simpson trial where we project pictures and evidence for
presentation to the juries, much like we would use in a Cracker Barrel
case or -- or such.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you think, Counsel?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- What is it about an overhead
projection system that costs six grand?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is photo reimaging, if I'm
not mistaken.
MR. PEARLMAN: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: This is state-of-the-art stuff.
Basically it takes a picture and reprojects the picture via light onto
the wall.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but --
MR. PEARLMAN: What -- What we've done -- and -- And
since I oversee our five-county operations, what we've done is in Lee
County we've procured one, and that seemingly has worked very well for
us. We've tested it there, and the prosecutors are using it, and now
we try and expand that same -- that same type of asset for our
prosecution effort into Collier County, and eventually I'll go up into
my Punta Gorda area. We keep that -- that type of equipment within
the county that purchases it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did your conviction rate go up?
MR. PEARLMAN: I -- Well, I can't answer that because I
don't -- conviction rate goes up. In the cases that we've used, we've
been successful. We just recently procured that in the last month and
a half, so I can't give you ten cases that we've used it on where it's
made the difference, but it is a tremendous tool for our prosecution.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my concern. From'94/'95
actual to '95/'96 forecast, we're going 191,000 to 202,000, roughly a
5 or 6 percent increase from that year to this year. Now we're
looking at a dramatic increase from 202,000 to 287,000. You know, in
so many cases this year we're looking at -- at departments that have
timed a big hit on this budget cycle, and it may all be coincidence,
but it's -- it's put everyone in a bind, and I -- I would like to --
to look at the capital outlay and defer a good portion of that to next
year so that we can avoid this -- this -- this extreme increase on
this particular budget year. What I would suggest is a reduction to
continue the maintenance on two of the vehicles and replace one of
them. The radio and investigative vehicle is not an option
apparently. The carpeting sounds like it needs to be replaced, and
I'd like to eliminate the overhead projection system for this year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I -- I agree with all of
those. I'd just like to ask if a caveat -- and I'm sorry, but for
wrap-up since Mr. Weigel's not here -- could be -- I want to know
exactly how much of that we are required to fund and -- because the
statute that we're looking at here I think is the implementing
legislation for the article five issue that -- that we can but don't
have to provide these -- these funds.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I certainly would like to
get an answer to that, sure. And if the answer betters what I've
proposed, so be it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because I -- I -- my -- My vote
is going to be that we fund what we have to, and they make a real
strong case for why we would fund anything other than what's state
mandated because we already do enough of funding state mandates, and
let's don't fund state pleases.
MR. PEARLMAN: If I could, in that statute that I've
provided to the board, I believe in there it -- it talks -- and I
don't know the specific dollar amount or -- that's applied, but it
does talk about "shall provide transportation."
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll -- Yeah. We'll get --
We'll get an opinion from the county attorney on that and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm not an attorney,
and the first couple of paragraphs have several"mays," the county may
do this as opposed to shall and -- and so --
MR. PEARLMAN: Well, may -- I believe it refers to where
we would have a county ordinance attorney and maybe clerical staff,
and we have not asked that of this -- of this county. I believe
that's where they talk about funding for salary positions in the first
portion of that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's down below that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than -- Rather than
arguing the statute now without our county attorney being here, I'm
just proposing that we eliminate $35,000 from capital outlay under the
vehicle section. I just divided it by three, assuming you're
requesting three of the same type of vehicles. So we're eliminating
two vehicles and also eliminate 6,100 for overhead projection to give
us the reduction of $41,100 from the requested amount.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then flag the
interpretation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And we obviously -- We
want to hear back on this from the county attorney.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go with that.
MR. PEARLMAN: Before --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three.
MR. PEARLMAN: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Before you take a
final vote on that, could I ask you to reconsider on the vehicles in
that by the time we procure those vehicles which the funding would
take place in October -- by the time we procure those vehicles -- and
-- and I think Mr. Pucher is here -- those vehicles are going to have
ninety or -- or close to 100,000 miles on these vehicles if we wait
until we come around to the next budgeted year. Those are used for my
investigators to go and do investigations in this county.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought -- I thought we said
that was for example, and I -- I think our -- Mr. Brock is wonderful,
but we don't give a car to the county manager anymore. Why do we give
a car out of state -- out of local money to the state attorney?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, again, I think that's a
question for article five costs. My -- My point is, assuming we have
to fund this, having a vehicle with 95,000 miles on it is still a
vehicle and -- you know, I'm not saying that we eliminate you getting
those vehicles. I'm saying that in this particular budget year, a
60.6 percent increase is not exactly consistent with what we're trying
to accomplish today. So I've got to find ways to reduce that. You
then, you know, can use the one new car as a priority car for outlying
areas and shift the others as need be. So, you know, my -- my
suggestion remains the same. This is not the final where -- because
we are going to see this at wrap-up, but I wouldn't expect much more
than what's being -- what's being proposed today. So, you know, other
than saying "I'm sorry," that's about as far as I can go. We need to
make reductions here, and I'm proposing $41,100 in reduction from that
budget.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I hear three. By the way, my car has
90,000 miles on it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mine down there has
ninety-seven and some change.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but for my list what
-- what's the cut there?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Forty-one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty-one one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forty-one one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forty-one one. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it. Thank you, sir.
MR. PEARLMAN: Thank you.
MS. GANSEL: Commissioner, could I just mention the
public defender's budget? Because they're on that summary page.
Their budget actually is showing a reduction from their request for
this year. They had to leave due to a medical emergency. I indicated
that if you had any questions, I would do my best to respond to them,
but since it was a reduction --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public defender?
MS. GANSEL: The public defender is on page 141 in the
detail book and 47 on the summary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've got it.
MS. GANSEL: They do -- We do fund three positions in
this budget, have for the past three, four years.
MR. DORRILL: That ought to be evaluated along with Mr.
Weigel's comments --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same question.
MR. DORRILL: -- on the other because both statutes
apply.
