Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/18/1997 B (Budget Workshop)BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1997 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 9:00 a.m. in BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Robert Fernandez, County Hanager Hike HcNees, Asst. County Hanager CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, if I could have your attention, please. Going to call to order the Board of County Commissioners' Fiscal 97/98 Workshop scheduled this morning. We don't have it on an agenda, but I'd like to start out with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. We are starting a budget workshop that consist of three full days, hopefully less than that, of budget discussions. Leading the show is going to be Mr. Smykowski today. Mr. Fernandez or Mr. McNees, is there anything you would like to add to get started before we turn it over to Mr. Smykowski? MR. MCNEES: Only to thank the budget staff for all their work so far. They've really been hard at it. I have already gotten a couple of compliments this morning from the public on how much easier information is to find and the improvements in the process, so we appreciate them always trying to make it easier for everybody to understand and with that just thank them and turn it over to Mr. Smykowski. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. Something we're going to do different this year, is this presentation we're about to see, should give us the general overview of where we're heading budget wise, what our starting point is, and how much work we need to do to get to where this board collectively wants to go. As we get into the individual departments, what I'm gonna ask, each of you that are here on -- to speak as just a member of the public on an individual department, we'll entertain those comments at the conclusion of each departmental presentation. So if anyone here has a list of items that are in different departments, please keep track of where we are, because we will, rather than waiting till the end and having those comments well after a particular departmental presentation, we would like them immediately afterwards, so the board can entertain them in their considerations. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the benefit of the public, there are speaker sign-in forms by Mr. McNees. So if you care to speak, please pick up a form. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mike, excuse me. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I just have a word I'd like to say before we get started and that is, I also want to thank the staff for the excellent job they've done to this point in the process. Our intent here is to, and from what I understand the effort has been directed towards a packet that addresses the priorities that we've heard from the Board of County Commissioners. This workshop and the ones that follow, hopefully will give us more refinement of that, and so that we're sure that we're giving the board exactly what you're looking for in the budget. I've seen the presentation from Mr. Smykowski already, and I think it does a very good job of giving you an overview and setting the stage for the details that you're gonna hear today in the presentations. So I just want to express my thanks to the staff for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Okay, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Surely. I'll begin shortly with the power point presentation that was based on the board direction from last year, it would be nice to have some pictures and computer work. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: His mike's not -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the mike's on, but you may have to get a little bit closer, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's usually not a problem for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, there's something wrong with that mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Try like over here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm usually loud enough without a microphone, but that won't do here. What we'd like to do this morning, just for members of the audience, we try to work our way -- today, we're gonna look exclusively at the general fund from A to Z. That appeared -- something that worked well for the board last year so that they understand anything, any decisions made today, if there would be any changes they would impact the general fund millage. So we'll kind of work through that from A to Z. What we'd like to do is try to get through the county manager's agency this morning and then work through constitutional officers this afternoon, and the capital projects that are supported by the general fund this afternoon as well. So just to give the members of the audience kind of what our intent is, county manager agency, again this morning. We do a schedule of combination, that I've discussed with you, Mr. Chairman, is that we'd like to work in the state attorney and public defender first, as they have a similar workshop today in Lee County. So they're trying to cover both bases. So with that accommodation, we appreciate that, and then I'm gonna head into the -- our presentation format as it's been in -- last year, the board will be serving in a board of directors capacity. It will be an exception basis form of review, looking at major deviations, increases or decreases and the board kind of steer us to what they would like to look at from the general fund summary. Again, something that worked well for us last year was a presentation on a fund basis as opposed to a functional basis, as many departments are funded with multiple -- across multiple funding sources that may be fee supported, as well as tax supported. What we're gonna do today is, again, just focus on general funds. As we utilized last year, there'll be summary books. The first thing that's contained within the summary books is the proposed tax rates, tax dollars, they have property values and how those have changed. Summary data for the general fund at the most aggregate level, just a divisional summary, just identifies something like management offices, what the adoptive budget was '97, forecast expenses this year, the proposed dollars in FY '98 and the percentage increase. The second stage of detail is divisional and agency summaries for general fund, and if the board were interested in moving from a divisional summary, such as support services, into departmental detail, the divisional summary, which is the second stage of detail, would identify the individual departments that are included in support services. As we get into our special revenue funds tomorrow, they are summaries aggregated by fund type and in all cases, we've identified in the summary book a list of proposed expanded services for ease of seeing what major changes are in the proposed budgets. The detail books, as in the past, provide full summary information and program data. Performance measures, which is something the board was interested in seeing this year, we've added those. There's individual fund or department spread sheets and budget highlights identifying major changes from the adopted budget, as well as in the forecast. In the financial budget overview, things that are common to all budgets, not just the general fund, we budget a three percent general wage adjustment to be effective October 1, 1997 per the adopted budget policy from February. One percent of personal services is budgeted as a pool of funds for merit pay. There's a four percent attrition rate that we've utilized in developing this budget. Major savings, the board's already been made aware of -- to the executive summary last month in the board health plan that's resulted in both savings in the current fiscal year, as well as a reduction in the board cost for health insurance in FY 98. A total employment -- a graph of the total employment summary in Collier County; 2,326 employees. The county manager is the largest at 47.9 percent followed by the sheriff at 36.5. Within the county administrator's agency, there's 1,115 employees. As you would expect, our public works is the largest division at 35.2 percent, followed by support services and public services. One barometer used to gauge the cost effectiveness and efficiency of government is the ratio of employees to permanent population. The trend that was begun in fiscal year 1990 continues as we are on the continued downward slope in terms of that, the ratio of employees to permanent population. Expanded service requests, there's a total of 59 across all budgets and all funds. The largest areas include support services, due to the addition of an EMS unit. Varied expanded services within public services. The library, animal control, just to name a few, and the sheriff has a proposed 13 total new positions. Again, a total of 59 expanded service requests. Now we move into the general fund, which is the fund for government services provided to all county residents. This is inclusive of residents of the City of Naples and Everglades City and the principal operating revenue is funded by ad valorem taxes. The proportions of the 11.7 million dollar general fund budget increase as proposed in FY '98, the sheriff is 44.9 percent, followed by the county manager at 20.1 percent. Transfers to capital is 15.4 percent. That's an area we've increased approximately 1.8 million dollars and we'll have an opportunity to explore those projects this afternoon. The proportions of the general fund budget increase in '97 broke out the sheriff was the largest, followed by transfers to other funds, which was in part dictated by the policy decision, the transition gas taxes to road maintenance to road construction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So just so I understand, if we were to adopt what is in writing right now without any modifications of five percent change, 63 percent rests within the sheriff's office? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, this was in '97. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: '97, okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: '97. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just kind of giving you kind of where the money went last year versus -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go to the slide before. Can you do that? Oh, no, that's okay. Go ahead and finish. MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, it's all right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The idea of this presentation -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The slide before, I think is the one that showed us -- that one, okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the slide that applies to my question, which is, if we were to just adopt the budget as is, 45 percent of that is within the sheriff's office, the balance is within the -- really under the BCC? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's 45 percent of the increase? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The proposed increase? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. There's an 11.7 million dollar increase. In addition, for all these slides in your summary book, there is an itemized chart, which will identify the raw data figures as well, and we'll have an opportunity, if you'd like when I'm finished, to go through those and you can see the raw numbers that are associated with these slides. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was hoping too, you can print out the slides. I'd like to have a printout of the slides. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like that, too. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. The next slide is a graphic representation of where the general fund millage history has been, the percentage above and below rollback from FY '90 -- FY '88 through FY '98. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And every year I ask you this for the benefit of those who may not understand it, would you please explain what rollback means? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. The rollback millage rate is the tax rate which represents no tax increase to the average taxpayer, and it generates the same tax dollars as in the previous year exclusive of new property coming on the tax roll. Currently in FY '98, we're looking at 5.3 percent increase above the rollback rate. The tax impact of the FY '98 general fund budget and one of the caveats is that we have budgeted one -- approximately 1.4 million dollars from the interim government services fee. The proposed general fund millage is 3.8060. Adopted in FY '97 was 3.7241. This represents a tax increase of $8.19 per $100,000 of taxable value, approximately $.75 a month. Exclusive of the interim government services fee, the tax increase with the budget as proposed would be $15.16 for $100,000 of taxable value. Highlights of the service enhancements in the proposed budget, again, this is just a general fund. Five patrol and three youth relations deputies. Due to growth in court system, additional judges, four court bailiffs. A response time driven issue in the Bonita Shores area is the EHS unit. EHS tries to maintain a response rate -- an average response rate of six minutes or less. The Bonita Shores area EHS currently has a response time of 12 to 15 minutes. In addition, you get a full year's operation at Sugden Park. Due to the construction schedule last year, it was not operational for the entire fiscal year, obviously, in FY '97. Now, one of the board priorities is economic development. There's a major proposed enhancement of the economic development program. There is, as I alluded to earlier, 1.8 million dollars in additional capital projects funding that is supported by the general find. Again, we'll look at the individual projects this afternoon and library and animal control services, high growth areas within the county demands for service, so we've proposed enhancements in those areas, as well. Now, we're moving to the unincorporated area of general funds, which provides municipal type services to the unincorporated area residents, and this excludes the City of Naples and Everglades City. As the general fund, is the primary operating revenue is ad valorem taxes, examples of services provided on the unincorporated area include code enforcement, long range planing, law enforcement and parks and recreation. The tax impact of the proposed FY '98 budget in the unincorporated area is $1.09 per $100,000 of taxable value. We're at just over a half a mill at .5751 mills. The adopted millage rate in FY '97 was .5642. One of the board's strategic goals was to provide effective drainage for stormwater and one of the primary reasons for the tax increase, slight tax increase in the unincorporated area is the board's prorata share of phase one costs for the Lely area stormwater improvement project and the purpose of this project was to increase flow capacity in the main canal and its tributaries, spread out water discharge to do three things: Prevent overdrainage, provide for groundwater recharge, and restore historical sheetflow into the wetland areas. The allocation of costs for this project in millions of dollars, the lime-green is the county's share, at 15 percent of the phase one project costs, it's slightly above $700,000. Again, Mr. Bolt is here and we'll have opportunity to discuss the details of that projects further. There's also a major policy decision facing the board in the unincorporated area of general fund budget. The cable franchise budget reflects one million dollars in revenue for use of the public right-of-way by telecommunication companies. Currently, we've reflected in the budget an offsetting reserve of $950,000. The board has reviewed a draft ordinance and sent staff back to the drawing board for revisions. At this point, this is not a revenue source that A, we can count on, and B, the extent to which we will actually generate that money is a bit of an unknown at this point. So the recommendation is to not offset ad valorem taxes currently with a relatively unreliable revenue source at this point, and obviously, there's a lot more staff work that needs to be done before a final policy decision is made by the board in that regard. Tomorrow, we'll be moving then into the special revenue funds, some of which are fee supported. The building -- built by building permits and development fees. Other revenue sources are special taxes such as the TDC, ad valorem taxes, fines and surcharges. These funds are typically created for specific purposes, such as community development, which is for all costs associated with the issuance of building permits and regulation of the building industry. Tourist development, obviously designed to enhance Collier County as a tourist destination. There's a multitude of special purpose taxing districts the board administers. One highlight in this area is that you'll see within the tax rates proposed in the special purpose taxing districts, they were impacted by the cost of median maintenance, and you'll see those specifically in the road maintenance MSTD's, as well as the beautification MSTU's. The board has a little less of a policy making role in this regard, in that most of these districts actually have a citizens advisory group and these taxing districts were actually created in many cases by public petition, by people asking the board, you know, we want to tax ourselves for a given purpose. In addition, the balance of special taxing districts include the fire control districts, the Golden Gate Community Center and some of our street lighting districts. There's also -- some of the funds have restricted use, such as the ADA compliance fund which is used to upgrade county facilities for handicapped access, which is funded through fine revenue. The 800 megahertz operating fund used for operating costs associated with the 800 megahertz radio system and the enhanced 911 phone system, which is a surcharge on telephone bills. Then we'll move into our internal service funds, and these are used to account for operations that provide services to other county departments and they operate on a break-even basis. There's a total of 8 funds, including information technology, department of revenue. The county's three self-insurance funds, which include property and casualty, group health, worker's compensation. There's two fleet management funds, our operating funds for the repair of county -- and maintenance of county vehicles and a capital recovery program which is a sinking fund, designed for the eventual replacement of county vehicles. The last fund in this area is the OCPH fund, which is -- provides engineering support to other county departments. Highlights within the internal service funds area include a $46 per work station decrease in IT system support charges. Exceptional performance in the group health plan, that the board's already been apprised of. A settlement of a number of old -- long-term worker's compensation claims, rather than continuing to carry those, we're just settling those in lump sum settlements. A buildup in capital recovery reserves for future vehicle replacement and the elimination of six positions in OCPH based on estimated work load. Graphically represented, within the internal service funds the percent changes from the FY '97 budget. Obviously, the largest increase is in the capital recovery fund. In FY '98, there's fewer vehicles being replaced, so our reserves are being accumulated. We're not purchasing as many vehicles as we did in '97. Enterprise funds are the next area, operated like a private business. These include our County Water and Sewer District, Marco Water and Sewer District, Goodland Water District, as well as our solid waste management efforts. Revenue sources for the enterprise funds, these are primarily user fee funded, include water and sewer fees, solid waste tipping fees, mandatory garbage collection special assessments. Other revenues of more of a minor nature include utility assessments, solid waste franchise fees and recycling grants. On the expenditure side of the ledger, we're funding water and wastewater operations, utility debt service, utilities capital improvements, solid waste collection and disposal and recycling programs. A representation of changes in major fee revenues within the enterprise funds is the current graph. The first thing you'll note, the first two columns at the left in blue are the water department revenues. You'll notice a decrease in budget revenue in FY '98. Conversely, the fluorescent green color represents wastewater revenues and there is an increase in the proposed budgeted revenue. What we're doing is restructuring the rates so that they're more in line of the actual cost of operations within each of those respective areas. Within the landfill, which is the red bars, there is a proposed tipping fee increase. That's in keeping with the board's direction to accumulate funds for the eventual construction of a new landfill line sell. One area that's kind of an anomaly is the mandatory collection, which is at the far right of the graph. When the mandatory collection program was first initiated we collected revenue for 12 months, for a full year, but the program was not initiated until January of that fiscal year. In FY '97, to place the special assessment on the tax bill and get on that cycle, we actually only billed for nine months of expenses. So what would have been a $107 bill, an actual bill that someone received as part of their tax bill, would have been about 88 or $89. In FY '98, we're looking at, in addition to three percent cost of living adjustment of the waste hauler contracts, we're also at this point, the bills will be reflective of full years of service. So from an analyzed basis the FY '97, would have been about $107 going up to approximately 110 due to three percent cost of living adjustment, but the actual bills paid a year ago were only due to the conversion for the billing cycle. The final area is our capital improvement program and this includes growth related capital improvements in the CIE, as well as non-CIE projects based on departmental need for replacement and renovation. The total recommended expenditures of 123.6 million dollars. One of the major components is the wastewater treatment plant expansion, our north regional plant would be expanded. Roads continue to be an ongoing effort in Collier County. We have shown the jail project. Obviously, there's a lot of work yet to be done, both on the potential for a corrections impact fee and the V group study, which will ultimately determine the number of beds needed, when those beds will be needed, and ultimately the board will be faced with a decision about a long-term funding source, depending on when that -- when those needs are ultimately -- need to be constructed. At this point, it is in the -- we have reflected that in the budget. Obviously, that's just to keep that at the forefront of discussion. Again, there'll be much more information available later on this summer, prior to our final public hearings in September. The V group study will be available late in August and that will give us, I think, a lot clearer direction of where we need to go and what the ultimate costs are in that record. Total capital improvement revenues of 123.6 million, bond and loan proceeds are the largest component. Again, that is inclusive of the jail, as well as state revolving loan funds for the regional wastewater treatment expansion, carried forward is a large funding source in this area, depending on the timing of projects. Obviously, we're accumulating impact fees to build growth related projects in the future. In addition, large components include impact fees, gas taxes, and utility operating revenues supporting those efforts. And that concludes -- just my opening remarks to try to give you an overview of where we stand and we'll move into the operating budgets, at this point, the general fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Mr. Smykowski before going into the individual operating funds? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I just think that was great. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good presentation. Just a general question for the board. I assume our goal, as it has been in the past years, is to get to rollback? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To rollback at worse than it was millage neutral. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know something they did and I discussed this with Mr. Fernandez on Tuesday and briefly with Mr. Smykowski, last year when we looked at an increase in the millage rate, I think everyone did so with the hope and knowledge that we were going to be in a better position the following year and be able to give the taxpayer back some of that increase, to bring that millage rate back down a little bit and I think that is more or less an unspoken goal of this board as we enter this process, is not to look at not necessarily not increasing, but actually coming back in line with what we've able to do in years past, where we haven't had big ticket items and large items hit the budget all at one time. So I asked Mr. Smykowski to do two things. He has -- there are two, what I'll call target numbers that I think would be helpful for us to understand. The first is out of the general fund, what is the dollar amount from what's proposed that needs to be reduced in order to hit rollback. The second amount is what is the dollar amount that needs to be reduced to hit a millage neutral point. I think those are helpful in giving us targets to shoot for. We'll still review each department individually from a critical standpoint, to determine if there are any excesses or areas that we want to come back from, but I think those two dollar amounts will be helpful to this board, that we can keep a running tally on where we're trying to get to, to give the taxpayer back some of what we were more or less forced to do last year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And did we get those numbers from Mr. Smykowski? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just asked him for one of them this morning. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I do have them available. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. First, in order to reach rollback, what would be in general fund that we would have to reduce from what is being proposed. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Actually, if you turn to page seven in your summary books, the area entitled summary information before the general fund, that's actually an agency distribution of how much each respective agency is, based on their budget request, above or below the rollback rate. The grand total at the bottom of the page identifies $3,752,365. That is what would have to be reduced in order to reach the rollback rate or, conversely, identify other revenue sources. So there may be some latitude down the road to increase the constitutional officer turnback somewhat. So, obviously, our revenue increase has the same benefit as an expense reduction, in terms of meeting the rollback, but the number at the bottom of that page is the number to reach rollback, 3 point -- three and three quarter million dollars, for all intents and purposes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To reach what we'll call a millage neutral standpoint so the ad valorem rate does not see any increase on the tax bill, what would that -- that's the number I asked for this morning in very short order and -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I apologize for that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh, that's okay. I've been able to come up with that number. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The adopted millage in FY '97 was 3.7241 mills. Utilizing the same millage rate, that would generate taxes of 72 -- about 72.6 million dollars. We would have to cut approximately 1.6 million dollars or find additional revenue of 1.6 million dollars to reach that target. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And do both of those numbers include an anticipated revenue from an interim government services fee? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that amount is? MR. SHYKOWSKI: One million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but do they also include the cable franchise or whatever that -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's in the unincorporated area of general fund, which we'll discuss tomorrow. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is not -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not in this number? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. That is not a component of the general fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any further questions, before we get started with the individual elements for Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually, if you turn to your general funds summary. In your summary book, it's page A-1. There's a tab, the first tab would be the general fund. Just to kind of give you an overview of where we'll start, this is a summary of appropriations or the beginning of a summary of appropriations. It's on two pages, and what it identifies is the adopted '97 budget by agency, forecast revenues and expenses, the proposed current service budget, which, again, is the inflationary cost of funding services that are currently being provided, expanded services, identifying enhancements above and beyond what is currently being provided and proposed in FY '98, and then there's a total budget number and a percent budget change. The balance of the appropriations increase is on page A-2. Again, the total general fund is 120.4 million dollars. Page A-3 identifies the revenues supporting general fund operations. About the middle of the page you'll see the interim service fee at $1,360,000. Obviously, that is an issue that will need to be resolved or at least prior to -- and the other thing, I guess in terms of, again, reorienting you to the process, we will adopt proposed millage rates at your first meeting back in July. The trim notices would be based on the millage rate that is adopted at that point in time, but I just remind the board that, obviously, we have, until we bang the final gavel in September, there's ample opportunity again to revisit this. We've made changes at final public hearings in the past. So just, again, to reorient the board that today is not a last ditch effort prior to adopting millage rates. We have -- obviously, we'll have to adopt a millage rate upon which the trim notices will be based and in September we have two public hearings, again, to hear public sentiment and make changes one way or another. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, again, for the public benefit, the trim notice is basically the highest. In other words, it cannot go higher than what the trim notice indicates, but it can go lower in September. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that's why I'll call the trim notice a worse case scenario that this board has set forward, and then obviously, can go lower from there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I've been trying to figure out an appropriate time to say this, and I guess this is about as good as any. My philosophy on budgeting has always been pretty conservative and it's my strong advice to the board that you not budget revenues that are not supported by adopted measures, that are already adopted. I've had -- I've had the experience of the board really wishing to do something, counting on it in the budget, only to find that the revenue was not available when it was needed in the budget. I know there's some history here and some strong commitment on the part of the board on the interim governmental services fee, however, I would caution you against budgeting that revenue until the measure's actually in place and you can actually count on that revenue to be there, otherwise you're gonna have a difficult time balancing the budget. With the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Point well taken, that's why I asked the question because what I've done is added that to the base of the millage neutral as a minimum target, so that -- I don't know if it's the rest of the board's intents we'll have a chance to discuss under revenues, but I'm not comfortable budgeting that as a revenue source. I think we need to look as if it's not there, make our decisions based on that, and if it does come in then that just gives us a better starting point for next year, but I appreciate the caution and I think it's well warranted. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I know we've done that based upon the board's strong interest in doing that, and their interest in having it budgeted in current year and so forth, and it was done in an effort to accommodate that policy direction by the board, but I would just caution you that before the gavel slams on that final public hearing, I think you need to have that ordinance under your belt. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know it's for tomorrow's fund, as Mr. Smykowski pointed out, but I think we better have the same sort of hesitancy about that cable franchise administration. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. Now, in that case we have budgeted reserves -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- so there would be no net impact if that come to fruition. In the general fund, however, that is supporting the operations of the budget as proposed. There is no offsetting reserve at this point, so there's a distinction there. The other thing I'll point out, in A-3, constitutional officer turnbacks as discussed during the budget policy have historically been much higher than the budgeted level. For example, the -- you look at in the actual column, you see what the actual -- for instance, the clerk was approximately a million seven last year, budgeted this year was 550,000. Through discussions and working with the constitutional officers, though, we have increased significantly. In the forecast at this point the clerk is at 1,277,500, much more in line with -- where the actual -- the average has been over time, so to their credit, they have worked with us in that regard and I'd like to point that out and we appreciate their cooperation in that. Mr. Brock also indicated that, and for all the constitutional officers for that matter, obviously, when we get to the final public hearings in September, we'll have 11 months of actuals under our belt and perhaps a better indication of what a true turnback number might be. So there's always that opportunity for last minute revenue adjustments. In addition, we typically present our third quarter revenue report and our state revenue sharing number at that point for the year is known. So if we have any latitude there, as well as in sales tax revenues above and beyond what we're currently projecting, we will receive that benefit and we typically, again, present that in mid-September which would fall right between our public hearings, so the board would have the benefit of that additional knowledge at that point in time. So there may be some additional opportunity down the road to explore increasing revenues, but at this point, the constitutional officer turnbacks, this is what they were comfortable with at this point in time in the year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just looks like a wonderful improvement by both the clerk and the tax collector, but if I'm reading this right the supervisor of elections had a turnback of almost $450,000, but we're only budgeting $135,00 for her turnback. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, last year was -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Likewise the property appraiser had 140 and we're only budgeting 50. Can we -- have we worked with them? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think, quite honestly, I think when we discuss their individual budgets that will be the perfect time to look at those turnback amounts. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to know have they -- have they -- have you approached them about turnback, about increasing their budget since it looks -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I know Ms. Leith worked with Ms. Morgan, at this point, that is the number they were comfortable with. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So we'll look at it one on one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I think that's the most appropriate time to do that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause that's '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- because I had similar questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Both of those look strange. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, the purpose of this was just to identify A, changes in the turnback policy that we had discussed as part of the budget policy and, you know, and in addition give credit where credit is due and they have worked with us in that regard and we appreciate their cooperation. In terms of the total budget increase, and I alluded in the power point presentation that there was a chart of the raw dollar increase and that is actually on page six in the summary book, in the summary information component, prior to the general fund tab, and that just identifies the raw dollars of where the increases are. The sheriff had 5.2 million. The county manager had 2.3 million. Again, as discussed, capital, we've increased the budget of capital projects by 1.8 million dollars. Transfers to other funds increased over a million. That's primarily a result of the final transition of gas taxes from road maintenance to road construction driven by policy. I'd also like to point out that the tax collector and property appraiser numbers for the general fund represent the fees for preparing the tax roll and collecting our ad valorem and are not representative of their actual budget request. We have not even received a budget per statute. We don't get that until, I believe, mid-August for the tax collector, so I don't want to incur the wrath of Mr. Carlton, so I just point out that the general tax collector component is actually the fees associated with collecting the ad valorem for Collier County, as well as by a quirk in state statute requires the county to pay for the fees associated for the school board and the City of Naples, which is an oddity and I'm not sure what the legislative intent was there, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that should be noted for our legislative agenda, Mr. Fernandez, for next time. Well, just speak to Mike about that issue that we might want to get on the legislative agenda next time about that we collect the fees -- we pay the fees as a county for the cost of collecting school board taxes and City of Naples taxes, that sounds to me like a glitch that could be fixed. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, I'm not sure what the legislative intent was. I'm don't know if Mr. Fernandez knows. MR. FERNANDEZ: The constitutional responsibility of a tax collector with respect to other taxing authorities, yeah, the counties typically have paid the fees for those. I think there are things you can do to look at the other taxing authorities and ask for them to pay their share. We'll take a look at that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Without any further ado then, we'll go back to the general fund, summary of appropriations. Again, working from our exception reporting basis, page A-1 is a fund summary for the general fund and we were kind enough to grant the accommodation the state attorney and public defender and invite them to the microphone, if there are any questions. At the bottom, about two-thirds of the way down the page, there is a subtotal for state attorney, public defender and court cost. The proposed budget increase is 9.2 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you send us through the corresponding page in the book? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. I'm sorry, I'll let Ms. Gansel, the analyst for -- MS. GANSEL: Page A-41 in your summary, it follows the hot pink page there. I don't know if there's any correlation between that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A-41. MS. GANSEL: A-41 in the summary book. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, I'm there, but I mean in the detail book. MS. GANSEL: The detail book is on A-131. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: If you would like for us to give an overview or if you would like to just have your direct questions, whichever's the preference of the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we go ahead with your presentation, Ms. Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Okay. The public defender and the state attorney, state statute requires that we pay for their operating expenses. For both of these budgets, their operating expenses has remained fairly constant. What has driven the higher increases, in addition to their operating expenses, we pay -- the county pays for four state employees. We have looked at that in the past and that is the least expensive way for us to provide some additional services that are needed in Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many employees total are there in the State Attorney's Office here? MS. GANSEL: In the State Attorney's Office here? This is the public defender budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. MS. GANSEL: Dennis Pearlman is from the State Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, if you're going to speak, we need you at the microphone, please, and for all those that are not familiar, if you do need to speak, we need you at a microphone and we need you to state your name for the record, please. MR. PEARLMAN: Dennis Pearlman, executive director for the State Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. PEARLMAN: There are approximately 70 employees in our office here and that varies depending on particular case load or case matter such as the Cracker Barrel case. We have other people come from outlying offices and depending on what program we're trying to develop at the time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you MS. GANSEL: The larger increase in the state -- of the state employees that we pay for, for the public defender, they are requesting 7.6 percent salary adjustment in the next fiscal year, which does exceed the three percent that the board has allocated for county employees. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much savings would be associated with reducing that 7.6 to the three percent the rest of the county's getting? MS. GANSEL: It's 10,000 for the 7.6, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Half of that or less. MS. GANSEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's -- I guess I need to hear from the Public Defender's Office the justification for double the raises for what general county employees are getting. Anybody here from the Public Defender's Office? MS. GANSEL: Yes, Bob Jacobs and Harlene Williams are here from the Public Defender's Office. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, before we spend a whole lot of time on that. It's set three percent, CPI through April is 2.5, so that's actually three times CPI. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. JACOBS: Robert Jacobs, deputy public defender. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right there, at this microphone if you would, please. MR. JACOBS: Robert Jacobs, deputy public defender, and Ms. Williams will address those issues -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks, let me explain this because we're having a tough time with this. If you're gonna address the board, you need to have a seat in the chairs, state your name, speak into the microphone, that way the court reporter can get every word. MR. JACOBS: Very good. Robert Jacobs, deputy public defender. I'll defer to Ms. Williams, our finance officer, who will give you particulars. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, this increase of 7.6 percent is just keeping in pace with the state increases that we have given out to our employees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: State increases set by the legislature. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, the state increases, plus the merit increases, some merit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With all due respect, I don't understand why they would get triple what the county staff is getting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And our policy here is basically three percent, plus one percent for merit increases. I guess, I'm looking for some rationale why the employees of the state should be treated differently since they're paid through our budget, that aren't county employees. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we've had some problems in Collier County with our turnover and we had to bring in attorneys with a little more experience and that did bring up the salary level. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was there any type of study performed to indicate how we compared cost of living wise for what you were paying the attorneys to attract them to this area? Anytime we authorize anything over a base, we generally want to look at the bigger picture and determine if that's the only way to go. Maybe turnover problems are administrative centered as opposed to salary centered. I'm just curious if there was any -- MS. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- any discussion on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My feeling's gonna be that we should treat those employees who are state employees, but paid by county money, exactly the same sort of raises as other -- as the county employees are getting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Okay. So let's quantify that CPI, plus one percent merit. Is that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I think what we're doing with the rest of the county is three percent, plus one percent available for merit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what we're budgeting for, that's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask a question because what we've done in the last two or three years is go with the CPI. We had estimated that to be three percent. If it's -- shows to be two -- I think last year it was 2.7 or 2.8 or whatever we ended up at. So are we staying consistent with that policy or we gonna go with three percent? MR. MCNEES: What you had discussed earlier was budgeting three percent, and then when it came time October 1st to actually make the salary adjustments, we would base it on what the CPI had been. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what identical policy is in this department. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would too. Okay. Ms. Gansel -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we quantify what that dollar is? The difference is between 7.6 and 37 MS. GANSEL: Approximately 5,000. I don't have it exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. A nickel here and there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seven million and four hundred and forty-seven. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And counting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Were there any other elements of the presentation, Ms. Gansel, there are some capital issues? MS. GANSEL: Yes. There are two capital requests that -- for $6,000. Two laptop computers and a laser printer were included in this budget, also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got no problem with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A lot of our county departments will amortize the cost of vehicles over a given period and budget -- we'll budget that amortization so that you don't get a single budget hit for vehicles in a given year. Is -- MS. GANSEL: That's in the state attorney's budget, not in the public defender. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we're doing laptop computers and a printer here and that seems appropriate to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything dealing with computers does seem appropriate to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not anything. If you remember last year, the IT budget, I don't think they would say that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's true, that's true. Okay. Are there any other questions on the public defender budget? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you very much. MR. JACOBS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski -- I'm sorry, yes, and that was a $5,000 amount, Ms. Gansel, is that correct? Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'll start the running. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Start the tally. MS. GANSEL: In state attorney's budget, again, we pay for the operating -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm having trouble hearing you. MS. GANSEL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm having trouble hearing you. I don't know if it's -- maybe get closer to that mike. MS. GANSEL: All these papers in front of me. In the state attorney's budget, the operating budget expenses, we do not pay for any of the employees in the State Attorney's Office. However, they have some major capital requests. They are requesting two replacement vehicles for 34,000. They are not in the replacement program, the capital recovery program. I couldn't tell you why, but it has been this way that when their vehicles are in need of replacement, they replace them out of their fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that determination is made by fleet management and not by the State Attorney's Office; is that correct? MR. PEARLMAN: Yes. MS. GANSEL: The replacement of the vehicles -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and get your names again for the court reporter. MR. PEARLMAN: Executive director, Dennis Pearlman for the State Attorney's Office. MS. STANBRO: Debbie Stanbro, fiscal director for the State Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: The request for replacement has come from fleet management. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Gansel, you were raising the question as -- you're not sure why the board purchases them in the first place, but as long as that's -- MS. GANSEL: No, not why the board purchases them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as that's the policy -- MS. GANSEL: Why they're not in the capital recovery. This has been ongoing, that they have always had their vehicles, I think some seized vehicles a number of years ago and that's started the process of why they pay for replacement in their fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: And they're also -- I'm sorry, did you want to discuss -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, I was gonna say as to why they're not in the replacement fund, we can fix by starting that next year, but I don't know that that affects the need for vehicles right now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What kind of vehicles does the State Attorney's Office have? MR. PEARLMAN: These vehicles, one is a four-door -- the vehicles that we're asking to be replaced, one is a four-door sedan, a Bonneville and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I mean who uses them? What are they for? MR. PEARLMAN: We have investigators and our office head that drive these vehicles and the investigators go countywide and work the case side for prosecution. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many total vehicles do you have? MR. PEARLMAN: There are a total of seven vehicles that are supported by the county. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any problems with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many investigators -- I'm just trying to get a little better picture. How many investigators do you have? MR. PEARLMAN: At any time, we have five down here and we have the office head and another support supervisor that uses the vehicle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you do have in essence a vehicle assigned more or less to each individual for their use? MR. PEARLMAN: Just the investigator -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you just named seven people and seven vehicles; is that correct? MR. PEARLMAN: Well, one of the vehicles is sometimes used as a pool vehicle going back and forth to Lee County, which obviously is our hub county where we get a lot of resources for our case prosecution from Lee County. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't have any seized Corvettes we can throw in? MR. PEARLMAN: On occasion we get a Cadillac from a drug dealer that we use in some of our undercover cases. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you get one of those, you let us know, okay? MR. PEARLMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Second item is 18,900 -- MS. GANSEL: $18,000 for six laser printers. The state attorney is going to be converting to the PC network and these printers are the only ones that will work with that system. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under -- I was going to the same place. Under the IT purchasing contract, are we paying over three grand for laser printers? Does anyone know that? I'm looking whether the cost is in line. MR. PEARLMAN: The printers that we've requested are -- were looked at under state contract pricing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. PEARLMAN: I don't know what your IT printer is, but what we've tried to do is minimize the amount of printers that we're purchasing and I think they are high capacity. They're HP LaserJets. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just looking for a ballpark figure from -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Leo here? No? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we have a deal to get you the same thing for a little better price, then I'd hope we'd use it, but that's what I'm looking for. MS. GANSEL: We'll verify that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: -- and make adjustments, if necessary. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's mark that and look at what we might be able to do on the same type of printer. See if we can do a little better on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is the total number of printers -- I mean, you got six printers for seventy employees; is that true? MR. PEARLMAN: Usually on the network printer, you average anywhere around eight users per printer. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not bad. Thanks. MR. PEARLMAN: That's an industry standard that we're trying to follow and what we followed in our other counties. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you very much. MR. PEARLMAN: Thank you very much. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good luck in Lee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Get a couple of Cadillacs this week, too, if we can work on that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Bye. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Twice in one day. How lucky can you get? We're back to A-i, and we'll kind of just work our way down the top starting with the board office, the county attorney's office and work our way into the county manager's agency. MS. GANSEL: Board of County Commissioners, the summary book is page A-7 and also in the detail book is A-7. They are little changes in the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Gansel, for the sake of clarity, do you want to operate from the detail book as we look at the individual departments? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I kind of -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can do both. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. MS. GANSEL: Both pages? Okay. There's a little change in the budget request and the service level remains the same for the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except we were gonna cut Commissioner Norris' salary, right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't we all agree with that? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's been flagged. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead, Ms. Filson. MS. FILSON: I'm here to answer questions. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's your favorite color? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's going to be a long day at this rate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no problems with that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just need a question -- just -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- to have something clarified. When you have the adopted budget at 488,000 and then the current service at 541, what accounts for that change? I'm just curious. I mean, it's not that dramatic, but I'm just curious as to what it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: She's asking, if I understand correctly, what's causing it to go from 488 to 514, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: A lot of times the commissioners have travel and that is not utilized, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that -- MR. HCNEES: That's probably your salaries as mandated by the state. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, in that case, let's move on. MS. GANSEL: The salary adjustment is set by statute. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. You get a bulletin that identifies for all the constitutional officers what the proposed salaries are. They're actually population increase driven, so -- and then we just plug those in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I didn't know if there was something else. I know that normally is part of it, but I didn't know if there was something else included in this. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, not in that line. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Filson. MS. GANSEL: And the county attorney's budget, the summary is on the same page as we were on, A-7, and the detail is on page A-9. The county attorney's budget also does not reflect any service increase, however, there is an additional salary adjustment of $13,900 that is included in this budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Mr. Weigel? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, that's something different from, again, from the three percent and the one percent? MS. GANSEL: That is in excess of the three percent salary adjustment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can we talk about that one adjustment for my benefit, other than just the salary adjustment the board authorizes or has budgeted for, what's the additional 13,000 in salary, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Excuse me, David Weigel, county attorney. That's based upon using a measure of a five percent increase in salary for the attorneys. The attorneys are composed of presently eight with an office of nineteen and we are changing to nine attorneys as opposed to eight attorneys, with no increase in personnel. The nineteen will remain the same. A legal assistant position is being changed, in fact, has been changed to an attorney position, at a slight increase in pay for the attorney to get considerably more service ability for the dollar spent, including the ability to sign off on contracts, ordinances and go to court. More directly, to your question, that five percent -- that approximate five percent is only reflective on attorneys and in effect would potentially be utilized as an addition to adjust potential adjustments for all of the staff, but we used the attorneys as a base to work up. I've had a difficulty this past year and a half in filling vacancies with the office, and as we look through extensive interview processors, we find an awful lot of interest from afar and, of course, we don't pay any travel expenses or relocation expenses or things of that nature. I find it, perhaps, a little inimical to the process to potentially have attorneys working for Collier County Government that don't even reside in the county. There's no absolute requirement for that and it's not a requirement in my review, but it's just something that I impose. The county government has lost very responsible fine attorneys in the last several years. Host of which practice before you now and in part I know, with my nearly 12 years with the office, that these departures were frequently based on the inability of the prior county attorney to maintain a salary that kept them on a career path in their experience with the county. So it's with that in mind that we want to keep some flexibility for salary in this next budget year and I continue with a difficult process with hiring a 9th attorney. I even have a vacancy at the present time, which is months and we're still not there yet, getting someone that I think can fill the job for the needs that we have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me interrupt you, Mr. Weigel, there's a question. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we did our pay plan adjustment a year ago, year and a half ago, did we address -- I mean I assume the county attorney's office had an adjustment as well? MR. WEIGEL: I don't recall any particular adjustment, other than the three percent that was implemented at the half year mark. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The staff got, you know, most of that adjustment went to secretarial and support staff and I know your staff participated in that. It may not of -- a lot of that didn't filter up to management and probably also didn't filter up to lawyers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and the pay plan adjustment wasn't simply a certain increase. I mean all -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the positions were reclassified or the dollar amount that went with each position was reclassified and I thought we went into that. MR. HCNEES: The positions in the attorney's office were included in the market survey. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I remember Mr. Cuyler raising the question a year and a half, two years ago, and we -- I remember responding to it. So I understand if there's a concern. I don't know that Collier County Attorney's Office is ever gonna pay the same as the private sector, so I understand there's a differential there and that we may lose people from time to time, but I very distinctly remember Mr. Cuyler and yourself being concerned about the level that we can pay and list it off at the time -- we lost two or three people in a short amount of time and I remember this board responding to that. I think we've done more than just the annual increase of two and a half to three percent. MR. WEIGEL: In understand your question, yes, but the county attorney's office was part of that reclassification or look that was done with adjustments to job responsibilities and pay scales for those. We still have some constraints within the -- beyond that, where we certainly are not maxing out by virtue of the strictures of an individual year's budget, the ability to provide additional incentive or reward for work and that's just part of my concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed, but until we adopt a policy that allows individual departments to make that study, if you will, their own informal study that says we need to be able to offer more in the way of salary. Until we adopt a policy to do that, to allow each department to do it, I think we need to hold your salary increases consistent with the balance of the county employees and if there's a specific area to be addressed, then let's address it at the policy level, not at the budget level. That's my personal take on it. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just gonna say almost exactly that, so I won't take up anymore -- I agree with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So on the salary increase relative to your budget request, that will be treated the same as the other county employees, but there's a total of $60,000 increase over adopted budget 96/97 and 97/98. I assume that five percent doesn't contribute to the majority of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where's the rest? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The balance is -- help me with that. There's about a $60,000 difference there. Can you give me a little bit of break down as to what was the five percent for attorneys, was that the entire -- was that the whole $60,000? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was 14,000 according to -- MR. WEIGEL: That was about 13,900, yeah, so the other dollars, I'm not sure if I follow your particular question. I know that if it weren't -- you're looking at personnel services? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. MR. WEIGEL: Specifically? It had been my statistical review that, but for the increase of the 13,900 request, that our personnel services would have been significantly less for the percentage basis. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my problem. There's a $59,700 differential between the 96/97 adopted budget and the 97/98 budget request and if what we're talking about is 14,000, where's the other 43 or $46,000. MS. ALLEN: Hi. Debbie Allen, administrative assistant for the county attorney's office. I believe that part of that increase was due to the hiring of -- the leaving of some attorneys and the hiring of an additional attorney at -- possibly with more litigation experience. I know Mr. Bryant left the office and they had to reshuffle litigation experience -- litigation work load and everything. So I believe that was an additional hiring of different people, if I'm hearing your question right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are, but my concern is how many attorneys did we hire this past year to make a salary differential $43,000 between what was existing? If that $60,000 is attributed to salary increases, plus additional salaries based on attorneys with more experience. MS. ALLEN: Part of it -- well, part of it is probably due to the percentage increases that were given out in April. Do you know how much that percentage was? MS. GANSEL: That would have been budgeted, I think there were some upgrades of positions, as well as the three percent that was awarded to all county employees. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just express my concern. If you're not sure, then that concerns me '- MS. ALLEN: I'm not sure what it is right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and maybe we can find out the answer. MS. ALLEN: I'd have to look it up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe it's primarily inflationary adjustment. If you back out that 13,900, then we're talking about, which would be extraordinary increases, the personnel service increase would be about 4.2 percent, which would be in line with -- you know, we're budgeting, three percent cost of living, plus benefits, and then there's some they've alluded to that would be associated with hiring an attorney. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's flag that though to get a specific answer before -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like -- I'd like a breakdown of that other $46,000 so that we can line item by line item determine whether or not it's within our policy guidelines. MR. WEIGEL: I understand. We'll provide that to you in writing in clear terms. MR. MCNEES: Would any of that be salary increases or adjustments that have been made within this fiscal year? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we did make certainly some salary adjustments within this fiscal year, but the fact is, I was always looking at not only the vacancies we had in the meantime but at the impacts that it would have on the new year's budget. So I think that it certainly doesn't stretch that far. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it shouldn't, because you don't make salary increases during the year that result in a multiple percentage increase. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It shouldn't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, I understand what you're saying. Let's get the answers to it, because when this comes back -- we'll flag that, Mr. Smykowski, for further discussion. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Anything else on that item? We have no capital outlay requests. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, isn't there just a little bit there? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Current service 97/98 has a zero amount. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry, I looked in the wrong column. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the next item. MS. GANSEL: To go back to the State Attorney's Office, we did get a figure for the printers and they are $2,500, so we will be able to reduce their budget by 3,000 for the six laser printers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another drop in the bucket. Good. MS. GANSEL: Keep that tab running. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Should be 3,900, 18.9 versus 15. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody tell the state we can buy them cheaper. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And that's the State Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Next item. MS. GANSEL: Okay. The next item is the other general administration, which is under the Board of County Commissioners. This budget is for items that don't fall within a department budget. We have things like sending you out the tax -- the tax bills. There's one employee that is in here, who's located in Everglades City, provides many functions, county functions, to citizens in that area. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one that jumped out for me was the account for countywide costs not attributable to a department. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 200,000. MS. GANSEL: Okay. Individually, what is included in there is the -- the countywide audit is the -- I'm sorry, I guess I'm not understanding your question. Under the programs -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Account for countywide costs not attributable to a department, $200,200. MS. GANSEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Page A-10 about, you know, four or five lines down. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A-10 in the big books. MS. GANSEL: There's postage for sending out the tax bills, it is 100,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's not attributable to anybody? MS. GANSEL: Not to a department that the county budgets for. The tax collector does not pay for that and there wouldn't be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems like it would make more sense for that to be in the tax collector's budget as a revenue, you know, from the general fund. Does that make sense? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It just seemed a little funny that -- MS. GANSEL: The tax collector's budget is budgeted by the state, that's who approves their budget and this has traditionally been where it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This just doesn't make -- I mean, it looks funny. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the other 100,000 then would be? MS. GANSEL: Okay. It takes me a little while. I don't have it identified here. There's electricity for areas where, I believe, like the walkways outside, there's $18,000, areas that a department is not occupying, but is common ground; the snack bar. Just areas that are not where we have square footage for a department. Water and sewer is the same situation in there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why do we have any water -- any costs associated with water and sewer in a general fund? Seems to be all costs of water and sewer should be borne by the enterprise funds. MS. GANSEL: Oh, this is for water and sewer like -- MR. FERNANDEZ: This is for the billing of the water and sewer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, the billing? MR. FERNANDEZ: For the billing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, the water and sewer. Okay. MS. GANSEL: Right, yes, yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, the water bill. The utility bill. MS. GANSEL: And then there's an insurance that we have based on the size of the budget, our risk management allocates money, so that comes into that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So on the line that says remittance to other governments, that would be nothing to do with the county? It wouldn't be other government agencies within the county, that would be strictly if it went to the state or went to the federal government, went to the Cuban government? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe you can help us by telling us what are we remitting to other governments to make up $133,0007 MS. GANSEL: Oh, okay. That's two items, we submit money to the school board, the racetrack revenue that we receive from the state has been allocated for debt service for capital projects that has been a bond issue for quite a while. As that is reduced, any residual from what we receive from the state goes to the school board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that's a pass through? MS. GANSEL: Essentially. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was that an offset -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did we net out the cost of that? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, there is an offsetting revenue, as well as in the general. MS. GANSEL: The other item that's included in there is the Naples Community Redevelopment Agency. When that redevelopment agency was established, their taxes remained at the level of the assessment at that particular time and the county pays the increment. That's how the state -- those districts have been established. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now, what actually -- how that works is that on the date that say the Fifth Avenue Redevelopment District was established, if we were getting a million dollars in money from that property, we will always forever only get a million dollars from that -- from that assessment on that piece of property and whatever's included in the CRA and as the property values increase because of the good work they're doing there, that money can only be spent in the CRA district, so it continues to come into the county, but has to be funneled directly back to that district. That's how CRA's work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want my neighborhood to become a CRA. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, who doesn't? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think they pay more tax. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're paying it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know but it always goes -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- it's just -- it's not coming out of anyone's pocket but theirs, it's coming out of their pocket because their property values have increased, but it doesn't go just to willy-nilly, the general fund, it goes to their particular property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean like my taxes when my assessment increase -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It goes willy-nilly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it goes willy-nilly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Willy-nilly for you, direct for them. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Typically, it's used to finance the actual construction, then is supposed to revamp that commercial area. A lot of times, bonds are sold and that is used to finance the debt, that marginal tax dollar finances the debt that was used to construct the improvements. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, in essence, we have frozen the value forever? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- of the Fifth Avenue South Community Redevelopment District and the Forty-one Ten Redevelopment District. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What can we do to get out of that, if we want? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not anything, that I know of. MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think you can. Mr. Chairman, the logic behind it or the theory behind it is that the area in the redevelopment district would not be increasing in value if the district had not been created and the investment made in the district, that then generates the increase in taxable value. That's the theory behind it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is the idea is that that's particularly created for some of your larger metropolitan areas, for areas that may be blighted, or what have you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifth Ave. probably doesn't fit the original intent, but if they made it work then -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They made it work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess my problem with that is just that we're talking about a commercial shopping area. At one point, they're gonna be done with the facelift. At that point, you know, they should be subject to the same taxation as everyone else and the money should be allowed to go to the same fund it is, but what I'm hearing is when they're done, it doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the property value would not have increased, but for the establishment of the CRA and the investment that they made pursuant to it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, I don't know if I buy that for -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's the theory. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that entirely, I just have a problem with the program, but we're not gonna solve that today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I go back to the questions we were just asking? Why I asked about remittance to other governments is some of the costs you indicated were not attributable were to other government agencies, but they were still county, like county tax collector, that would not be appropriate to put in other governments; is that correct? Do you follow what I said or was I just -- MS. GANSEL: I think that they're just some costs that we could not attribute to a certain department and that's what's included in here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I think that those -- sorry, Leo, but I think those go under Leo's budget, you know, because he's just sort of in charge of running the county facilities and those belong there, but that's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And can we perhaps get a legal opinion or something on the mailing costs? I just can't believe $100,000 in mailing costs to send out the tax bills don't have anything to do with the tax collector. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But --yeah -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't matter, bottom line, we're gonna spend it either way but it just ought to fall under somebody's line item. MS. GANSEL: When I say they're not attributable to a department, I guess in that sense, yes it is attributable to the tax collector. His budget is approved by the state and it is not included in that budget. It needs to be included somewhere and this has traditionally been where it's been budgeted. MR. FERNANDEZ: We did it, too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm suggesting just 'cause it's always been that way, doesn't mean that's the correct way to do it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I will verify that with Mr. Carlton and have an answer for you this afternoon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, your experience has been? MR. FERNANDEZ: The same, and I think it has to do with the obligations of the Board of County Commissioners to support the activities of the constitutional officers in the same way that you have to provide the building for them. I think this particular function, the payment for these notices, falls under the Board of County Commissioners and it has in my experience, as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's find out if there's a way to put it under the tax collector's budget, if he's willing to do it, it just makes more sense, we're gonna pay it, anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he's willing to do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If he's not willing to do it, but we can make him. I don't care, but it just makes more sense over there. MR. MCNEES: We may want to show that where we show things like the rent or the light bill and the -- for the tax collector under board paid, there's a separate line item board paid for the constitutional officer on your summary. We may just take that -- I assume what you're saying is you don't want to show that in your budget for the county commission, which is probably, you're right, it should be under board paid. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All I'm saying is it just seems unusual to me to have a line that says not attributable -- what appears to be not attributable to anything and I realize you're explaining what they are attributable to, but just someone going through like me reading this, I'm thinking I have no idea what that $200,000 is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just something a little clearer for us. MS. GANSEL: And I could identify what those things are, so if somebody was reading it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The last item on that, the one FTE, that's down in Everglades City, I believe. MS. GANSEL: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That person is subject to salary increases as set by the board and that's the only increase in that position? MS. GANSEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: There is an increase in unemployment -- budget for unemployment compensation, that's in there also -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MS. GANSEL: -- but that's consistent with the policy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions on other general administration? Seeing none, let's move on. MS. GANSEL: The next budgets are the management offices and in your -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, Ms. Gansel, since we've arrived at 10:30, for the court reporter and everyone else, let's take a -- let's make it just a five minute break. (Whereupon, a short break was had.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll reconvene the budget workshop. The first item I need to discuss before we get back into the individual items is, my recollection of last year was incorrect. I thought I remembered having public comment at the end of each budget section, but as we look at -- how many sections do we have today? Some -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Thirty. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- twelve, thirteen, something like that. Last year we had public comment at the end of each day's workshop on the items of that day. My recollection was incorrect when I spoke to Gina Edwards of the paper yesterday, so that's my fault. What I need the board to do is decide how we want to handle it. My concern is that there's some very well meaning people that will feel the need to speak on every single item. What we're looking for is productive input and concerns on this, and, what, three years ago there was no comment until September. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, there used to be, when Commissioner Norris and I first got elected, that they had no public input at all during this and we would say well, you'll have your opportunity in September, and in September then the staff would always say, "Well, it's too late to make those changes." So it wasn't a very effective way of dealing with the public. So the last couple of years we've had it either a specific time during these three days or at the end of each day and people can get up and still talk about every topic if they want, but it all happens in one confined period. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And we have in the past done that on the final day of the three days here, like Monday we would do that. We've done that in the past two years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to ask your indulgence to do it at the end of each day, since we have three budget hearings, because if they're doing different issues and while it's still fresh in our mind, after each item I understand that would be quite -- it would just drag this on for everyone, but if we can do it at the end of each day when it's pertinent, that seems to make the most sense to me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, does that work? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman, this might be an appropriate time, just for your information, there has been to this point already a considerable amount of public comment. We invited members of the public most, but not all of whom represented the Greater Naples Civic Association, but some others who did not, who actually came to the county manager's review sessions. We allowed them not only to observe, but to ask questions and to, in fact, in some cases make some really good suggestions on ways we could -- we could revise the budget and make some changes. So there has been already, at this point, a considerable amount of public comment into the budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do want to say thank you for that, because I did get some real positive feedback. The people were just intrigued to see the -- that side of it, because the public was never really invited to that before and I think a lot of people learned a lot about the process. So, thank you for that, Mr. HcNees. Let's go ahead and proceed with the section by section. Our next one just before we took a break was? MS. GANSEL: The next section is the management offices. In your summary book it's on page A-16 and your detail book it starts on A-37. The county administrator's budget -- I'm trying to learn to change that, is -- there's no increase in the service, however, due to the new contract and termination pay from the former county manager, we do see an increase in that budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that increase is a combination of the severance -- total severance that was paid Mr. Dotrill and the contract amount that -- Mr. Fernandez, and the savings we had on our economy interim. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. Those are all taken into account in those budgets. The next budget is the board related budget in the county manager's office. The operating expenses are remaining virtually the same for this budget, however, we during budget deliberations are proposing a change on the revenue side. In the past, the media has received a full agenda package each week. This budget proposes that the media receive the index only and if they are so inclined to purchase, as other organizations do, the agenda package, that would generate an additional $3,300 in the general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just good business. I mean, every week we have, particularly if you look at consent agenda and all those items, we have literally hundreds of pages that go wasted, that they'll write stories on half a dozen items and the others, I don't know that we need to be wasting that paper. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is Gil? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's consistent with board direction, after some public input on that matter so -- MS. GANSEL: That is reflected in that budget. The office of management and budget, they are requesting an additional position, a grants coordinator who would also be the TDC coordinator. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, currently, we have you as a part-time employee doing the TDC work? MS. GANSEL: And budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And budget, okay. MS. GANSEL: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the additional request is for a person to do grant coordination and TDC? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is that gonna do with Ms. Gansel? MS. GANSEL: I'll do budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You would do just budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. Over time, the work associated with the TDC has grown and actually the whole issue of the grants coordinator position was actually a board suggestion and as part of this budget, we wanted to identify and show you if you opted to pursue this further, adding a full-time staff position, this is what it would cost. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My -- the concern I wanted to mention about the grants coordinator is you pay a set amount regardless of performance in this situation and while the gentleman who came to us may not have had the agreement we wanted to deal with, I just think there's an incentive there if you have someone that you're paying a percentage or some reward for the service they provide and I think all of us want to pursue grants, but I just wonder if it's not more effective in two ways. One, not necessarily, it wouldn't be general fund money, and two, there's an incentive to go after more if you are rewarded for what you get and I'd like to see us perhaps take a relook at that as opposed to having a set position. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I've dealt with this issue. I think there are some legal obstacles to putting together the kind of contract, if I understand your concept correctly, if we do it on a contract basis with a compensation to the contractors based upon their success at securing grants and paying for the -- paying them out of those grants, we ran into some legal obstacles with that, that it couldn't be a contingent contract in that manner and, therefore, we couldn't do it. I guess there's other ways you can try to get at the thing you're trying to accomplish, and that is build some incentive into it. I think you're talking about contracting for the service, rather than doing it in-house essentially, and the incentive is you get another contract next year from us because you did well the year before and maybe structure it on some kind of variable basis, but clearly not a sharing in the profit kind of concept. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There may have to be a base to make that legal -- MR. FERNANDEZ: You can do a variable based upon hours -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Grantors -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- but maybe not upon success or failure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there's a way to eliminate this item altogether from being a total liability on the general fund. The first way is, if we anticipate increase in grant amounts in certain areas, then we should fund -- that grant writer position ought to be areas in which we anticipate additional revenues. In other words, if we pay it out of the general funds, yet no grants are received that can be attributed to the general fund -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it's a general fund liability, yet other departments may be benefiting. If, however, we can structure it in such a way that the departments receiving the grant funds actually pay a portion of the grant writer's salary, that eliminates a good piece of that. MR. FERNANDEZ: You can accomplish that often through an indirect cost allocation plan -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly MR. CHAIRMAN: -- where the departments receiving the general fund services get -- or compensate the general fund for those services that they receive. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So there are two things I'd like to do before we want to go in to approve this position, and that is, one, do the shifting to the departments that benefit, in such a way that the general fund does not bear the full cost of the position. The second thing is why should the general fund subsidize TDC. If the Tourist Development Council is receiving a benefit from that position, then a portion of that salary that is attributable to TDC should be paid by TDC funds. So between those two things, what I'd like to see is a revenue amount in -- to the tune of 58,800 showing up in other areas to offset this general fund or the total cost of it showing up in those areas; one of the two. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a great idea. MR. FERNANDEZ: One of the things you're up against with TDC is the statutory language that limits the amount you can pay for administration with the TDC and I've heard some -- I don't know enough about it to give you a real firm answer, but you've taken a little different interpretation of that limit here than I'm familiar with and maybe we can do some discussion of that and get it to the point that you can actually get more out of the TDC for your cost of running the program so it comes down. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know Ms. Ashton with the county attorney's office has worked closely with that. If I could ask you to work with the county attorney's office. What I'd like to see is this $58,800 offset in revenues in other areas, so the net result is no liability to the general fund. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's doable. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll try it. MR. HCNEES: Oh, and it's for the most part already done, but what you -- the office of management and budget is a part of our indirect cost of pool. We do already have an indirect cost plan. The non-general fund departments who do avail themselves of their services already pay, so when you see the payment for the indirect cost plan on the general fund summary, that's where this offsetting revenue is. We don't show department by department the offsetting revenues as a result of that indirect cost plan, but it does show up in your general fund summary already and we have already included the issues that you're talking about as a revenue in the general fund as a whole. They just don't show up on the departmental page. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I've listened to the comments, the consensus direction here, though, would result, if I'm not mistaken, in a reduction in general fund liabilities of $58,800. Can we accomplish that? MR. HCNEES: I'm saying it's already in there. We already have -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: There's $70,000 budgeted as reimbursement revenue from the TDC. Last year was the first year we budgeted revenue as reimbursement. We budgeted $62,000, that's been increased to 70,000, and that's the maximum available under the current interpretation of TDC, after the tax collector's cut for collection. That is the maximum remaining -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we have 8,000 in new revenue and nearly 60,000 in new expenditures? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it is not offsetting right now. I think Commissioner Hancock is saying let's find a way to offset it. We all want to have a grants coordinator. We all want to pursue that, but let's have it offset so we're not -- MR. HCNEES: And we are offsetting much of the rest of it already with the indirect cost of reimbursement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But those are coming from areas that may still be general fund based areas? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. MR. HCNEES: No. The indirect cost plan only charges non-general fund departments, that is by definition it's purpose. So what we're trying to say is, we have already done exactly what it is you're asking for us to do. The other piece of it that we -- we still can't do, is find out can we get more TDC money than we believe to be the max today, and we will go to work on that, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me clarify this 'cause I -- this is under expanded services? MR. HCNEES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can you point to me the -- at the appropriate time, the offsetting revenue? Where else am I gonna find $50,800 in offsetting revenue to pay for the grant coordinator position? MR. HCNEES: On the general fund summary, there's a line item under revenue for indirect cost plan reimbursements to the general fund. That's where that number will be. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And those departments are all either enterprise fund or HSTU or -- MR. HCNEES: Every department that pays into that is either an HSTU or non-general fund department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the revenue derived from that is 58,800 higher than it was last year? MR. FERNANDEZ: It was based upon these expenses. This is included in the expense base that the calculation was made from. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see you nodding and Mr. McNees shaking. MR. MCNEES: It's not one for one, it's not. Because not -- because a piece of that is legitimately general fund and, you know, this person will do work for the general fund. It's all allocated on a percentage basis, and what we do every year is, we reevaluate that plan and say, okay, these costs were allocated a certain way. Is that where the effort really went, and it's something that we revise continuously every year, but the intent of what you're asking us to do, I'm saying, is already built into this budget and you'll see that the indirect cost plan is considerably higher money to the general fund this year than it was in fiscal '97. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But the point still remains that we have the grant coordinator, they're going to bring in additional funds on top of what we have budgeted revenue right now. MR. FERNANDEZ: And many grants allow indirect costs as a legitimate expense and those that do allow it, we can draw those grant funds into the general fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where I'm -- that's where my point is going. The goal should be $50,800 in administrative cost being recouped from the grants received. We don't have to do it by contract to accomplish that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the point I'm making is that it would allow us to make an expenditure reduction if we set that as a goal and budget for it specifically in areas. It's a moving target. I know that, but rather than just saying it's already in the indirect cost being shared by the other areas, I'd like to see the offsetting revenue, the additional revenue, offset it further than what we already anticipated in that indirect plan. Am I clear on that? MR. MCNEES: Yeah, I believe that's exactly what we'll do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we'll revisit the components of the indirect cost plan, as well as the interpretation of the statutory allowance as to how much administrative costs can be borne by TDC revenue as well, so between the two of them we'll revisit that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the key question is how much of that 58,800 can come off this line. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I understand. MR. MCNEES: Well, Commissioner -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It won't come off the line. MR. MCNEES: -- the expenditure has to be made. Nothing will come off the expenditure line. That's maybe where we're having a misunderstanding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then add to my revenues. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Understood. MR. MCNEES: Right, and I'm saying we're doing that, we just don't do it on the department page. We don't break that indirect revenue back and allocate it to individual departments, because that's just too much paperwork. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, at the very beginning of this hearing we were asking what it would take to get to rollback and so on. You said there's two ways to do that. You can cut items or you can come up with additional revenue. We're asking on this item to do one or the other so that this isn't an additional $60,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I understand and we will follow up on your direction and get you an answer back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Good. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I read it loud and clear. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can't put it on my cut list, but I'll anticipate it on my revenue increase list. MR. SHYKOWSKI: All right. Fair enough. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Fair enough. Thank you. MS. GANSEL: The final budget is management offices in public information. Essentially this is the status quo budget. The only increases that we see are due to the salary adjustment that is within board policy. We have included the thousand dollars which was made this year for the multi-carnival festival also. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No questions on that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions? Seeing none. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I see we're passing the baton to Ms. Leith. MS. LEITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. MS. LEITH: Good morning. For the record, Sheila Leith, office of management and budget. This morning I'm going to go over the support services departments within the general fund. We're looking at a net cost increase to the general fund -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Leith, can you give us the page numbers in both books for those? MS. LEITH: I'm sorry. Yes, in the summary book it's A-20. In the detail book A-46 to 69. We're -- although the EHS fund is an enterprise fund, we are going to discuss it with this part of the presentation because of the transfer from the general fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. LEITH: We're looking here at -- on page A-20 of the summary book, a net increase in cost to the general of 3.9 percent for the support services division department contained in this page. First, we'll start with the purchasing expanded request and I think Leo would like to speak on that. MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. The expanded request in your purchasing department involves an effort to further automate and centralize our mail processing operation here for the county government. Not only to include the mail operations for the board offices, but also for the constitutional offices with the exception of the sheriff's office. The expanded service, in essence, would involve the procurement of some equipment and one position to further automate and centralize our mail center, with the obvious goal being to lower our postage rates that we pay to the U.S. Post Office. We've done the evaluation analysis of the expanded service request. The proposal will have approximately a 12 month payback window. So we will, after the first 12 months that the automated centralized mail operation system is in place, the initial investment will be recouped and we'll begin to see actual savings through reduction in our postage cost. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say automated centralized mail, what does centralized mail mean? MR. OCHS: Right now, for example, Commissioner, out in your development services center, our revenue services department does their own mailing of their utility bills, for example, they sort, they nail, they fold, et cetera. What we're trying to do here is bring those all into a central operation where we can get the benefits of bulk mail rates, flat mail rates, if you will, by doing bar coding, pre-sorting. These are some of the new technologies that the post office is offering incentives on in terms of reduced postage rates. So, instead of paying $.32 for a piece of mail, we can lower that by $.08 if we automate the process, centralize the process, do those pre-sorting, bar coding, address certifications in advance, helping in effect the post office do their work and then getting the benefit of reduced postage rates for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're helping the federal government where We Can. MR. OCHS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a commensurate offsetting revenue, as I understand it correctly, in our budget that shows at least $84,900? Because in 12 months we would recoup 100 percent of that, so I need to know if we have an offsetting revenue included. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or a reduction in human beings or something. MR. FERNANDEZ: Reduction in expenditures. MR. OCHS: We have a reduction in postage costs that are spread out in all of the individual operating department budget line item allocations. They all have postage cost as a line item in their operating budgets. I need to emphasize, though, that the recoupment period of 12 months is after we're fully up and running, which we anticipate will be sometime in the middle of your fiscal year '98. So, you know, I need to tell you that savings, that recoupment period is 12 months of full operation. We'll see about $60,000 worth of reduced postage cost in fiscal year '98. The break even point will come in the first half of '99. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And did I hear, which was my next question, if you've ever been in the Department of Revenue, you know that they pull people off stations to do mailing and that kind of stuff, so those people will no longer be needed to do that. Is there a reduction in personnel in DOR or any other area that also offsets this cost? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was looking for. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I know Mr. Yonkosky's department, they have people that do all the processing and then when they have to do a mailing, they walk up -- they step away from their station and go and do that, leaving their station idle for that time. Those people would not have to do that anymore, so, and rather than hearing increased efficiency, I'd like to hear decreased personnel, because obviously we were spending man-hours and person-hours there to cover at least a position, I would think. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was looking for, too, exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you understand what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Automation should mean fewer human beings necessary to do the job. MR. OCHS: I understand what you're saying. The assumption there is a growth in our customer base and utility billing and our other billing operations remains flat and that unfortunately is not the case. You'll see later on, on Monday when we get into the Department of Revenue budget review, that there is a substantial continuing growth in our customer base for our utility billing operation. In fact, we're going to ask you to consider an additional meter reader to keep up with the new accounts that are being added in there and that translates in additional workers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one of those federal government cuts where no increase is, therefore, a cut. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, when we review the DOR budget -- when we review the DOR budget under personal, we can address it then. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I'm going to be looking for it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's one of the reasons I toured the county departments, get an idea of what people are doing. MR. OCHS: I understand. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, a comment to you. I notice you got a supervisory position here, next year could this take on a life of its own and then there's a secretary added and so forth? MR. OCHS: No. That's -- we won't be back asking for other positions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But, supervising what? MR. OCHS: Again, part of the -- this is not just a clerical function. Part of being able to maximize the benefits, and perhaps Mr. Camell could add some detail to this detail, because he's done all of the detail evaluation on it, but it requires a great deal of coordination between all of the agencies, making sure that the timing of their billing processes are perhaps modified so that we can gain the bulk that we need to take advantage of the lower rate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not a $5 an hour mail sorter? MR. OCHS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CARNELL: No, and there's some other things -- Steve Camell, purchasing general services director, for the record -- some other things as well, you're talking about professionalizing the processing of your mail and that involves not only the things that Mr. Ochs has referred to in terms of coordination, and, again, when we talk about this phase-in to the first 12 months of operation, we are not just gonna turn the key on October 1st and start doing this. We not only have to acquire the equipment and hire the people, but we also have to -- we can't just change DOR's operation, for example, day one. We're gonna run what amounts to a parallel, in which they're gonna -- they do daily cycles of utility billings, for example, and what we're gonna do is we're gonna progressively route them over to the general services building, but we're not gonna do that day one. It's gonna take a few months to make that happen. So you have to have FTE or personnel in the revenue department while you're in that transitional period. The other thing that's happening here is that when -- I use the word professionalization, the person we're hiring, hopefully, is gonna become a postal geek. They're gonna know all the ins and outs of how the post office plays the game. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would that be on their name tag or -- MR. CARNELL: If you'd like, you know -- MR. OCHS: That's a working title. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: P.G. MR. CARNELL: But, seriously, that's gonna mean redesigning forms, that's gonna mean reshaping our envelopes, so that we can get the maximum postal discounts, and Charlotte County has been doing this for a few years and has experienced substantial savings. They don't have the savings yet that we're proposing because the postal service just put this classification reform in place in the last 12 months, and so what we're talking about is a dedicated individual who is riding herd on all of this, as well as coordinating with the supervisor of elections, the clerk, the Department of Revenue, and all these people when they have their major mailings and scheduling them in advance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood, but I saw you shaking your head when I started talking about, should mean reductions in personnel. All the technology in the world is great, but if it's not saving the taxpayer any money, I'll go back to stone tablets, chisel and hammers. MR. CARNELL: We got to make this clear here. We're talking about real life tax dollars being reduced. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CARNELL: It's gonna -- postage rates, in the form of postage rates, and we are right now just to give a clear -- to put it in the context of FY '98, we're asking you to spend $85,000 in this proposal. We're anticipating a reduction of $60,000 in FY '98. That is not the first full year of operation. That's the first fiscal year that this is funded. The first full year of operation will occur, we anticipate, will commence in the middle of FY '98. Twelve months from that point, you will have saved what we anticipate is about $12,000 off of that original investment. In other words, you'll be $12,000 ahead if, that's if, only the board agencies participate. Supervisor of elections has already committed in writing to participate in this. She's very interested. Clerk of courts is interested and the property appraiser and tax collector are looking at it, as well, and we're talking about huge savings if all those people come in. We're talking about a couple thousand dollars in taxes per year being reduced. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: On postage. MR. CARNELL: Because of post -- no, that's after you pay for the salary and all the people. Now let me address one other point, because Commissioner Mac'Kie, you mentioned the thing about when we automate why can't we cut people. Well, I want you to picture this. We got a dribble of water coming through the mail room right now, as the analogy I would use, we're doing daily first class mail. We're going to quadruple the volume of activity coming through that mail room and the -- we're gonna buy machines that are gonna be able to handle it, but the logistics of adding the person comes from coordinating all the users. It's not as simple as just turning the machine on. You got to get people to deliver the mail to you in the proper manner and then do all those other things I was talking about previously, as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I think the net/net over time is gonna be -- it sounds like the first year, we're going to spend 85 to save -- and reduce by 97, so we're going to be net 12,000 to the good and then thereafter, we're gonna save every year. So it's a net win. MR. CARNELL: Oh, it's gonna -- because you're not spending capital in the second year -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MR. CARNELL: -- means your savings are gonna go up tremendously. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: What I'd like to do here, Mr. Chairman, is commit to the board a periodic report to you on this exact program and how much savings we anticipate, how much we realize as we go through the months, maybe give you a report in six months, another one in a year, and every six month period after that, and you can keep track of whether we were able to accomplish the things that we're hoping to accomplish. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It will be appropriate under DOR, but I'm going to flag two things. One is personnel in DOR and the second is equipment, because we just -- remember the authorization for expenditure to buy equipment for DOR to do their mailings. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, now we're gonna do a consolidated mail facility that's gonna handle DOR, we've got an equipment investment over there, so, there's going to be some questions about that. MR. CARNELL: Let me address that for you right now. We looked at that issue in the budget preparation process. The idea of incorporating their inventory into this central location, and that equipment, first off, as we speak, is about two to three years old now, by the -- if you remember the idea that we're gonna be graduating into this, we anticipate we're gonna get a good year's worth of use out of that equipment in revenue from this date forward and perhaps maybe a little more by the time we, again, completely assume the duties over in the general services building. So you're gonna have a three to four year utilization on that equipment. Secondly, that equipment is not built to the speed or capacity of the equipment we're talking about buying. What we're taking about is much faster. It's the next generation and it includes more function than what the DOR needs because we are building to all users and there are things -- there are functions that the DOR does that -- or doesn't do, that some other users need. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let's plan on putting a for sale sign on that thing, get some money for it. MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, Steve's probably having a feeling of deja vu. This is kind of an instant replay of the session that we had when the manager reviewed his budget and he's committed to making full use of everything that we've already bought and if we can't we need to get everything we can for it. A lot of it becomes obsolete as technology changes or wears out. Frankly, this stuff -- equipment is real high volume equipment, but we're committed to using every bit of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With the periodic updates that Mr. Fernandez discussed, any other questions on the purchasing element? Okay. Let's move on to facilities. MR. LEITH: Human resources will be next. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. MS. LEITH: The executive assistant position to the county manager was shifted to the human resources department during this year and downgraded to an office assistant one. This position's needed in order to handle the additional 2,000 applications that they're dealing with in human resources. So the change in the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we should expect to see a corresponding decrease in the county manager's office. MS. LEITH: Within utility regulations and there are two cost centers, but, yes, there will be. Actually -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where? We'll see them where? MR. OCHS: The position was in the county manager's or county administrator's office, that position had been funded in the two different cost centers, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the two cost centers were what, so I know where to look for the cuts? MS. LEITH: Utility regulations and the cable -- MR. HCNEES: Franchise administration. MS. LEITH: Franchise administration. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, we do see a corresponding cut? HR. HCNEES: Yes, you do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on that? MS. LEITH: Okay. In operating expenses, there's a $45,000 increase, and this is due primarily to the support of the PDS system. $18,000 will be charged up by information technology and that's to get that system up and running. The PDS maintenance contract is $15,000 and pre-employment physicals are now significantly higher than they were before in terms of volume and cost, and they're looking at about $9,500 in additional cost there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we tried to dovetail with the CHSI or the community health partners situation? MR. OCHS: We're out with an RFP on the street right now, Commissioner, to solicit from all those agencies for complete pre-employment physical services. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions on that? Okay. Let's continue. MS. LEITH: Okay. Moving to the facilities management budget, we're looking at expanded requests for an office assistant one position and this is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you give me the big book page for facilities management? MS. LEITH: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just getting kind of confused. MS. LEITH: Fifty-five, A-55. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 'Cause we're not going in order of the book, but that's okay. I'm catching up, and I -- we've gone by, I guess the -- this is the first place where we had actual performance measures and there hadn't been any discussion about those, but at some point I'd like to talk about -- I'd like to understand how the performances were set and how we're gonna measure them. If we're gonna get some sort of quarterly, you know, reports on those. wherever that comes, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, we've committed as part of the GNC review that in FY '98, in addition we're going to expand the quarterly -- well, there's now the revenue report into a revenue and expenditure report and it will also incorporate the performance measures. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect, and I, frankly, don't know how to evaluate whether or not these are appropriate performance measures, but are we gonna discuss those at all or is everybody already happy with what these are? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As we go through them, you know, some things will stand out and some won't, but I, you know, we have a thousand employees to do their job, and hopefully they're better developing performance measures than we are in most cases. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess, Mr. Fernandez, that's something I'm gonna want, you know, your thoughts on as we go through this quarterly report process, are we measuring the right things. We're starting down the right direction by doing performance measures, but are we measuring the right things. MR. FERNANDEZ: My thought is initially you have to probably make a little bit of a compromise in that and measure those things that you can measure, that you can easily measure and set up a mechanism to track the performance on, and then after you do that for a while and are pretty comfortable with it, then you can go on and maybe ask yourselves more difficult questions of are we measuring the right things and is this the most significant thing that gives us an indication of success, so you have to kind of take a transitional step when you first start it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Also, try to benefit to the extent possible from things other counties are doing. We're not the only one who will be attempting to measure performance within departments and, actually, commonalties and comparisons to other county jurisdictions are in many cases helpful as well and if they've gone through growing pains already, we'll try to benefit from those as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: In that regard, there's the benchmarking approach that's being taken, where benchmarks are being established for counties in different areas that we have in common that we can use that information as a base line to measure against. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as we get those quarterly reports, perhaps something like that can be incorporated so we have something. I don't know how to measure if 11,825 is a good number of work orders completed for facilities management, but I'd like to have some idea. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Call the electrician and you'll get a good idea if that's a decent time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Some comparisons in that regard that may be helpful are things like how many work orders per -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Employee. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- employee does that amount to and how does that compare to a comparable jurisdiction and that gives you some reasonableness. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, we can do that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We were on the office assistant position that's being requested. MS. LEITH: Yes, and this ties into the work order issue. Looking at the increase in work orders and calls and performance of other office duties, just the sheer volume of work within that office is overwhelming and they need -- they're looking for another office assistant position. Also, there was a shift from the county's security department. They requested to move the security supervisor's position over to facilities. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Why? MS. LEITH: Because they felt they could better utilize that person within this department, the needs within this department. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't understand that at all. MS. LEITH: I think Mr. Camp can speak to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's the only guy that smiles at budget time. I haven't figured this out. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's called -- MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. Actually, I'm kind of proud of this one. We had Gary Stover, who the airport stole from us, he was our security chief and has gone to the Naples Airport. That was a pretty high paid position. We have taken that position and given that up in order to get two lesser positions and this is one of them, and the deal with the, if you will, the county manager's office that we had to do it without any increase. So what we did is, we took two lower positions that we needed desperately, a clerical position and a contract administration position, and we have two of those lower positions instead of the security position, and then I had to give up some money from the operating budget, so we gave up a high paid position for two lower positions within the department. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You did away with the security supervisor? MR. CAMP: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I know for a fact, he needed the contract administration position 'cause the number of contracts we've gone to as opposed to doing it in-house has gone up dramatically. MR. CAMP: That's correct. Of the million dollars that we have in maintenance, 960,000 is in maintenance operating, $620,000 now is outside contractors. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While you're here, Skip, I want to jump to the vehicle -- MR. CAMP: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- question. Again, we're looking at a single line item for a vehicle as opposed to an amortization over a period of time, anticipating either increased work load or vehicles wearing out. MR. CAMP: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not the way we do it in other departments. If I understand you correctly, you're recycling one older vehicle for on-campus use and requesting the purchase of a single vehicle; is that correct? MR. CAMP: Originally, we asked the county manager's office for two new vehicles, in order so that we could put two people -- we could split two people. Plumbers, for instance, and in the past what we've done is at the end of the year, in order to split them up on-campus, we gave them a golf cart because we can pick one up for about $1,900, and then we could -- we could double the response time and still use the same amount of staff. Our problem is that we have three golf carts now that deal on-campus, but it's -- we can split two plumbers and two electricians for off-campus now, and we won't increase the amount of personnel, but they do need vehicles, and in talking with Mike he asked that we consider recycling one of the old vehicles that are still good, and use that on-campus for the plumbing, which you can't use a golf cart for 'cause there's too much equipment, and so now, we're actually asking one used, that we were gonna trade in, we'll just use it one more year, but we'll use it on-campus, so it won't break down. If it does break down, we'll be able to take care of it, and then one off-campus, which will be a new one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And can we see in your budget from this point forward, if we aren't already amortizing for replacement? MR. CAMP: Oh, absolutely. MR. OCHS: You're already seeing that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is -- MR. OCHS: When a new vehicle is purchased, the operating department typically buys that initial vehicle and fronts the up-front capital costs. After that it rolls into the fleet management capital recovery program for the replacement of that vehicle. So this is not a deviation from our standard practice. MS. LEITH: This is an additional vehicle, not a replacement. MR. OCHS: Whether it's an added vehicle to the fleet, the operating department -- there is an initial capital cost. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right, and then a sinking fund is established and that pays for the eventual replacement of that new vehicle, but as Leo indicated, the initial outright purchase is budgeted within the department's budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So any fleet expansion shows up as initial purchase, but any fleet replacement does not? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. MR. OCHS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One more question. Just hoping for some great answer to this on the gain sharing, I see we've spent $16,400 in bonuses related to gain sharing. Tell me, you know, just a little report about how much money that saved the county, how did that -- how was that decided? MR. CAMP: Well, we also, you mentioned the benchmarking, we do a lot of benchmarking and that's what kind of got us into the gain sharing because in my particular field, gain sharing -- benchmarking is very, very popular on a national and international level, with its janitorial, grounds maintenance or building maintenance. Last year we were able to document, I think, somewhere under $100,000 worth of savings, that money went back into the general fund. Some of that, though, some of those repairs had to be deferred. Some of those things we were able to maybe contract out, and some of those things, again, will show up as projects in the capital budget, too. We're trying to keep capital and operate them separately, but our budget this year is increased somewhat because of the gain sharing and I don't know if you remember, but those expenses will be determined somewhat to salaries. It was a bonus, actually, around Christmas, and some will go to training and some went to what we call discretionary items. We bought the guys in the shop, which most of the savings went to, a TV that has a video machine for their safety meetings, instead of having to go to another department to borrow a TV. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I didn't have any question 'cause I remembered, you know, that that particular item was approved. I'm just trying to understand, it sounds like we're spending $16,000, but we did that because we're saving a net of 84,000. If you've got a $100,000 pot here that was saved, that's 16,000. MR. CAMP: That's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I mean that's what I was looking for. I wish I understood how that shows up in the budget somewhere, but -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was actually savings in FY '96 budget, and the reward was paid out in FY '97. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MCNEES: One other item on this budget related to the security supervisor and the offices, you-all seem to have a concern over that. When you tell a department head, "Find a way to meet your needs of all your areas of responsibility. Shuffle what you have to, but don't -- don't want more money." That's what Ship did here. He looked at the resources he had. He looked at the dollars he had available. He said, "These are my most critical needs, I can deal with the supervision of the security function in another way." He did that. He took an existing position that paid a lot of money, split it into two positions to meet his pressing needs. Did it all without asking for more money and I think that's exactly what you want your people out there doing, and I just wanted to keep -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I didn't have a problem with that. I don't have problem with that. I didn't think the explanation, though -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- didn't tell me that that's what had transpired. MR. CAMP: Oh, that's clear -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Once you said what had happened, that's fine -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- I'm not objecting to it, but it seems strange to have somebody in that capacity, all of a sudden they're being switched to another department or as it was indicated here. MR. MCNEES: Yeah, and the important thing, I want to make sure you understand, he dealt with the security issue in another way -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. MCNEES: -- and made sure that that supervision was covered. Just trying to give a little pat on the back here for doing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to clone him. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, motion to clone him, second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Skip. Let's go on to the next. MS. LEITH: Meeting expanded service requests within facilities is for new facilities that are currently not on the program, so as facilities are added that increases those costs of maintenance, ground maintenance, et cetera. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: cetera, that -- MS. LEITH: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is the addition of buildings, grounds, et Okay. Any questions on those. Where might that be? Examples? MR. OCHS: Examples would be your new EMS station out adjacent to your ag center. The Immokalee Library, the Roberts Ranch, Marco Island Library expansion. We have contractual arrangements with custodial services and grounds maintenance contractors, that as we add square footage of facilities, these costs obviously will be incurred, from a maintenance standpoint. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are we spending at Roberts Ranch? MR. OCHS: Probably, some grounds maintenance. MR. CAMP: Mowing, and that's all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Skip, you know the rules, if you're going to speak, we need you on the microphone. MR. CAMP: I apologize. For the Roberts Ranch, it's very basic. We don't do edging or anything like that, just mowing, some bulk stuff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's about ten grand? MR. CAMP: There's no janitorial. There's just ground maintenance, is all we're doing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In compliance with county standards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very basic. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions on that? Seeing none, let's move on. MS. LEITH: Okay. In the county security development, you'll see a decrease in their budget and that reflects the shift in that position. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me about the 18,000 for two new security cameras? Why do we need additional security? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is that, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Page A-21 of the summary. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay, gotcha. MR. CAMP: Commissioners, first of all, last year we put two cameras, one in the first floor by the handicapped doors 'cause of vandalism, and on the third floor, the board room. This year, this current year, we're going to put one on the canopy entrance, which is the other entrance on the first floor where most people come in, and on the fifth floor, where the two computer departments are, we've had a considerable amount of vandalism. The proposal next year is to put them on the executive floor and the second is state attorney and public defender. The state attorney and public defender this year have had a considerable amount of vandalism. Actually, one was after one of your meetings. One of the things that the commission does. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It wasn't us, I swear. MR. CAMP: It had to do with the truck ordinance or something and I'm sure that's not important to bring up, but one of the things that the board does, I think, in fact, I had a memo to Leo about it this week, is that you're very generous in the use of your facilities to public groups. This is an 80,000 square foot, eight story building, that you allow these civic groups to come into at night, and that means -- these buildings aren't manned, and these civic groups come in here and use the building and there's no security or anything else. So a camera is one way to handle it at the least expense. The obvious way to do it is to have a security force here, but that's more expensive. So we use cameras. In fact, about three months ago, we found out one -- and I won't mention the name of the civic group, but the door, it was programmed to open up at five, and it was like five 'til, the guy was found kicking the handicapped doors and we actually have it on video. There was no damage done, but at least that's the kind of things we're looking at. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We may want to, you know, anytime you're talking about the opening of a government center, you can't be selective about who it is or isn't made available to, nor should you be, but we may want to look at limiting the hours also to limit those costs of vandalism in the future. If we're having a problem with it and people can't use it responsibly then we just cut back on the way in which -- you know, we have county parks and large meeting areas all over the county that are available for reservations. MR. CAMP: But you also -- Monday was a good example. Monday there was a board function actually that happened at seven o'clock. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So it's not just civic groups, but it's board also, board activities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, we had a FDOT meeting about the widening of East Trail. You know, a hundred plus people in here and honestly, by about 9:15, I was trying to scoot them out because I know -- the big question was you're coming in at seven, how late do you want the doors to stay unlocked, so people can get in from the outside? You know, that's kind of -- you know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: For external groups, you might want to think about security deposits or something like that to help you cope with the cost of any damage or any -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not a bad idea. That's fair. MR. CAMP: One of the problems also, Mister Administrator, I was gonna say Mister Manager -- Mister Administrator, is that those doors are unlocked during that period of time, so that means anybody can get in the building, not just those groups. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, okay, I think the need for security cameras has been made. We may want to, if anyone wants to take up a policy board issue, we can do that. Thank you. Next? MS. LEITH: Next we're going to discuss helicopter operations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with that. MS. LEITH: And -- do you want to pass on that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have a question why it's up 33.5 percent. MS. LEITH: That's because next year they're going to do an overhaul of the helicopter engine, which they've set up a reserve for and a complete fund, and they've been contributing $35,000 a year and this is an FAA requirement that after so many miles they do this overhaul. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that, but that will come out of the reserve we've been building '- MS. LEITH: Yes, but it will transfer in here and it shows up as a capital outlay item, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Next? MS. LEITH: Next will be EHS. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess this one just centers around, I think we've all been made aware of the response time problems. I guess all I'm really looking for is what's magic about the number seven? Is that the minimum necessary to give 24 hour coverage to a station? To be quite honest, I know, Diane, you probably spent some time on the response times, but it's obvious, we're spending 12 to 15 minutes in the Bonita area, the Bonita Shores, Little Hickory Shores, all the north part of the county. That's not within our standards. So what station are we building to address that or are we just positioning a unit? MS. FLAGG: Actually, we'll be using -- I'm sorry, Diane Flagg, emergency services. The station that we would be using up in the Bonita Shores is an existing emergency service station. The facility's already there. It would just be a matter of moving in with minor operating expenses and that agreement's been reached with North Naples Fire District. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any problem with the item. I'm just -- why seven? Why not six? Why not nine? Why seven? MS. FLAGG: The way that it works is it's called a shift relief factor. The medics work 24's, 48's, and so each position requires 1.2 positions, so when you add that up, that equals 7.2, so that's why we budget seven. Seven people for 1 position. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I asked is because when we were reviewing the sheriff's budget one year, we were told five people for one 24 hour -- for 24 hour coverage, but I guess that's a single -- that's gonna be a single deputy, isn't it? MS. FLAGG: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're getting two for seven. Actually, it rates out a little bit better. MS. FLAGG: Yep, you're ahead. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not bad. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is on the next item, not on that one, and that's -- can you explain to me what that is and what are we doing currently? I assume these don't look like they're something new as far as quality assurance and those things. I'm sure we're doing something to address them now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 49,800? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The fifty grand? MS. FLAGG: The data? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The building coordinator. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That I thought the Department of Revenue did. MS. FLAGG: The Department of Revenue does demographic input and they've asked us to take on that responsibility, and -- but what we're going to do instead of doing that, to add that demographic information is we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. Can we get Bill Barton on the phone, I owe him a steak dinner. MS. FLAGG: But in addition to that, rather than doing it by hiring clerks to input the information, what we've found is a way to take it from a manual run report to an electronic run report. So rather than the 1.5 or 1.75 people that it would take to input the demographic information, we're gonna keep it at one, but hire someone that can manage a computer network, use existing resources and transfer our manual data run reports to a computerized run report. So they'll be doing their run reports on computer and then via an ASCII file transferring that to the Department of Revenue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I fear that I may have had something to do with this getting started because in one of my work days in DOR, I looked at the percentage of billing information DOR was getting back and being returned because there was insufficient information. The people that were entering information were saying the run return report did not give them what they needed to get the Medicare/Medicaid payments in at a higher rate that we had set for a target for DOR. So I put Ms. Flagg and Mr. Yonkosky together, assuming that they would all say these are the minimum things we need. We'd all put it together and now we increase our percentage. That, when I asked that to happen, didn't have a $50,000 price tag on it. What I'm seeing now is in order to accomplish all of those things, we're actually creating a position that in my opinion does what DOR was set up and intended to do in the first place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three. MR. OCHS: I do need to make one clarification in DOR's defense, if nothing else. This position will process information, not only that DOR has reporting requirements on, but existing data reporting requirements to the state that EMS has. So this is not simply a straight transfer of responsibility from DOR to EMS. There's a larger objective here and part of it is that right now, we're all paper and manual in our process. The fact of the matter is the demographic information that the DOR staff was inputting right now into that bill, part of that comes off of paper trip tickets that the medics in the field are processing everyday. So there's a larger objective here and that is to make the whole process more efficient so that instead of the medics writing it down and then mailing it over to DOR, then DOR taking it out of the envelope and punching it in. We want to capture it in the field one time. Put it in the computer, so that both departments can utilize the information for their reporting requirements and their billing requirements. So there is a little bit more involved, I understand exactly what you're saying, but I wanted you to know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask you, from what you described if I understand it clearly, currently person A puts it down on paper, it gets shifted to person B, different department, but it gets shifted to person B and they input it in the computer. You're suggesting that person A will put it on paper, we'll hire person B, they'll put it in the computer and then they'll ship it to person, now, C? I mean, it sounds like there's an extra step being thrown in there. MS. FLAGG: Could I add? Actually, what it is, the medic will actually input the information into the existing computers at the EHS stations. What the person is designed to do is what's called anytime you go to a completely electronic system is you have to clean the data. In other words, you have to make sure that the data is corresponding with the parameters, so that they didn't input the wrong information or input it in the wrong box, et cetera, and this person will also then manage the network of computers that's set out there. So they'll manage the data, do the state report, send them to the state and the computer software and hardware, in addition, and send that information electronically to DOR. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the purpose of Mr. Oakley and his department then, we've been centralizing all those things? I mean the two things I hear here are the Department of Revenue was created to have one centralized function, Mr. Oakley's department was created to have one centralized function --I'm sorry -- and the two -- both of those are gonna be handled within your department now, rather than at their centralized locations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which may be the answer, frankly. What maybe wrong here is that we're trying to do too much centralized when the overlap -- I mean, this is a big policy decision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not if it costs more money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll chip in on that steak dinner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'm saying is I think that DOR may be where the overlap is, not in the individual departments because she can work more appropriate -- more efficiently and do two things. She can enter her state reports and do her billing with one data entry instead of two. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, will we see a corresponding offset in those departments then? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if it's more efficient, it won't cost us an extra $50,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have to go back to what I said earlier that efficiency is a great thing, but if it doesn't save the taxpayer any money then let's go back to stone tablets, chisels and hammers. Efficiency either needs to result in decreased cost or increased revenues, otherwise it's called a toy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm gonna write that down. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we are currently meeting the state requirements on reporting and we're currently meeting the minimum standards we need to meet, efficiency needs to result in a savings. Period. Not a savings of, "we have -- we can do more now." I understand that, but it's a lot harder to grasp, and every department can make that claim and every department would end up resulting in a higher operating cost, so I just don't have anything to hang onto in this one. MR. FERNANDEZ: Maybe I can give you something to hang onto, at the risk of jumping into the -- that holds, if you're talking about a static environment, where you're not having increasing demands on services. What I hear from your staff is that we're looking at ways to try and become more efficient in anticipation of this growing demand for services, we're having higher volumes to deal with year after year after year. Nobody likes to hear that. Nobody likes to hear that governmental services are growing, but the fact remains in the kind of population you're dealing with, you're gonna have that. I see the staff attempting to position themselves into a position that they'll be able to handle that increasing work load in a more efficient way in the future, it may not be efficient the first day you try it and there may be some transitional cost to get there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we need to clarify what the definition of efficiency is then because if we're trying to be more efficient in a hypothetical future situation, what does that mean? Are we trying to save a dollar, and then can you put a dollar on that? Can you tell me three years from now we anticipate X increase in the amount of work they're going to have to do? If we did it this way, it would be this amount and if we do it under the new methodology, it would be this amount. I don't see or hear any of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be good, right. MR. OCHS: Well, for example, this current year's budget in your ambulance billing section's predicated on 14,500 billable transporters. For FY '98 that number is 15,200. You'll see no -- obviously no additional staff requested when you review the DOR budget for ambulance billing on Monday and you'll see an offsetting overtime cost line item reduction that they've incurred historically over the last two years in trying to keep up with the progressing of ambulance bills and entering the graphic data as an offset to the proposed expanded position here. It may not be dollar for dollar and I will say that right up front, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I guess we need to see DOR's budget, because I'm sitting here looking at two positions already in DOR that are at risk right now. One sits over against the north wall of four people, they were always used for mailings and given time. The second is I watched two people sit there and take these paper trip tickets and have to look up diagnostic codes in a book and do two or three steps to enter them. So if we're gonna increase the efficiency by just simply downloading that information to them, so they don't have to do that -- MR. OCHS: Fine, and we'll go through that with as much detail as you'd like on Monday, but, again, I don't mean to be argumentative but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not being -- MR. OCHS: The data entry that we're talking about here, the demographic information, name, address, social security number, some of those things, are only one of several components that need to go into a third party ambulance bill that DOR needs to process to get out the door. There's Hedicare codes, and other PT codes, there's a great deal of information that needs to go on those bills before they go out. So this is only one element of three or four primary elements, that are all part of a bill that gets mailed out the door on an ambulance run. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm gonna ask the board to flag this until we get through DOR budget and see how the two dovetail, because I'm not comfortable just leaving it in now until I have a greater scope of the chain and then we can look at this at wrap-up, once we have an opportunity to see DOR on Monday. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I have a real basic simple question, just I have trouble understanding what the mini lines are here. The general fund enhancement, the general fund payment for EHS services is four million bucks. MS. LEITH: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the cost of EHS, whatever percentage, just the general overall, what percentage of your -- what's your total budget? MS. FLAGG: Well, the good news is -- MR. OCHS: Eight million. MS. FLAGG: -- that even though we're adding -- we're adding a unit, we're actually decreasing our general fund subsidy from 40 -- 4,211,000 to 3,900,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Do that again? MS. FLAGG: So the millage rate is actually -- in big terms the millage rate's been decreased for the EHS budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is what I wanted to know though -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One at a time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask my question and you can tell us again, if you want to. MS. FLAGG: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The total budget is eight million bucks? That's what you're spending, and your ad valorem subsidy is four million? MR. OCHS: Yes. MS. FLAGG: Okay. The FY '97 percentage, the ad valorem percentage is 55 percent for FY '97. MR. OCHS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that yes or no, though? Eight million is your total cost, four million is your ad valorem subsidy? MS. FLAGG: For FY '98 or FY '97? MR. SHYKOWSKI: 48.6 percent of that budget is funded via transfer of the general fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So it's about 50 percent of subsidy. That's what I was shooting for. MS. FLAGG: Correct, it went from 55 this year to 48 next year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're headed in the right direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Headed in the right direction. MS. FLAGG: Yes, we are. MS. LEITH: Well, there's a one time savings that's not reflected there and that's from the health insurance savings. There's about $300,000 that was saved within this fund because there are over a hundred people here and that's the one time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a targeted increase in billing percentages from DOR that should be contributing to that savings also. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'm looking for. Is DOR gonna bring up the collections so that the subsidy reduces? Because that's -- I mean, this is probably one of our biggest hits, you know, as far as a subsidy for a department, and God knows it should be. It's probably the most important thing this county does, but the goal has to be to get that four million in ad valorem subsidy reduced by virtue of collections. MS. LEITH: We're reflecting a 75 percent collection rate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's our goal? MS. LEITH: This is our goal, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's our actual last year? MS. LEITH: Our actual is somewhere around 70, 72 percent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if look statewide I think 75 percent is pretty aggressive. MS. LEITH: And 75 is aggressive. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But that's why we formed DOR. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ochs, this takes into account -- the big numbers take into account the -- any adjustments in Hedicare? We've been adjusting that annually for whatever their level of payback is. MR. OCHS: No, the rate for fiscal year '98 is the same -- this budget is built on the same rate as we're currently charging; that's $302. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the reimbursement any greater? 'Cause what we've tried to do the last two or three years is make sure our rate is set equivalent to that so the end user isn't paying any more, but -- MR. OCHS: We will -- I understand what you're saying. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we're not subsidizing it more than we need to. MR. OCHS: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Than we have to. MR. OCHS: We'll know that January 1st would be the next medical reimbursement adjustment from Hedicare. January 1 of 1998. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we were currently utilizing the maximal -- the maximum amount? MR. OCHS: Yes, that's why we set the rate at 302, so we could maximize our reimbursement. Just parenthetically, the world is changing so quickly with regard to Hedicare and Hedicaid. They are now talking about going to flat rate reimbursements inside of prevailing reimbursement rates based on geographical areas and, again, I'm not making excuses for our billing and our collection rates, but, again, they are cracking down in paying or refusing to pay on some things that they have historically paid on and, again, I think it's all in the larger context of Hedicare trying to ratchet down dollars that they spend. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If things get tough in Hedicare, we'll just send Hartha Skinner after them. MR. OCHS: Right. There may be a point where we don't want to be a third party billet anymore and go back to first party. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a very important consideration. MR. OCHS: Or look at an alternative way to fund your EHS system. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is another -- something I want to talk to you about. I want to talk about what those choices are 'cause this is -- MR. OCHS: We have half a dozen options that we've already begun to discuss with the new -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just to summarize, we've red-flagged 49-A. It's not out, but it's not solid in yet either. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, until we can look at DOR and we'll see what possible offsetting measures we can entertain there. MS. LEITH: There was a second expanded unit request that was made at the county manager's review and that was a unit in the South Golden Gate Estates area and a total cost of $304,400, and that was not recommended by the manager to the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason being that the response times there are better than what we're experiencing in the -- oh they're worse? Population is -- MR. OCHS: Primarily a financial consideration, I would say. I'll let Mike address that. MR. MCNEES: A combination decision of which of the two would be recommended was not the manager's, that was the department's, but the question of -- it was a question of looking at the history of the last few years, how many units we had added in each year over the last two or three years based on the growth and the call volumes and it just seemed like we couldn't justify two units, and I understood that you could by looking at very localized response time measures, but it was our feeling that there is some ability, when you add a unit in one area to affect response times in more than just that specific local area by adjusting areas, et cetera, and the predominant factor being the $750,000 that was direct ad valorem tax increase money and that if we could afford, it'd be great -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. MCNEES: -- but being we just probably couldn't afford two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood, that makes sense. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- and I know we're tired of this budget, but let me just say this. One more question on the revenue side. On page A-69 in the big book, it talks about reimbursements for special services of 15,000 and reimbursements from fire districts were budgeted at about 34,000. Is that -- are we getting -- are we charging enough? Can we increase those? MS. FLAGG: The -- that's a wash, as far as the fire district training. We are under an MOU agreement, training from a medical perspective. Fire districts, they in turn reimburse us one hundred percent of the cost. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- MS. FLAGG: As far as the special events, those are funded by the participants, the movie groups and everybody else and definitely the fee that we charge is covering -- more than covering our cost. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe double our cost or triple our cost would be good, because, you know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have to remember a lot of these events are charitable events. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm talking about the movies and that stuff. MS. FLAGG: Right. There's -- I have four or five events that are charitable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Capital base -- okay. Okay. Anything else on that? Let's go to the next item then. Should be the last item before we wrap up for lunch. MS. LEITH: Ochopee Fire District will be covered tomorrow under special revenues, so this concludes the support services division impact on the general fund if we -- unless you have more questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the net overall is almost 11 million dollars in this division? 10 million -- MS. LEITH: That cost to the general fund, yes, 10 million dollars. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Let's go ahead and get started on public services division and see how far we get. We'll take just a one hour break from noon to one o'clock, so if you're down in the line-up, might as well go ahead and get an early start for lunch. Let's go ahead and get into public services division then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on the first three items here, domestic animal services, library and medical examiner, I don't have any problem with any of those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's, in this section, let's let our public services folks get to the table, but I'm in agreement with you, domestic animal services and library. I think those are needs that are pretty solid. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have a question on this? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just sort of a basic priorities question about, you know, code enforcement officers are something that I think we need so much more of and I just don't know what the net benefit to the community is for a domestic animal services officer versus a code enforcement officer, just from a big picture priorities. What is the public gonna see as a benefit? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're looking for justification for that position then? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say and I know probably all of you have been out there, the work load they do out there. I know every year, this is, what, the fifth or sixth budget we've worked on, Commissioner Norris? Every year they've asked and every year I think we've turned them down and certainly in the six year span there has been a growth out there, but if you spend any time there at the center, the work per person being performed there is perhaps higher than any -- not that all our departments aren't working hard, but they are just overloaded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Didn't we have a kennel last year, too? MR. OLLIFF: Yeah, in this particular case, it's actually the same kind of philosophy that we used before that we got animal control officers doing what is kennel worker work and rather than hiring another animal control officer, by hiring a kennel worker, you can get the animal control benefit for the value or the cost of the kennel worker. In this particular case, the kennel worker is in east county, if you will, in Immokalee, Everglades City where there is only one person stationed and, frankly, it's a safety issue with us, where the single person is required to do euthanasia by themselves at that location and our service provision out there is, frankly, not very good and with a kennel worker, we think we can get a lot more bang out of your animal control officer value. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That answers the question for me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir, I didn't catch your name. MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry, I'm Tom Olliff with the public services administration. MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I can amplify what Commissioner Constantine just said. Ms. Morelock, how many, on the typical week, hours of uncompensated and unpaid overtime do you put in? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That might be bad for federal employment laws to get that on the record. MS. MORELOCK: It varies. MR. HCNEES: The answer is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good answer. MR. HCNEES: -- it's an awful lot and you have exactly hit the nail on the head, that these -- this department comes in every year and says we're buried and every year we say, oh, well and we say we can't afford it and it just got to the point where we need to give these folks some help. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it true, Jodi, your husband went on vacation for a week and you never knew it? MS. MORELOCK: He thinks I'm on permanent vacation, I believe. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: I do need to point out one thing on that list, too, the computer operator that you see there, we were actually proposing to provide for the cost of that through a revenue by increasing the license fee by $2 per license, in order to cover that $25,000 cost, but just so you know this budget is based on a fee increase for the annual licenses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that brings the total for an animal license to? MR. OLLIFF: $8 on average. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's another please clone him idea, it's perfect. MS. MORELOCK: Actually it's -- Jodi Morelock, director of animal services. It brings the unneutered animal license up to $15. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MS. MORELOCK: From the 12 and then the 6 to the 8. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Headline, Commissioner Mac'Kie wishes to penalize pet owners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who don't neuter their pets, absolutely. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on domestic animal services? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I am in agreement with Commissioner Constantine and I think that domestic animal services and the library, the requests are fine with me. Dr. Coburn has been sitting in the audience all morning. You might as well at least get up here, and ask her a question or something. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: She probably wouldn't mind if we didn't. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Actually, I think probably the more pertinent questions for Dr. Coburn come under the capital side later, but are there questions of Dr. Coburn, for the medical examiner, or are we just gonna let her play defense this morning? MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is an expanded service request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, for a single morgue technician, which brings the staff up to a total of -- MR. OLLIFF: Total staff? CHAI~ HANCOCK: It would bring it to three, there's two now; is that right? MR. OLLIFF: There's one more tech now, that would actually be tWO . CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Come on up, Marta. Okay. So library, everyone's fine with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. COBURN: Harta Coburn, medical examiner. There are a total of, counting myself, right now, we are three people. One full-time work technician, one full-time secretary/office manager and me. My associate left for Lee County for more money, but I'm in the process of getting another associate. What I'm asking for is -- I'm going to refill his position, but I'm asking for an additional morgue tech position, full-time. I used to have 2 part-time tech positions. It didn't work out great, but the only reason it did work out is because one of the people was a fire person and they had quite a lot of time off. They worked 24 hour shifts and then they had two days off or something like that, I can't remember. So it worked out all right, and the other person didn't have any other job, except that part-time job. So that was, specifically, those two people worked out very well filling -- two people filling one position. We really need a full-time position and now we -- we actually need two, especially when we go into the new building. The reason for that is we've been working with the same morgue tech every single day including Saturdays and Sundays and this person has not taken vacation or anything like that. They're happy because they're getting a lot of overtime, but that's really not the best way to run the office and it can't continue ad infinitum. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm convinced and I have no objection to this request. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Coburn. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, before she gets away, if you permit me just one little comment. This is one of the real surprises -- I've had many, but this is one of the nice surprises so far, meeting Dr. Coburn. I indicated to her that in my years of experience with county government, she's the first medical examiner I have met, I have personally met, and that says a lot about the relationship she has with the Board of County Commissioners, and the fact that she was sitting there around the table in my orientation session, I really appreciated that and I just wanted to say that publicly to her. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: She cultivated the relationship by asking us all to come out and see her facility, so we're operating from a position of guilt, frankly. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I told her thank you, but no thank you. MS. COBURN: Thank you. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It was nothing personal. MS. COBURN: I'm sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second headline, Commissioner Berry has a weak stomach. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I admit to it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For this sake, why don't we hold parks and recreation until after the break. We'll take a lunch break from 12 until one o'clock. Let's try and convene on time, ladies and gentleman, so we can get done by five o'clock today. (Whereupon, a lunch break was had from 12 o'clock until 1 o'clock.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' Budget Workshop. We left off at the start of the Public Service Division section. Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask the board's indulgence, a school board member, Anne Goodnight, is here to talk about one item and she has been here most of the morning. And, frankly, because of my fault, she's here on the wrong day, but she was here to talk about a position with the Roberts Ranch and -- and I'd like to ask the board if we can go ahead and hear that discussion now. It was an item that's in your budget big book on Page C-83. It was actually a requested but not recommended. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it were anyone but Hiss Goodnight, there would be a resounding no, but since it's Anne, we'll do it. MS. GOODNIGHT: Thank you. For the record, my name is Anne Goodnight and I'm here today as the secretary of the Friends of Roberts Ranch. And in your budget, you'll see that there was an item in there for an employee. I call this employee a live-in caretaker historian to live at the Immokalee -- at the Immokalee Roberts Ranch so that they could help us to facilitate some of the plans. I think the figure is about $30,000 that it would cost for this person to be there but I have a deal for you. As you all know, I'm '- I'm always willing to deal and so my deal is this. The Friends of Roberts Ranch is just getting started. We have a president, a secretary, treasurer and a vice-president. We have sent our nonprofit papers in. We have opened a checking account up and we've got a little money in there. We found $25,000 that are -- that is part of -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Immokalee Nature Center? MS. GOODNIGHT: -- the Immokalee Nature Center, right. And we're going to transfer that over there because they want that to be put into the church that has been moved onto the site. So, my proposal to you is that if you will tentatively put this position in the budget before the 1st of October, we will bring back to you the full plan of how we're going to do the restoration of the property, the fund raising that we're going to have. We want to -- to ask the commissioners through the Tourist Development Tax about the possibility of buying that other 8.8 acres, that D tract or whatever, so that we could have parking and things like that because you're -- in your agreement with the Roberts family -- as a matter of fact, two years ago today, you agreed to move those buildings off the property if the property was sold. We're also wanting to take a -- a very hard look at the road that you promised to build, about the possibility of us not putting that road in because we've got some ideas. We've already talked with Chalmers Yielding, who is the historical architect that's working on the Everglades laundry, and he has come over and looked at the place. So, we've got some ideas but they're not finalized and I don't want to waste your time by telling you something that's in the sky until we actually have it. So, if you would tentatively put this person in the budget, allow us until September to get our act together, bring back to you the final plans, and -- and then, you can decide then whether or not that you want to fund it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Goodnight, would your final plans have any funds that would be direct toward subsidizing that $30,000 salary or will that still remain as a -- a general fund expense? MS. GOODNIGHT: What -- what we're -- what we're looking at is the Friends of Roberts Ranch would actually raise the money, either through fund raising or grants, to do all the restoration of the buildings and the surrounding area. And then the county's responsibility would be to actually have the employees there to run it and I -- and I think that now that some of that money comes out of the Tourist Development, I'm not sure, because I don't -- I'm not sure that I understand, but I think that some of it for the museum is coming out of Tourist Development. So, I donwt know. Wewre willing to work with that. Itws just that, you know, our biggest thing right now is getting the buildings to where they are useable. Wewve got some great ideas to do, wewve got a great committee to work with, and wewve got money thatws coming in every day now that wewre beginning to show that therews an organization thatws out there. So, what we want to do is we want to help the county with this facility and put it together and then the county fund it with the employees thatws needed there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Goodnight, I certainly appreciate the work youwre doing and particularly trying to develop this and bring some people into the Immokalee area. But I just donwt know if this is an appropriate expenditure even in that scenario for general revenue for the general taxpayer to be paying. If we can find a way that TDC is the primary contributor to that, thatls fine. But I -- I just -- I stick to my old guns of we should be doing health, safety and welfare with general fund and this is an extra item. I would suggest a better avenue might be looking for some help from friends of the museum perhaps and, obviously, if youlre creating your own to have friends at Roberts Ranch to -- to offset that as well. But as neat of an idea as it sounds, Iim not sure itls an appropriate expenditure to ask every taxpayer in the county to be picking up the tab for it. MS. GOODNIGHT: And I -- and I could, if I was sitting in your position, agree with that. The problem is that if I had been sitting in your position two years ago, I think that that would have been one of my concerns then because this place is not a safe place. You are now -- you now have a security system that is there but itls -- and itls being monitored. The -- the buildings are not safe. Kids or anyone else could climb the fence and come in there and there could really be some injuries that were done there. This person would actually do some of the lawn -- would do the lawn maintenance which youlre now contracting for. They would be able to do some of the minor repair that needs to be done. I mean, right now the place is completely closed off because your people has said that the place is not safe. And, so, this is something that welre looking at, too, because, no, we donlt have the money -- you know, we donlt want to become someone that is hiring people to run a museum that the county has taken over. What we want to do is we want to take the money that we raise and put in the restoration and improvements of the site. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I think what youlre asking for on the surface is a reasonable request, but rather than having a tremendous amount of discussion on it today, it -- we arenlt going to be able to look it at singularly. We have to look at it in concert with the balance of the museum budget because thatls the more appropriate place. And I understand that, you know, your being here today instead of tomorrow. What Iid like to do is take the benefit of this -- this discussion, your presentation and fold it into tomorrowls discussion on the museum. We need to look at the museum as a whole and determine where funds should and shouldnlt or can and canlt go. So, I think we have to look at that holistically as opposed to just considering this request today and trying to decide whether we're going to do this or not. I greatly appreciate your presentation. And Roberts Ranch is something that is on the horizon. And we knew those costs were coming down the road. It's a question of timing, I think, more than anything. So, what I'd like to do is to defer the balance of this discussion until we have it on the entire museum tomorrow if that's possible. MS. GOODNIGHT: And -- and that will be fine. I just -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GOODNIGHT: And -- and I won't be able to be here but I just want you to understand that there's already cost that's being incurred there and so I think that we could defray some of the costs of the individual, the employee, by taking some of those costs and -- and lawn maintenance and the security system and all, that they would actually be able to take care of. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's where I'd be interested in looking at. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's exactly right. MS. GOODNIGHT: Plus -- plus the point that this person, we will probably get him for less -- get down for less than what the 30,000 is since they will be living there on site and when -- and then the county would be providing their -- you know, their room. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Okay. MS. GOODNIGHT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Goodnight. And let's flag that on museum to make sure we at least address as an individual line item in the discussion regarding the museum -- the museum budget, excuse me. Okay. Back to the top of the Parks and Recreation. Hello, again, Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Hello again. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where are we going to? MR. OLLIFF: We -- we've been working through these bandit service lists, so I'm assuming we're starting at the top of Page A-27. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And in our detail book? MR. VINCENT: I start at Page A-71 for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And your name for the record, please? MR. VINCENT: For the record, my name is Gary Vincent. I'm an analyst in the office of Management and Budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're at A-27 and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A-7 -- actually A-72. MR. VINCENT: A-89 is actually where Parks and Recreation -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. VINCENT: -- starts. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 89? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it's got ag and all that stuff in between. There we go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have an A-89. COHMISSIONER BERRY: In the big book? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I go from -- oh, wait, I do. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, that 89. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, that. The one that starts with an eight. Okay. All right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Don't do that too frequently. My heart stops when I hear stuff like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm missing 107 pages, Mr. Smykowski. Could you go get them for me? Okay. Let's go ahead and get started. MR. VINCENT: In the Parks and Recreation budget, the -- the major increase in the current service level there is for the annualized operation of Sugden Park. And that totals $132,800. Additionally, with other facilities that are being built, lighted courts and -- and those types of facilities, electricity is also increasing considerably by $35,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have questions on Parks and Recreation? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I have several. $8,000, a scanner for producing flyers and other publications and a CD system. What are those? MR. OLLIFF: A scanner is -- is simply a piece of equipment that allows you to scan pictures into your documents rather than going out to a printer and having them color separated at $250 a piece. I -- I do need to adjust that request amount. Just in fact this morning on the state contract, we found out that the scanner price from the state contract is only $3,000. That total that's been requested -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That makes a lot more sense. MR. OLLIFF: -- is $4,000 as opposed to $8,000 for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got no problem with the $3,000 scanner. I was curious about a $7,000 scanner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those do we do a year? How many -- MR. OLLIFF: We do two Leisure Line publications a year where we've got a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's hard to hear you, Tom. MR. OLLIFF: We do two Leisure Line publications a year where we're doing color separations for those. What we're going to try and go to because one of the -- the criticisms that we've had in the surveys that we've done, say that people don't know what programs we offer, so that's telling us that the Leisure Line is not doing what we wanted it to do. So, we've actually parceled out the -- the marketing budget, if you will, to each of the community center directors and are asking them to publicize in their own communities that surround their park the programs that they're going to offer. So, we're going to go from two to probably 12 different publications that are going to be much smaller type versions of the Leisure Line that you see. But I think we'll get the -- the scanner will actually pay for itself probably within a year versus the cost of color separation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the CD system is what? MR. OLLIFF: You do that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, you said the scanner will pay for itself see, so we are not looking at additional costs but an offsetting revenue? Is this taking the place of something else? Because it's shown as expanded, which to me means additional or on top of as opposed to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we see a decrease -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in place of. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in printing? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we -- right now we're doing -- I'm sorry. Marla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation. Right now when -- when we do our Leisure Line, we'll probably have about 30 pictures that we're putting into Leisure Line at present. What we're hoping to do, because we're -- we've got a marketing budget in and of itself, and so what we're doing, we're trying to enhance the marketing aspect within the community and of -- one of which of those is to send the flyers out in the schools themselves. And each time we put a flyer into the school, it costs us somewhere around $800 per, and we've only been doing that once or twice a year in the past. What we want to do is keep the marketing budget enhanced a little bit, do the Leisure Lines and add additional types of activity. So, no, you will not see a reduction because we're trying to enhance the -- the communication with the community. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, it was being spent on color anyway. It will now be spent on expanding the -- the marketing effort out to the -- let the kids know what the programs are. MR. OLLIFF: In addition to that, on the revenue side of your page, you'll see on the recreation program side that you're -- you're projecting about $50,000 more in revenue for the upcoming year than you were this past year and, so, we're hoping that some of our marketing will pay off by increased attendance in those rec programs to generate the revenue to pay for these kinds of items. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One thing that may -- I know that we put it in the newspaper once a year. Quite -- are we -- we weren't doing it anymore? Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I throw that middle section away. I never even see it. I've missed it every year because I just never get into that stuff. So, okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Vincent knows all about that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're telling me you read all of that middle section? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, always. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Always. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think she was just growling because you actually subscribe to the paper. What is the $1,000 CD? MS. RAMSEY: The CD is to allow us to do more dance type activities during our regular programming. We do dances on a regular basis. We hire DJs, but being able to have a CD system where we can play it during some of our regular activities will enhance the programming. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are -- what are you buying? MS. RAMSEY: Basically, just a CD player. Right now we don't have the CD program. We've got cassette type activity so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy, but I can go to Circuit City and pick one up for less than a thousand bucks. It's pretty nice. MS. RAMSEY: Well, it's an enhanced system so it will have all of the above on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Meaning? MS. RAMSEY: Instead of like a boom box, it will be more like a system. It's a CD system with a cassette player and speakers and -- so we can move it from location to location as we need it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're not adding a CD player to an existing system. MS. RAMSEY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're talking about a whole new mobile -- MS. RAMSEY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- system for CD use. Is this for the things that the youth advisory committee is working on like the dances for junior high school and that kind of stuff? MS. RAMSEY: Exactly, yes. And -- and then also some other activities, too, because we -- if we have the capabilities like during midnight basketball, we could probably be playing jam music in the background or some other things like that, so we would like to use it in more ways than one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pandering to my interests. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: God, I roped you in on that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you there, didn't she? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What will happen to the old -- that one, we'll still use that somehow, the old system or -- MS. RAMSEY: Well, the old system are just basically boom boxes so they don't have the same quality. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Got me on youth advisory dances and got you on midnight basketball so, good work, Marla. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good salesman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, these -- these -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean next item in Parks and Rec. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. These next two items I circled. Again we go back to the Department of Revenue. Bill Barton is going to be eating for weeks off this. Issue of purchase orders, invoices and so on, the next item talks about tracking revenue. Again, those just seem like things that the Department of Revenue would participate in. MR. OLLIFF: We -- we don't -- the Department of Revenue doesn't do any -- there are no billings, if you will, from the parks department, so the Department of Revenue doesn't provide any service to Parks and Recreation. They're -- they're handling all of their own expenditures, revenues, purchase orders. The other reason or the other benefit of this particular position is it is a position that is going to be at the Golden Gate Community Park. That is the only park that doesn't have a -- a community center per se. And that location with the central office actually closes at 5:00 in the afternoon and is not open on Saturdays. So, the idea of adding this position is not only to have the -- the additional clerical help that the department needs but also to keep the office open till seven, 7:30 each night and open on Saturdays till noon so that the public has somebody to actually go to and ask them questions about and sign up for classes after 5:00. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes sense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It does. It's just -- you know, it's just a little frustrating that every year since we initiated DOR, we find another department that's doing their own finances and doing their own billing and doing their own purchase orders and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could it be that DOR was a bad idea? Oh, just a thought. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Do you do enough volume in any way that DOR could be of assistance to your department? MR. OLLIFF: Because of the way we're structured where moms are going to each of the community centers to sign up for those classes and things, it's -- it's real difficult to have a centralized type DOR function because we are at -- at six or seven different locations across the county. I -- I'll tell on you the good side, that we just recently got done with an audit from the Clerk of Courts' office, and the only thing that he commented on in terms of our revenue collection and -- and accounting procedures was that we do too much paper work, that we -- we try and nickel and dime ourselves to the point where we're probably over paper working ourselves. But I -- I don't know how you could do a centralized DOR type operation in parks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on that? Okay. Let's keep moving. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: $4,000 computer is pretty high. What are you getting? MR. OLLIFF: It's the cost that we get. That's -- that's the internal -- internally provided cost. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the same discussion we had this time last year -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I guess. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. This is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got to get a fancy CD player and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess. Been there, done that. Where are the two rangers for patrol and ordinance enforcement going to patrol and enforce? MR. OLLIFF: That's actually two part-time rangers, so it's only one FTE there and it is a seasonal, two part times. Right now, because of the beach traffic that we have during the season, we have all of the rangers dedicated to providing service at the beach parks during the 80 to 90 hours that those parks are open, whether it's at Tigertail full time or at Barefoot Beach full time, and then collecting revenues and providing patrols at the other locations, our rangers are completely tied up at our beach parks. What we're trying to do is -- is have one more FTE, if you will, that will patrol the community parks in the evening because we don't have any -- any personnel in the parks at all outside of community centers where they're pretty much stuck inside the building. So, we'd like to be able to have a little more presence there in the evenings especially during the season. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition to evenings, have we looked at recap positions or, you know, similar type positions for this because there are a lot of people here during the season that wouldn't -- that wouldn't mind working part time because they're out in the sun, the parks are great places to be to talk to people and that kind of stuff. I think the parking lot down on Marco, the one towards the south end of the island that was dedicated just two and a half years ago, we have part-time employees down there or did at that time. But I guess my question is it seems to me there wouldn't be any shortage of people that would be willing to work part time in our county park system. They're here for season. I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the Sheriff's Department not currently do any patrol in or around the parks like Golden Gate Community Park at night? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Around but not in? MR. OLLIFF: They usually patrol in the parks after hours. They've asked us to leave gates open at our community parks after the parks are closed so that they can go in and actually patrol the park after hours. During the time that the parks are open, I -- I don't know that there's a regular patrol going on from the Sheriff's Department. We can check. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, but I'm reading as a line item here is for patrol and ordinance enforcement at night within the community park system. MR. OLLIFF: Right. What we're -- a lot of activities go on especially seasonally in the parks; softball leagues, basketball leagues, those kinds of things, and just simple issues like people with -- with beer in the park is something that's a ranger responsibility to go in and enforce. And -- and we don't have anybody doing that currently in the evenings and -- and it's -- it's a gap. It's a gap that we're trying to fill only during that six months in the season. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about daytime coverage at the parks during peak season? That -- when I saw those positions, I thought, well, that -- that makes sense. I didn't see just at night because I was thinking, you know, daytime peak season, I know at -- at -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People bring beer to the park during the day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that and -- and like at Barefoot Beach where the ranger has become such a part of the learning center and so forth and does tours and does a great job there, if they're -- that's a pretty lengthy park and there's no one else doing patrols and that kind of stuff, and -- and made the same -- I think the same is true of Tigertail. MR. OLLIFF: We generally have two rangers stationed at each of those sites while they're open during the season. During the day at our community parks, they're not nearly as full and active as they are after 5:00. That's when you really have the -- the public there; after work, after school. And, so, from 3:00 on is when you'll see your park activity pick up, so we're only trying to -- to provide that manpower coverage when they're actually used -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. MR. OLLIFF: -- fully. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions on that item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me go back to the other two just for a minute -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the office assistant and the computer. What are we currently doing right now? I mean who -- who pays the invoices and who does the purchase orders and -- MS. RAMSEY: Current -- currently what we have going on is that we have a work load that's real high. A letter that I have from my senior secretary says that right now there's about 20 hours a week being volunteered by the five people in the fiscal and secretarial area that we aren't paying the overtime on right now. They just volunteered to do that. A lot of times they're there until 7:00 at night. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Rivaling animal control. And the computer, I mean how -- how does that differ? And I've sat in there in the little window at the pool. And how is it going to increase efficiency there to have a computerized cash register? MR. OLLIFF: One of the things that we're -- we're aiming to do is to have all of the computers tied in centrally so that we can track and they can submit reports electronically over E-mail and telephone modems so that we can, if you will, total on a daily basis all of the revenue received and -- and do our reports on a daily basis. This is one of the few locations that -- that is left that does not have a computer that's tied into a cash register type system and allow us to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When I went out there, they let me sit at the top of the slide, so we need to talk to somebody out there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you're chairman. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a general question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And yours is just the first big division to -- for me to ask this on, I think. With the big savings and personal services as a result of the health savings, about $150,000, or, let me see, $134,000, how is that reflected as a savings or would we otherwise have seen an additional $134,000 as expanded service request? MR. OLLIFF: I think you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you understand my question? MR. OLLIFF: I think so and let me see if I can answer it. If you look at your -- your budget Page A-89 and you look at your '96-'97 adopted budget and then look at the forecast number, you'll see that the -- what you're actually going to spend this year versus what you actually budgeted this year, you -- you budgeted almost $270,000 more than we're actually going to spend. So, I think that's where your savings are and that will show up in your carry forward overall in general fund for next year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess -- I guess this brings up a -- an opportunity for me to -- as much as this year's budget presentation is so wonderful, it's so good, one -- one other thing I can say that would be an improvement for future years is in addition to these expanded service pages, how about a reduced or eliminated cost, a reduced or eliminated service or, you know, natural life of something. This program was -- was in there for three years. It's -- we've completed it now. How about an eliminated service page or an eliminated cost page; for example, this $134,000 would be easier to see? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm going to ask a -- a favor of all the members of the board because as we go through this process, we all are going to have individual ideas on how maybe to do it a little better next year. Rather than giving individual direction, I would rather we do it in total at the end of the budget process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason is I -- I don't want -- if I say I think we ought to do this and yet there's no board consensus on it, has staff been given direction or not? And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, do you guys think that's a bad idea or good idea? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a good idea that we do it all at the end of the budget process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. No. I'm just -- I'm just asking. That way all of it can be done in one time and we're not piecemealing as we move along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People can keep notes but you're the chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you can overrule me if there are three of you that wish to do it another way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can take notes, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you help me remember that, Mike? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pass your notes to Mike. Our next two items, a request for 25,000 for a jazz festival and 5,000 for an arts festival but offsetting revenues for both events, so it's a zero net. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask how we're going to get the offsetting revenues? Having produced a couple of shows, I know what you anticipate getting and what you actually get aren't always the same. MS. RAMSEY: Well, we're going to be looking for sponsorship. And right now I have -- I'm -- I'm working with -- with a couple of consultants that might be able to find me some additional people that have not been tapped in the past. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consultants is always a bad word. Are we paying somebody to look or that's just people -- MS. RAMSEY: No. This is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you happen to know? MS. RAMSEY: No, this is someone I know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: She's lending credibility to the word friend. MR. OLLIFF: These are the kind of events -- these are both Sugden Park -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. OLLIFF: -- targeted events and -- and this is the first time we will have a facility that will lend itself to these kind of events. While, you know, they've always been at Cambier Park forever, I think Sugden will allow us to do some more things like this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, it keeps people from driving in the city unnecessarily. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't want to intrude. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Degrade is the word. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Terminate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The intrusion is cautioning degradation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I don't mind doing this as long as we can actually generate all, or almost all anyway, of the money back. I just don't want to have a surprise at the end. Ah, gee, we didn't get as much as we thought and we're out $18,000. MR. OLLIFF: We plugged in a number and I think the -- the actual event will be limited by the sponsorships we know we have in advance plus a very conservative gate. So, you know, we're -- we're going to make sure that the event covers it, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If at the outset it doesn't look like it will be accomplished, we're not going to have the event is what I'm hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to be having that event. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will the events come to the board for -- you know, will we approve them or is this something that staff -- MR. OLLIFF: No. We're going -- we're going to end up having to do contracts with entertainers or -- or any -- any type of vendors, food vendors, and those kind of things. So, yes, those are going to have to come back to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, we'll see them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The last item on that page, teen nights, I'm all for it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. MR. OLLIFF: And you just approved a budget amendment for this summer. This is actually for next summer, so we don't have to do a budget amendment mid year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are -- those have been real successful. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The last item, I just don't understand, you've got two computers for $4,000 on that line and one computer for $4,000 a few lines up. MR. OLLIFF: That's because it is the Golden Gate Community Center where general fund is only -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're very, very efficient. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ah, these cheap computers. MR. OLLIFF: General fund is only paying for 50 percent of the operational cost there -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. MR. OLLIFF: -- so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You were actually spending 8,000. The taxing -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no. We're spending $2,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The taxing district is paying for the other half. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, you're spending eight total. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four out of general. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. The other half -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- is coming out -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two computers though -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- of the Golden Gate Community Center -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- taxes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One at a time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sorry. The half of that will be coming from Golden Gate Community Center ad valorem -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. We got you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- taxes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions on Parks and Recreation? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Page A-89, there's shown at the bottom two reel mowers, five trucksters, two riding mowers and two 72-inch mowers but I don't see any line in there for racing mowers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As a matter of fact, I think a board sponsored racing mower could be an annual entry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Nelson Faerber took care of that with the school board -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, moving right along. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. We'll have to work on that -- work on that for next year. MR. OLLIFF: I'll think you'll find those at the county auction. That was just held a couple of weeks ago, the racing mowers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we miss a chance to modify one? Darn it. Okay. No other questions on Parks and Recreation? MR. OLLIFF: Then I think we're moving on to Social Services next on your green page? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. MR. OLLIFF: Commercial Services is the only issue here and it is a large issue. It is the increased mandated Medicaid cost and it's the same item which you were presented with of one month ago for an additional $435,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page, please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. I'm working off of just A-24, the general -- sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A-24 and A-94. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: A what? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A-94. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the big book? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the big book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And A-24 in your summary. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I've got -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is the -- where the state revised the bills that we had rejected and has resubmitted them in an acceptable form and we are bound to pay, as I understand it. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing new. Nothing new, nothing expanded. I just think it's thanks for getting us the time value of the money and now we'll belly up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not as content with that as you are but we don't have any choice. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think we have a choice. Sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are -- are -- is there a state association and -- a Florida association of counties under those working on alternates? While we don't have any choice for this year, are we trying to impact future years? MS. SKINNER: Martha Skinner, your Social Services director. Yes, sir. We've been working on that for a -- a long time. We're developing a handbook right now for the state because every county seems to be doing this a little differently. And we are with -- in cooperation with the state Medicaid office. In fact, we're developing a Hedicaid handbook so that there will be some consensus on really how we're supposed to be doing this. So, we're still saving big bucks. We will probably save in excess of 400,000 this year, but it will come back to us, I'm afraid, next year. So, even with the savings we're being double billed every month. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we spoken to our state delegation about trying to alter the manner in which '- MS. SKINNER: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it's done? MS. SKINNER: What they're talking about is the counties are not paying their fair share and they're thinking of a way to find that we can pay more into the Hedicaid program. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, you know that Hedicaid program that we, as a county, started. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MS. SKINNER: That's one of those unfunded mandates that we deal with. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Another one in a long list of many. Okay. Any questions -- further questions on that? Okay. MS. SKINNER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Keep up the good work, Miss Skinner. She's not used to delivering bad news at budget time. Mr. Olliff, what's next? MR. OLLIFF: If you're moving on to Veterans Services, you've actually seen a 22 percent decrease in that budget and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A-98 and A-247 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Help us -- help us with the pages as you get started to -- MR. OLLIFF: Okay. A-98. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- reduce the shuffling. Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Veterans Services. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And purpose for that reduction -- MR. OLLIFF: Is -- is primarily because of the retirement of your director, Mr. Schulz, and the hiring of -- of a new director. And I take the opportunity to introduction to you Peter Kraley who was your Recap Coordinator, who is now your -- your new Veterans Services director. Peter, we're real proud to have him. He's -- he's actually got a -- a legal background and is a Purple Heart Vietnam Veteran and I think we're going to do real well with -- with Peter at the helm. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll talk to you about getting my honorable discharge which I never received from the Coast Guard. We'll chat about that next week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sure he can help you with it. MS. BILES: Purple Heart. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. You get a Purple Heart for this job. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on Veterans Services? Seeing none -- excellent first budget, Mr. Kraley. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to the next item. MR. OLLIFF: Be Agriculture and that's on Page A-74 in the big book -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: -- the detail book. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we were going in order. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And in the summary? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To keep us on our toes. MR. VINCENT: A-24 in the summary. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On A-24, there is a summary of each of the departments. The bulk of the remaining departments have zero in -- zero percent increases or actual decreases. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: With no expanded services. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Agriculture Department, if you'll look, has -- is primarily a -- a standard increase in personal services and a decrease in its operating budget. No expanded service request and pretty much the same level of programming that was provided in years past. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question. If Adopted Budget '96-'97 was 131,000 and operating, the forecast for '96-'97 is 93 and current services is 103, these are one of those swings that concern me because we're -- there's -- we are -- we missed by some 38,000 last year, yet we're projecting 10,000 more to maintain current service. What am I missing there? MR. OLLIFF: It is a change in -- in the way we were required to have two employees who were shown as contract employees. Contract employees will show up in your Operating Budget; however, Human Resources, in looking at how those positions actually work, determined that they needed to be regular county employees and, so, they were moved up into your Personal Services Appropriation Unit. Those were paid for with offsetting revenues from the -- the Banking Consortium project and the First Time Family Home Buyers program. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: So, that's just a -- a move of contracted employees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Something -- forecast capital outlay is $8,000 greater than budgeted because two laptop computers were purchased. I assume that purchase came to our Consent Agenda? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Donation. Keep reading. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Donation. MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. Those were also -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It was through a donation. That would have been -- the board approved that on an agenda item recognizing and appropriating that revenue -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and authorizing the purchase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I didn't get past the concern of seeing "were purchased" when I have no idea when it happened. Okay. Any questions on this budget? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Volunteer Development, you need to explain to me what that is, when we say, "responding to telephone requests and walk-ins for information." And the word "volunteer" usually doesn't mean money, why we have 163,400. MS. BLANTON: We have -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MS. BLANTON: My name is Denise Blanton, Agriculture director. We have Master Gardener volunteers, 4-H volunteers, we have family financial counselor volunteers, all of whom work through and with a professional to deliver services in order to geometrically expand what paid staff could do and contribute more than 100,000 hours a year. And working through and with those volunteers is what that item reflects. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Working -- I mean I -- I still don't understand. You're the individual who works with who oversees them? MS. BLANTON: Yes. The -- it's -- it's actually parts of individuals, yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those -- those parts tally a sum of $163,0007 MS. BLANTON: In addition -- with the clerical support to keep the networks informed, newsletters, events, those kinds of things, yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of my favorite programs in your department is the home ownership program but I'm confused why that is in the Agriculture Department instead of Social Services or -- I don't know. MS. BLANTON: We have the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or Housing and Urban Development? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. BLANTON: We have the background to work with those particular families through the university program done in conjunction with ownership funding and preparing homeowners to become a homeowner because a lot of people don't have command of their personal budgets and assets in order to become a homeowner. So, that's why the partnership was established. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going back to the volunteer -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- if you don't mind? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Mr. Olliff had one more point on that. MR. OLLIFF: I think the simple answer was that -- that we actually had staff out in the field speaking Spanish to those people doing family financial counseling. We looked at originally putting that program in Greg Mihalic's shop but he would have had to have basically started from scratch developing contacts and things, but because we knew those people already as part of our programs, those are the same people that the banks were trying to target, so it was sort of a natural fit here just because we had those people in place. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a funny heading but wonderful. It sounds like you're doing just what you ought to do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine, you still had questions on volunteer development. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One fuzzy heading, Volunteer Development. How many different people? When you say there's bits and pieces of different people, how many different people? MS. BLANTON: It would be -- the Master Gardener coordinator would be one, part of one, 4-H leader, the position that works with the Family Financial Counselors and a clerical support person. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's four people that make up three FTE's? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four -- MS. BLANTON: There's actually -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four people -- four people then spend -- each of them spend 75 percent of their time doing this? MS. BLANTON: Approximately 50. You know, it varies but add it up. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would have to average 75 percent if you get three FTE's out of it. MS. BLANTON: Yes. Some -- some spend 30 percent, some spend 80 percent, some pend -- spend 100 percent, that kind of thing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if they spend 100 percent, they probably shouldn't be called 4-H Development or Master Gardener if they're spending all their time on the volunteer development. I'm just -- I'm just having trouble understanding. If you have four people and that's -- MS. BLANTON: Okay. Let me give you the specifics. It's actually half of -- do you want me to name names? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Positions. I don't care who -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the people are. MS. BLANTON: The program that they're involved in is Home Ownership, 4-H, Family Financial Volunteers and Master Gardeners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- MS. BLANTON: A secretary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's half of all of those or -- MS. BLANTON: Yeah. Yeah. Because they all work part of the time through and with volunteers and the smallest volunteer group we have is something like 75. That's the smallest and, of course, 4-H volunteers are something like in excess of 200. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you have half of four full-time positions, that equals two FTE's. MS. BLANTON: And then a clerical support person would be the third FTE. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's all they do. This is all they do. That's the 100 percent that you mentioned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take the Master Gardener as an example. MS. BLANTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Half in Volunteer Development. Is the other half in Home Horticulture? MS. BLANTON: The other half is -- is working with the -- the professional backup, yes. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, then, there's another full person at Home Horticulture? MS. BLANTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is lots one and a half. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't -- the thing is everyone crosses paths in that building like -- probably unlike most -- more county departments than you care to think of. You have one person doing three or four different things. It makes it difficult, but it also makes it more difficult for us to get our hands around it, too. MS. BLANTON: Yes, I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It also makes it more efficient. I mean, frankly, the answer to my question about home ownership sounds likes government doing something smart instead of bureaucratically. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm -- I'm sorry to stay on this, but the Volunteer Development, delivering workshops, clinics and other programs, what -- can you give me some examples of those? MS. BLANTON: There are the garden workshops, for example. There are the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which are open to whom? MS. BLANTON: Opened up to the entire -- to all the public. I believe, as -- as I recall, that Commissioner Hancock forwarded a thank you letter recently that you thought was worthy of the Wall of Fame from someone who had attended. And we have, you know, close to 75 people for -- as an average for a series of eight workshops. We have people who volunteer to write for the Garden Page, who value an ad to the Garden Page that we do weekly. We have people who man the phones three days a week, answering telephone calls for people who call in, as an example. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And then how does that -- oh, wait a minute. Somebody mentioned the Home Horticulture program. What specifically happens there? MS. BLANTON: What specifically happens there is all the updates that take place through the university and the background training and support, that in order to keep that subject matter area going, you know, the expertise, the professional expertise, because you not only are working with people, you're also expected to be competent and answer questions in that area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this a reclassification or new title since last year? MS. BLANTON: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've always called it Home Horticulture? But just that -- and I -- I -- why I ask is -- MS. BLANTON: I think I might have called it All Agriculture. But horticulture is a part of Agriculture. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. Home Horticulture is the title that seems more warm and fuzzy and harder to cut. And a year ago when we had problems with some of these areas, we were talking about individual businesses and so on. They don't -- they don't have anything; small farmers, small businesses, big farmers, big businesses, don't use the services of Home Horticulture? MS. BLANTON: Be -- it wouldn't be big farmers or big businessmen, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Collier Companies or -- or -- MR. OLLIFF: The -- the position that you had a particular problem with philosophically last year was actually called a vegetable agent position. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. OLLIFF: That position is no longer with us because we eliminated it from the budget if -- if the private farmers couldn't support it. They supported it for three months of this year and then the position, I think, has actually been transferred to Lee County. Is that correct? This particular program, frankly, provides a lot of both classroom type sessions for general public, live phone-ins for our people