MS. GANSEL: They have the same -- yeah -- same
language, not the same section but same language.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll agree with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a real important clause
here.
MR. DORRILL: Back to public works.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Back to public works.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're on page 36 and 37 in the summary
book.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I think it's safe at this
point recognizing that some commissioners may have to leave, that we
will probably do public works and maybe courts, but we're not going to
try to begin the capital budgets, and if that's true, then I'm going
to let some people go home.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will save capital until tomorrow.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Done deal.
MR. CONRECODE: Following the sheriff's budget, if I may
ask? Because that's when all the rest of the capital is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- If we can move the
other capital up -- After the sheriff's tomorrow, there are three
other items. Maybe we can do both of those capital at the top of that
list.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's plan on doing the sheriff's
budget tomorrow and then all of the capital stuff. MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. DORRILL: That's why I asked you --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's good.
MR. DORRILL: -- now. Then we'll --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take this a little bit out of
the order that it's been presented, but we should be able to do it
better that way.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What page are we on?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One nineteen in the detail, 37 in
the summary.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay with storm water.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm okay with storm water.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm okay with storm water.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Storm water's done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Storm water's done. Next.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Storm water was an onionskin. It's an
onionskin. You're not interested in peeling off layers?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's at the top of our list to --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pass?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to address. We have three. I'm
okay with storm water. So we'll move on to the next one.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the storm water budget
that we have is the maximum. I don't want to peel anything off but I
might be --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- interested in adding.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay? Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On road and bridge, let me
ask you a question, not necessarily because I want to do it or that I
-- that I don't, but I don't know the answer. Every year on our
maintenance program we do so much resurfacing, so much whatever for
upkeep. What would be the likely result of a one-year deferral of
some percent, say 25 percent -- but I'm picking that at random -- of
the resurfacing program? Because we do a very, very good job, and I
don't want to get in the habit of doing that, but I'm just looking
again at big-dollar items in this one bump year.
MR. ARCHIBALD: We could make a reduction like that for
the local road system which the HSTDs represent. I wouldn't want to
do that on the primary road system like Immokalee Road. We've got
some continuing resurfacing programs there. But on the local road
system, we could do a reduction for a year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But, Mr. Archibald, you're -- you're
then talking about going through the different road HSTDs? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing out of general fund?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that -- that really wouldn't
accomplish what you're trying to do, I don't think.
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's all ad -- ad valorem tax.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But nothing out of general fund
MR. DORRILL: That's by district.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that you could recommend?
MR. ARCHIBALD: (Shook head.)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's by district? What does
that mean?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just for -- for
what-it's-worth purposes, it seems to me that that is a budget item
that's real akin to parks maintenance. You know, we -- I -- I think
it would be a good one to onionskin, frankly, Commissioner
Constantine, because -- I mean, maybe we went too far in the parks
maintenance cuts last year, but maybe this year we ought to try some
cutting of road maintenance.
MR. CONRECODE: I -- I'd like to point out a couple of
things. We look at some of our standards of performance and relate
them to national standards just like you would for parks and
recreation, and some of the numbers that jump right out are the annual
average cost nationally to maintain a late model roadway, $3,500.
We're currently spending $2,500, and we think in some respects that
it's not just we're doing it cheaper, better; it's we're deferring
some of that work and as long as we keep --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it doesn't snow here.
MR. CONRECODE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it doesn't snow here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a lot of salt damage.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't have a freeze off cycle
here.
MR. CONRECODE: But we do get potholes from high water
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. CONRECODE: -- and some of those sort of things. So
it's -- it's -- it's a different condition. We have different effects
from the sun obviously. Anyway, some things to consider, and
certainly if you want, we could go back and take a look at this one as
an onionskin.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much -- this is -- Oh,
what a shame. Carl -- No, he is still here. Great. How much do we
spend annually out of ad valorem general on median beautification like
our Airport Road and those things?
MR. CONRECODE: You're asking Carl, or you're asking me?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. No. I just wanted to
make sure he perked up for the question.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was hearing a number last
week, about $4 million. I -- I don't think I see that number here.
MR. CONRECODE: I think it's important to point out that
that number includes four or five specific beautification dis -- well,
five beautification districts, and that number again is a local group
of citizens who are taxing themselves.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That's why my -- my
question on keeping solely to general fund, the Airport roads and
those -- those type.
MR. CONRECODE: And the number that you see in your
budget on -- detail budget on 122 is $307,500 for --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's median maintenance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As to upkeep those general --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- Is any of that capital? Is
any of that -- or is that just maintenance?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No. That's -- That's all operating and
maintenance. And keep in mind -- and one of the issues you'll see
tomorrow in the MSTDs is that we've added a long segment of Airport
Road. We've added a segment of Immokalee Road. And we're going to be
assuming the maintenance of those in the upcoming year and this year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the funding you're looking
for for those is in the MSTDs, not in the general fund. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question
then. We -- We did an agreement with the Vineyards, and I'm trying to
remember which way we ended up doing it. I think we put in the
initial thing, and they are doing a ten-year maintenance agreement.
Is that -- or do I have that backwards?
MR. CONRECODE: No. The way that agreement was
structured was they upfronted the capital cost and agreed to maintain
it for ten years at whatever our current op -- current unit cost, cost
per square foot to maintain, and that's how we arrived at the deal.
But, in essence, what they did is over a two-year pay-back, they
recaptured their capital cost. So how you want to look at the deal is
different, you know, based on what you're trying to -- trying to
demonstrate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What point you're trying to make.
MR. CONRECODE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the point you're
trying to make?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question. I notice in
here under operating expenses on page 123 it says operating expenses
increased $250,000 due to materials for accelerated drainage
maintenance program. I'm aware of the board's direction on that.
Here is my concern. We increase our drainage maintenance due to
specific problems that were pointed out from last summer's flooding.
Much of that work when it's done -- I mean, increasing maintenance is
one thing, but there was a lot of individual work to be done that the
maintenance would be less than the cost of doing the work. Do you
follow what I'm saying? We've got blocked culverts. We go and we
spend a lot of money replacing culverts and so forth. What I'm afraid
of is that we have taken the funds to make those necessary repairs and
rolled them in for perpetual maintenance. Can you assure me that
hasn't happened?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, I -- I think there is some
perpetuity to what we're asking to do because a lot of the -- the
blocked culverts and a lot of the collapsed culverts were because of
years of what I'll call neglect of the system. We had 20-year-old --
in -- In your district, in Pine Ridge subdivision, we had a lot of old
culverts in that Pine Ridge subdivision, 20, 25 years old. We get a
storm or a series of storm events like we had last summer, and you
have collapse. We've repaired or replaced the majority of those with
that special amount of money that the board approved in October.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How much was that amount?
MR. CONRECODE: I -- I believe that was the two hundred
sixty.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: I think that's what that was.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my question -- I understand
we now need to maintain those, but I would tend to think that
maintaining a brand new culvert is cheaper than putting it in.
MR. CONRECODE: Right. But we need to move on to the
next subdivision right down the street which has similar-type
problems. They didn't have collapse last year. They're going to need
to be maintained or ought to be maintained.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I gottcha. The traveling crisis.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, it's -- it's the fact that we were
in a crisis mode last year because we hadn't maintained at a level
that we should have.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The operating expenses on -- on 123 just
go from about 240,000 to two sixty-six, but in forecast due in --
primarily to that $250,000 budget amendment, we're actually 505,000.
So they have not budgeted that as an ongoing expense, that two fifty.
That was essentially one-time fixes this year.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would happen if we pick
a number, 50,000, 75,000, we just funded that much less in median
maintenance?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about the same question in
road maintenance? I mean --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And where I come from -- and
I agree there. Where I come from on that is we have preached -- and
I'm sure we have taken it into consideration -- but xeriscaping and
all that, and I've got to imagine the upkeep cost for that is somewhat
less, and probably that's already figured in here. But if you pick a
number, some decrease, what would happen?
MR. CONRECODE: You would see a difference in the level
of service, and the best example I can give in this -- When Neil gave
me this job last August, he said, "Here's some areas I want you to
focus on." One of those areas he wanted me to focus on was fixing
median maintenance. He says, "It's atrocious. There's weeds growing
everywhere. We have sod dying everywhere." And through George's
people, we put forth a Herculean effort to do that, and there's
staffing requests. There's some expanded requests in here to do that
and to keep up with that. So the answer to that question is the level
of service declines.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what if -- And going with
Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, what -- what happens -- You had
mentioned George when I asked the question before what you didn't want
to do, defer anything on major roadways as far as general upkeep.
What happens if for a year you defer -- again, pick a percent -- 20
percent of that on -- on the major roadways?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I wouldn't want to recommend it for the
simple reason that you're talking about maintenance of your
infrastructure. You're going to end up losing and paying for it
sooner or later. What we have done is gone ahead and reduced the
right-of-way mowing. You know, a few years ago we reduced all the
right-of-way mowing in urban areas, and although we still go in there
maybe once a year and -- and respond to complaints, we have followed
the board's direction in -- in -- in really reducing the amount of
mowing the county does, and we -- and we receive a lot of complaints
as a result of it, but we also save a lot of money.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand if -- if we made
a habit of reducing the level by which we maintained our roads that it
would eventually catch up with us. I heard you say that, and I agree
with you. But if you did a one-time, one-year deferral of some
portion, would there be an overwhelming impact?
MR. ARCHIBALD: As Tom is saying, our level when it
comes to certain activities is so low right now -- and unfortunately
mowing is one where we reduced our number of mowers by more than 50
percent. A number of years ago when we had our big layoff and when we
went from roughly 150 employees to about 100 employees, mowing is what
we lost, and we've never caught up so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's median maintenance?
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's right --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right-of-way.
MR. ARCHIBALD: -- right-of-way mowing.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's sides of the road also
MR. ARCHIBALD: It's not median maintenance. They're two
different items.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which one of these -- I'm -- I'm
looking for which one of these --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me -- Let me give a
very specific answer to your first question. What happens if we cut
median maintenance, drive down Pine Ridge Road --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Where we used to have
grass, we now have mulch. And for people that have called George and
complained, the answer is the grass was too expensive to maintain, so
we replaced it with mulch. A different solution to that -- and --
and, Tom, maybe you can help me if you have looked into this -- there
is no shortage of lawn maintenance companies in this town looking for
work. If we develop a maintenance schedule for medians, have we
looked at privatizing our median maintenance operation to save
dollars?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, we have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are you telling me that --
that we as a county can actually do it cheaper than any other private
companies in town?
MR. CONRECODE: Not necessarily. We're actually
rebidding a lot of that work right now. The bids are on the street.
I don't know if they're opening the next two weeks or --
MR. ARCHIBALD: They are. We're bidding out all of
Airport Road and some other road segments just like we do all of the
HSTDs and you'll --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't we bid it all?
MR. ARCHIBALD: In -- in -- Because, in fact, we need to
show you what our costs are and then be able to compare the two.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I mean, I want you to bid it
too but --
MR. ARCHIBALD: We are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I would like for you to not
bid sections, not consider privatizing sections but the whole median
maintenance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, can somebody bid on all of
it as a package?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, what we've been doing is bidding
out -- For instance, Pine Ridge Road is a bid package. Immokalee Road
is a bid package. The contractors will come in, mobilize to the site,
and do that maintenance. So they can bid it very conveniently there.
We provide them with what the fertilizing schedule --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You get cheaper prices if you
give a whole volume of work.
MR. CONRECODE: If we expand and do it countywide?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. I'd like to see it bid.
MR. CONRECODE: On some of the larger projects like
Golden Gate and -- and Marco Island, those projects are fairly
substantial in size and -- and those are -- those are bid and attract
the larger companies. They don't attract many of the small ones, but
last year we got into a problem because the contractor we happened to
have on those two projects went out of business.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me go back to the -- page 122, the
first entry, basic level road maintenance. This, I think, is what
Commissioner Constantine was getting at. This 3,917,000, that is --
is that all general fund money? Is that what we're talking about
here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, because we're in that fund.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Tax funds.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Okay. Now, when -- when -- when
Commissioner Constantine asked the question, you -- you spoke of -- of
mowing of the -- right-of-way mowing. Is that all this $4 million is,
is right-of-way mowing?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. ARCHIBALD: That item which is a little less than $4
million, that base level or core level, we have a component of that
and to provide you all with a handout -- there's 15 major components,
and they're broken down by man-hours per activity per location.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But paid for all out of general
revenue?
MR. ARCHIBALD: They're being paid for currently as a
result of a transfer from fund -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: From the general fund.
MR. DORRILL: Do you have that handout? I mean, does it
include street sweeping --
MR. ARCHIBALD: It does.
MR. DORRILL: -- and sidewalk sweeping and pothole
fill-in and -- that's -- That's the question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was -- That was the next
-- My question was, if we did 20 percent less street sweeping for one
year or whatever other items happened to be on there, how does that
affect us long term? I'm not saying do that forever. I'm saying this
is a bump year where we're having some -- having some trouble, and we
look at doing some cutting.
MR. DORRILL: Go down your list, George, and tell them
what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You pick and choose from
those 15 items and -- and do a reduction on some of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it's 4 million, what if we
spent 3 million this year?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's 25 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So what happens?
MR. DORRILL: Read -- Read down your list.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Let -- Let me just run down the list
very quickly and -- and I'll -- I talk in terms of man-hours because
that's how we look on our activities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The first item is payment maintenance
which is basically patching, 16,000 hours at a cost of about $400,000.
That maintains your riding surface. That's a safety requirement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So potholes, 400,000?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The next item is contract resurfacing.
That's where we go in and do resurfacing with our in-house people.
Nine hundred hours, a cost of $22,000. Mowing -- and this is primarily
on the arterial system -- 8,000 hours at a cost of $200,000. Litter
abatement, we're spending over 1,800 hours at a cost of $44,000, and
that's on top of a very successful adopt-a-road program. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Drainage maintenance, probably our
biggest item, 35,000 hours at a cost of $870,000. Mobile sweeping,
one that we need to double really. Mobile sweeping is right now 1,300
hours at a cost of $32,000. Bridge maintenance and inspection, that
activity is only at 8,000 hours, a cost of $200,000. We're -- We need
to increase that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much on that bridge
inspection?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 200,000.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Bridge maintenance. We have over 110
major bridge structures we maintain.
MR. DORRILL: Two hundred and how many thousand?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 200,000.
MR. ARCHIBALD: 200,000. Guardrail, this is in response
to accidents that occur. 1,500 hours at a cost of $37,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that -- What do they
actually do?
MR. ARCHIBALD: This is where typically we're removing
and reinstailing or repairing guardrail that's been damaged.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this -- Okay. I remember.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, that's a safety item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gottcha.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When -- when -- Excuse me. When
-- When that happens as a result of an accident, a car accident like
stop signs and so forth they run over, do we bill the person that did
the damage?
MR. ARCHIBALD: We attempt to. We probably bill about
50 percent, and one of the positions that we're asking for this year
is a finance clerk to do a more thorough job of not only invoicing but
making the follow-up correspondence to try and get those dollars back.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the collection rate on
that 50 percent?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I've made the -- made a report to the
board earlier in the year, and I believe the collection rate was
probably around 40 percent, less than 50.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're getting about 20
percent of our expense back.
MR. CONRECODE: We -- We've also implemented a program
in conjunction with the county attorney's office to take a lot of
these to small claims court, and many accolades to David Bryant, but
he's had a tremendous success rate, not so much in trying them, but
just threatening to take them to court. A lot of these insurance
companies are paying up, or the companies are paying up.
MR. DORRILL: I saw a letter today in my correspondence.
We had two checks for $7,000 that had been outstanding for several
years where we -- we sent a nasty letter and said you pay us by the
21st of June or we're going to small claims court.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are we near on your list --
The guardrail was 37,000.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The next item is a large one that the
board needs to be aware of. Limerock road maintenance, 21,000 hours
at a cost of $520,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is that? Where does that
actually happen?
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's in two locations. One location
is primarily the Golden Gate Estates, and the second is the rural road
system of the county, primarily those roadways that are east of 29.
In that entire program, we're looking at reducing substantially -- We
reduced it last year. We're looking at trying to vacate those
roadways so that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: These are public roads though?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: That's a project I asked him to explore.
It would impact both the southern Golden Gate Estates and also like
Turner River Road near Ochopee where we would -- we would have a
public hearing. We would say we're vacating our interest in those
roads. This is now a wilderness area, and the adjoining landowners
own to the midline of the road and ask the board just to walk away
from them because over time we're -- we're spending a huge amount --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a half a million dollars a
year.
MR. DORRILL: Hmm-hmm.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's real money.
MR. CONRECODE: A lot of miles of road too.
MR. ARCHIBALD: And that's only the operating side of
it. When you look at the HSTDs, you're going to see the material side
of that. Bike path maintenance, 4,000 hours at a cost of $99,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- What exactly do we do
as far as maintenance on a bike path?
MR. ARCHIBALD: The -- The big job there is not
patching, although that's a job. The biggest job is clearing brush so
that it's clear for bikers. There's many examples. Airport Road where
-- up at Naples Bath and Tennis, the vegetation grows over the bike
path. Same thing holds true on Goodlette-Frank.
MR. DORRILL: A lot of edging and sweeping also.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that vegetation -- If a tree's
on private property and its branches grow over and impede a sidewalk
and someone runs into it -- Mr. Weigel is not here -- but does
liability rest with the county? Because our path was clear.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Lots of cases on that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- And I'm -- I'm just -- I'm
just curious there if -- you know, that we -- we make a notice of
violation to the property owner and correct it and charge him if --
if, in fact, they would be liable.
MR. CONRECODE: Our -- Our experience has been that they
come after us first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. They -- they -- I mean,
everyone sues us for no reason but -- you know --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So Commissioner Hancock's point,
though, is that if we've got brush hanging over that's -- where the
brush is on private property, that we cite the property owner, make
the -- make the necessary maintenance and bill -- bill the owner for
it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So report them to code
enforcement while you're out there cleaning up those bike paths.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to know from the
county attorney whether or not the liability rests with the county to
do the work and whether we can legally do that. That -- That's my only
question. If it is, I'd like to see that as a -- as a fee base.
Where -- You know, where we have it coming out of a
drainage ditch, it's our problem to deal with, but where it's coming
off private property, we shouldn't be spending county tax dollars
maintaining their trees or -- you know, because of their lack of
maintenance.
MR. ARCHIBALD: And that's basically the sum of the
major core activities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion. As
we look at the 10 or 11 items here, I just took a small chunk off
most, though not all, of them, and -- which totaled 119,000, if you
took 2,000 out of the resurfacing; twenty out of the mowing; ten out
of the litter cleanup; nothing out of patching or drainage; 8,000 out
of sweeping; 20,000 out of the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wait. I'm sorry. I -- I want to
keep up with that. Potholes, 400,000, you didn't take anything?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Potholes I didn't take. I
figured that's a basic safety item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two thousand out of surfacing?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two out of resurfacing;
twenty out of mowing --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twenty out of mowing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- ten out of litter cleanup;
nothing out of the drainage; sweeping, 8,000; bridge, 20,000;
guardrail, I didn't take anything out; limerock, I took 50,000 out of
there; and took 9,000 off the bike path. That equals $119,000.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd be hesitant to take money
out of the bridge inspection and repair. That's a substantial
liability if -- if we run into a problem.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- But maybe we can take more
out of those roads that we're thinking very seriously about vacating.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would -- I would be a little
hesitant to take some money out of the bike path funds. We don't put
enough in there to begin with really.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just maintenance.
That's not new bike paths.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Even so. Even so. If that's how much
it takes to maintain our -- our bike paths, I would be hesitant --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if the 29,000 for bike
paths and bridge we took additional twenty-nine out of limerock and we
left it in bridge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would be fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we still have a hundred
nineteen.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, I just wonder if we
couldn't go higher on the limerock.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. In Golden Gate
Estates -- How much of that five fifty is in Golden Gate Estates?
Because, I mean, those -- those roads are problems to begin with.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah but -- again, where's our
base level of service on that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- what --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But they're all public roads.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. But when they bought
that property, what was the base level of service the county afforded
them, and are we meeting that? If we're exceeding it at 520,000, then
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, one of our problems there is that,
as we're well aware, the Golden Gate Estates is probably the fastest
growing single-family area, and as a result, we have a lot of people
that are moving out on the roadways, and some of these roadways just
don't even exist today. We're having to go in there with a bulldozer
to go ahead and cut the drainage to clear for the roadway. So we're
-- we're putting a lot of money into just clearing and preparing the
subgrade for a future base, and that's where the dollars are.
The -- The big concern I have is that this also
represents primarily employee hours. So if there's a dollar that you
want us to work toward, I -- I wish that the staff could have the
latitude to try and develop a program that still would provide as good
a level of service as we could and also control what areas those
reductions would occur in.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In other words, you're --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to cut 150,000 out of
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In other words, you're saying pick a
dollar amount and let you take care of the rest?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is great. I wish all
departments did that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. I wish everybody would
come up and do that.
MR. DORRILL: My advice would then be that maybe we
ought to accelerate some of our vacation petitions in, say, the -- the
very end of the southern blocks of the estates and say, Nobody lives
here. The chances are that no one ever will live there, and we need
to vacate our interest in some of those limerock roads. And we may
want to look at some of those other areas in and around Ochopee and --
and potentially reduce your grading and limerock road maintenance
program in -- in other areas.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no objection to that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A hundred and fifty?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One fifty.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A hundred fifty is fine and then we'll
just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty? One five o?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One fifty. One five o.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One five o.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just mention one other
item for George? And then I'm going to need to go. Page 126, you
mentioned the positions you're asking for. Fiscal clerk two, this is
exactly what I feared when we created the department of revenue is
that people would still want their own people and would end up
doubling up. If the DOR needs to do a better job handling financial
stuff, then let's make sure they do, but I thought that was the
purpose of creating the DOR so we didn't have --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
believe the DOR provides any service to road and bridge.
MR. CONRECODE: This is not --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they should.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They should. That's the point.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, this is not a revenue-generation
item. This is more to handle the day-to-day fiscal cost or the fiscal
elements of doing the MSTUs for this -- In fact, this is MSTU funded
through -- through a transfer, but it's to -- to provide for the
acquisition of sod and do the contract acquisition for maintenance on
all of the MSTUs, the five MSTUs that are out there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shouldn't that be in
purchasing?
MR. ARCHIBALD: There's -- There's somewhere in the
neighborhood --
MR. CONRECODE: Well, it would be either -- the liaison
with purchasing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is that currently done?
MR. ARCHIBALD: There's -- There's actually over 2,200
documents, typically purchasing or bid or specs or contracts of some
kind, over 2,200 processes that we have to go through on an annual
basis to keep up with all those activities. That person is really
being requested for the purposes of speeding up that and being able to
respond to the HSTDs. And as Tom just outlined, they're agreeing --
they're not agreeing, but we're allocating the charges for that
service back to all the HSTDs.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have on -- on that page --
and I'll wait until we get there. Let's go ahead and wrap up with --
with where we are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't have a problem with that
fiscal clerk. That -- That makes sense.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, but the project manager one
required for participation and processing the growing number of
neighborhood traffic management plan petitions -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where are you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a thought. If anybody
needs a count on the rest of the department, just count me as a no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On page 126 --
MR. CONRECODE: Thanks for your support, Commissioner.
(Commissioner Constantine exited the board room.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're -- We're going to pay
$47,300 for a project manager one to monitor a program whose entire
funding amount for getting things done is $50,000. We're going to pay
someone --
MR. CONRECODE: Yes. This is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forty-seven to monitor fifty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fifty.
MR. CONRECODE: This is one that we're happy to see come
before you as a program. Last year there was a -- with -- among great
fanfare, a presentation made to the board about the neighborhood
traffic management program. We've been overwhelmed with petitions but
haven't the staff to deal with them and this is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I want to fund that traffic
calming neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do too.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I really want to fund that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do too. I just question the
validity of a -- of a $50,000 position to fund -- to take care of
$50,000 worth of work.
MR. ARCHIBALD: In terms of dollars -- In terms of
dollars, the process that has been created is a two-year process.
We've already received 30 completed petitions. If it takes -- and
it's going to take a lot more than this. But typically 120 hours over
that two-year period, 60 hours a year you can see very quickly that
that's about 1,800 hours per year. That's a man year right there.
what we're asking is to recognize that if we implement that program,
just to process the petitions is going to take a full man -- man year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that an entry level position?
MR. CONRECODE: It's entry level in the project manager
series. Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And anywhere in the budget are we
going to see a request for more than $50,000 for this traffic calming?
Where would that be?
MR. DORRILL: No.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, keep in mind the $50,000 is what
the board had -- had addressed that the county would put up. In most
of these cases, you know, the county staff is going to come back in
individual reports to the board, and we're going to recommend that yes
-- if the petitioners want to bear the cost, yes, we would be in
favor of such and such a program, but we're not going to be
recommending in many of the cases that we've seen today that the
county participate in the cost, and that's going to be easier said
than done.
MR. DORRILL: It's your core service level issue and --
and we --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. DORRILL: The board's going to fund the analysis
phase.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. I am too.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: HSTDs are going to have to pay for the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- Sally Barker project.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I believe that is --
MR. KUKULSKI: If I may, on page 41 of the summary
sheet, we have a listing of the various expanded programs that -- The
first one was the fiscal clerk. Then we have the project manager and
transportation admin., and we have a list of the other expanded
requests.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I can -- I can run down those very
quickly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we've covered all of these.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're happy. I am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We've basically told you a
flat amount, figure out where it goes best, and God speed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I much prefer that approach rather
than us trying to --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't thank you enough for
that, Mr. Archibald. It's so frustrating to sit here and try to
figure it out. You've been -- You're so cooperative. Thank you for
being ahead of your department.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you done issuing your gold
star now?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am. But honestly --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Traffic.
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. We'll see you bright and
early tomorrow.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We've got courts.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's it for public works, and we have
courts.
MR. DORRILL: That's it for public works.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: We've -- We've got courts.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's -- let's quit for the
night.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same thing. Article five.
UNKNOWN VOICE: This is the end.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I was ready to pack up. I was saying,
oh, good. Then I realized you were joking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mike wasn't waiting for the punch
line. He's over there --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I could have been gone.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much of this is general tax
-- property taxes? $3 million?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 43 is a summary of courts
administration, and it shows total appropriations of roughly 3.2
million, total revenues of 740,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And how much of that is article
five money? All of it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All of it?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'll turn to Mr. Middlebrook for that.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Every dime of it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So thank you. Bye.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. On the domestic
violence unit, I was under the impression there would be no request
for expanded services, yet I see a half-time position being requested
to be full time. I'm going to -- I personally want to hold that
department to the commitment they made to this board during last
budget cycle which is they wouldn't come back asking for an expanded
department next year; they weren't going to just generate, you know,
work and that work wasn't going to require more people, and this was
going to be a burgeoning mushrooming department. I know it's only
half time to full time, but it's the very first year we've seen it
back, and I'm not inclined to approve that half time.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It's a full-time position, sir. Half
of it was funded by the clerk's office. The other half was funded by
us. The clerk has -- I'm Mark Middlebrook, senior deputy court
administrator for the 20th Judicial Circuit. Sorry.
The clerk as pulled that from his budget for this --
this coming fiscal year; therefore, if we wish to maintain the service
that we have there -- in essence, you did pay for it -- paid for it
out of the clerk's budget. It's just a transfer over to our budget.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That pocket-to-pocket thing.
Which pocket are we picking?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same pair of pants. Who said
that the other day?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A1 Perkins.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A1 Perkins said that the other
day.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, my God.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record reflect
Commissioner Hac'Kie is quoting A1 Perkins. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's late.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's late.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It is late.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we saw a reduction in
the clerk's budget, but there was a reduced level of service in this
department?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All right.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: In essence, the clerk had three
positions that did this job previously.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're the recipients of the shell
game on that one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hmm-hmm.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm-hmm.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where's the robe cleaning part?
At least whip that out of there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The what?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The what?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Robe cleaning?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We clean the judges' robes.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I believe that's only in the sum of
the circuit judges had requested that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So where is it? Which line?
MS. GANSEL: That's in the courts of the -- either the
circuit judges or the county judges, their budget.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are all of these --
MS. GANSEL: There's like the little part, and then
there's the big transfer on page 43.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are all of these county and
circuit court judges, Neil -- are they all article five as well?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are. All of this is article
five.
MR. DORRILL: I don't -- I don't know how much of this
needs to be part of the, you know, attorney's analysis on the state
attorney and the public defender because you've got -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All of it does.
MR. DORRILL: -- you've got some large increases here,
several hundred thousand dollars over the prior year when you need to
recall that we -- we have transferred responsibility. We're -- We're
making a transfer payment to the courts administrator where previously
these showed up on the Board of County Commissioners', you know,
ledger, if -- if you will.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask if some of these
increases are in anticipation of the Cracker Barrel case?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, sir. I was going to address that
separately. Unfortunately, sir -- if -- If I might just point one
thing out, a lot of these costs, these increases aren't under our
control. This comes from the state attorney and the public defender.
The $35,000 for psychiatric exams, we only budgeted 5,000 last year,
and we're already at 27,000. We have no control over that. The
increase for witnesses fee -- witness fees, we paid $25,000 for one
state attorney, and the witness was never called so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am -- am I -- Am I right in that
you're -- you're determining a budget and someone else is actually
going to write the -- is writing the checks for you? Can we tell them
no?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we can tell them no.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we're attempting to do that.
Judge Blackwell submitted a memo yesterday advising them the rules
that he is wishing them to follow; however, sir, that it is an
appealable part of the case if we deny them a certain expert and they
lose the case, and these are only in criminal cases. But my point to
you is that although we have to carry this money and it increases our
budget substantially, we don't have any control over it. If -- If
there -- the state attorney uses them or agrees to use them but never
calls them, we have to pay it. We challenge them through the county
attorney, and sometimes we win. Sometimes we get it reduced. Many
times we lose. But we are doing the best we can here to control that,
but it's really not under our control.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me, Mark. I've been in
the position for answering for budgets that I don't put together.
I -- I -- It's not a reflection on you but these -- you know, these
are the questions we are going to ask anyway, and you're unfortunately
the guy on the microphone so --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: And I understand that. That's why I
make that exorbitant amount of money. The Cracker Barrel we did not
carry in the budget. We had conversations with the manager. We did
not want to establish basically a contingency fund for the courts. We
went with the manager's direction to keep it in the -- the board's
reserves. We're anticipating upwards of $250,000 for that trial. As
you know, it's going to Clearwater, Florida. We have to fly in many
witnesses from Nevada. We have over 110 witnesses already. We have
to pick up the cost for all of that. We're trying to do this as
cheaply as possible and find a cheap airline like Southwest that will
do this because they fly into Tampa since -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: ValuJet.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- ValuJet's out -- well, they're done
but --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They say they're coming back.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Hopefully before the trial starts.
But that's an amount that you all need to be aware of that we may be
coming to you in this fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But isn't that exactly -- I mean,
I just -- I'm -- I'm going to quit my article five talking but that is
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Don't -- Don't quit because my
-- my thought --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the point exactly though.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My thought on this article -- on
the 20th Judicial Circuit Court budget here is that domestic violence
unit we -- we agreed ourselves to -- to fund that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Most of this other stuff has
been levied on us by someone else, and -- and -- and we've been
arguing article five costs with the legislature now for a number of
years, and I'm -- I'm just about ready to say, "Let's not fund this
thing. Let's see what happens," and -- because I -- These costs are
just run away. They're run away, run away. Mark is saying that
people are spending his money that he hasn't even budgeted, and then
he's ordered to pay the bill, and the taxpayers are footing something
they have no control over.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So where -- where would this go,
Mr. Dotrill? Help us with that.
MR. DORRILL: My suggestion would be to await some
analysis because so much of this is subject to interpretation or
negotiation. There are some things that based on current legal
opinions you have to pay. There may be some other things -- For
example, there is a request in here to give pay plan adjustments to
these courts -- the 40 court employees that are here now similar to
what you --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But they're state employees.
MR. DORRILL: Well -- and Mr. Middlebrook will tell you
they're not really state employees. They -- They work for the state
court system that exists to support court in Collier County, Florida.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Who signs their check?
MR. DORRILL: Their check is probably co-signed between
Dwight Brock and whoever the court administrator --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Dwight Brock signs the check.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It -- In essence, they're not -- I'm a
state employee. There's only -- The judges, their assistants, myself,
and one other person are state employees. The rest of them, although
they're not your employees, you pay all their salaries, and they are
under the state court system, but they are not state employees. So
it's a payment made by the clerk.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who determines their cost of
living, merit increases? Who determines that?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Who's their supervisor?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: You do.
MR. DORRILL: You're -- You're the sole source of
appropriation, but my point would be that state statute interpretation
does not compel you to have 21 people in the probation department --
in the county probation department. I don't know whether every county
in every circuit in the state has a county probation department. And
my point is there are -- there are some service level discretionary
abilities that county commissions have. We tend to fund our court
system at a fairly high cost per capita, and we always have. There
are some other issues, and he alluded to the Cracker Barrel murder
trial where they asked to set up a quarter of a million dollar reserve
under his control, and I said no. I said, I think you ought to wait
until you being to incur costs and then come back, and I will tell
that to the commission at the time of the budget workshop. But if we
give you a quarter of a million dollars, it's gone. It's his money to
spend at that point because of the contractual relationship we now
have with the circuit court administration.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As Mark said, he has no control
over it. Once it's under your name -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they request it. It's gone.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: In essence, I think what the point the
manager is making is that if you give it to me and I spend it some
other way other than for those costs, I think that would -- is what
he's alluding to but -- although the clerk would have something to say
about it at that point. But you're absolutely right there. It's
really not our money or our bills that are incurred.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I think in fairness what -- what
maybe we should do is look at the legal opinion aspect and see if it
is clear case law as to what cost must be paid, and then maybe we
should look at how other costs -- and I did this last year. We looked
at how other counties are supporting court within this circuit that
are similar. You know, I don't think we ought to look at Glades
County because Glades County can't afford to do anything, but begin to
look at per capita expenses that you're contributing in support of
circuit and county court, and you need to be comfortable -- We'll
either do average, or we'll the same as last year, or you can give him
more money per capita than you gave him last year in -- in relative
terms. But since you've already raised the issue with the state
attorney and the public defender, that would be my suggestion on how
to handle that this evening.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Works for me.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mr. Chairman, if I may add one thing.
We -- We didn't increase our staff at all. All these costs are
related to the cost of doing court that isn't under our control.
We've been doing a lot of efficient and effective service with our
employees, and we've contracted on some of these psychological
examinations with David Lawrence, lowered our rate -- we -- we are
planning hopefully maybe by 30 percent, but we seem to keep increasing
in the psychological exams, but the dollar figure might increase, but
actually we're going to get bigger bang for the buck here.
But I want you to know that the people that we have, we
work very hard, and we certainly could use more people, but we're
trying to follow your dictate and not ask for any additional people
here.
MR. DORRILL: And -- And nothing I said should -- should
question the management activities over there, and I told Mr.
Middlebrook the other day -- I said, you know, frankly, not having to
-- to operate the way that we did because I didn't really have direct
control over the employees, I haven't spent five minutes dealing with
the management of the courthouse in the past year. That -- That's a
plus in -- in -- in my book. I think the issues are one of
appropriation and what you have to do and what you can do and what you
don't have to do and -- and try and resolve some of those, but none of
these have to do with management of the courthouse. I think they have
to do with philosophy and interpretation of the statute that applies
to article five.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tonight we're not going to be able to
do that is what you're telling us because we need -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need an opinion.
MR. DORRILL: Because I think we need some guidance as
to what case law is, what the legal opinions are with respect to the
statutes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get a representative --
Well, no, he doesn't work for you.
Mr. Norris, would you ask the county attorney to have
somebody here as long as we're here on the budget hearings? It would
just be really useful. It's a couple of times now so far I've wished
we had a county attorney rep. He doesn't work for Neil, but he works
for us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it looks like we're --
we're through this item.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, no. I actually have a --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a suggestion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you find the robes?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have -- I have -- Honest to
God, I want that robe cleaning thing out of there, but nobody will
tell me how much that is. But $14,000 for computers for two judges?
$14,0007
MS. GANSEL: It's two computers for two judges, so it's
a total of four. They are not under the same system that the county
is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They don't have computers at all
in their offices now?
MS. GANSEL: They do.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: They're antiquated.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are their computers that they
have now linked to a system, or are they stand-alone PCs?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: They're stand-alone. Some -- Some are
linked to their judges in the court, but they're mostly stand-alone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can get them a better
deal. What do you think?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know I can beat that.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well -- and we are going to -- We have
asked all the judges that if they have any money left over this year,
they genuinely turn between two and $3,000 back to you all to buy
their computers this year, and we may not even ask for that money for
next year, but we had to budget for it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's on my cut list.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It needs to be cut to a
reasonable level. By two computers for their offices, they mean one
for the judge and one for an assistant? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It needs to be -- at least
be cut to what the county can get PCs for.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How antiquated -- I mean, are
they 286s or something? What are they?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I think they might be 386s. I'm not
positive. I know they're not up to the Pentium and -- With the -- the
new software that we're running for the courts, they can't run it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They can't run it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. Oh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do they -- they have modems where they
can get into West Law or anything like that, or it's just a
stand-alone right there on the desk, or what are they doing?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Most of the judges have modems, and --
and we are connected through -- We have a program called Group Wise
which goes to Lee County and so -- and they also use West Law, and
they have CD West Law that they subscribe to also.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why -- Why can't they use these
386s as -- as dumb units instead of smart units?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: You're beyond me there, ma'am. I -- I
really don't know.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just a terminal that doesn't
need its own software. It's -- It's linked into other -- into some
sort of mainframe.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, they might be able to.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Or server.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: This is how we operate. When the
judges get a new computer, we take the old ones, and we give them to
our people so we don't come to you and ask for new computers for
everybody. We try and utilize -- For the people that don't need that
advanced software, we give them the computers. So we still will be
using them, and -- and it kind of saves us from having to come to you
and asking for additional computers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think also what he's telling us is
they don't have a server.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's what he -- I think
that's what he's saying --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is they don't have a server.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I guess we're --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- done with that one for tonight
then.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm done.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mmm-hmm.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're going to get -- get an
opinion from Mr. Weigel on this article five --
MR. DORRILL: We're going to give him until Monday, and
we'll try and develop some budget analysis within that, some options
for you. And then we're going to do capital tomorrow following the
sheriff's budget.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Better find those robes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What about this court-related agency
page? Is that part of this?
MR. DORRILL: It's all part of that same thing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is all part of the same thing?
MS. GANSEL: That's public defender and the state
attorney.
DR. BILES: Can I ask a question from the public?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This would be a perfect time for
members of --
DR. BILES: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- the public to come up and --
DR. BILES: Fay Biles, Marco Island. I'm wondering, why
can't we go to the state and -- and find out some information about
changing this system?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the --
DR. BILES: I think that's crazy.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The thing about article five --
and -- and, Neil, you can help me. It's been a couple of years since
I looked at it. But it's in the constitution, and it says that -- and
it says the state will fund the -- DR. BILES: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- court system --
DR. BILES: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and anything the state does
not fund, the counties will.
DR. BILES: All right. But then why can't we go back to
the state, get help from our representative and --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we --
DR. BILES: -- our senators and do something?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, here we are in -- in June,
and the state has already set its budget.
DR. BILES: Yeah. I know.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
DR. BILES: This -- For this year.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For this year.
DR. BILES: But for maybe next year, I think we ought to
go to the state level.
MR. DORRILL: The county -- county commissions for ten
years have been fighting --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've been fighting this one.
MR. DORRILL: -- and/or contemplating a class action
suit that would be brought by the counties against the Florida
Legislature for challenging the interpretation.
DR. BILES: Absolutely. Get all the counties together
and --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's my thought in -- in
asking that we reject funding this, is to force the 20th circuit --
yes, Mr. Chairman -- to go to the state and say, "We need the money."
DR. BILES: Absolutely. Absolutely. All for it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We -- We may all wind up in jail
in contempt of court.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That'll be fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we can see who's got the staying
power.
DR. BILES: We'll take care of it, Bettye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Look at the room.
MR. DORRILL: I did have a judge swear out a bench
warrant for my or the county manager's arrest one time because of some
-- some air conditioning problems -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, really?
MR. DORRILL: -- in the old courthouse. They sent the
bailiff over with a warrant for either my arrest or Bill Norman.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, maybe --
MR. DORRILL: I went and explained it to Mr. Trettis
because I got delegated to go.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, maybe I'll start sleeping
in different places.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 7:25 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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:
Shelly Semmler, RHR
Christine E. Whitfield, RPR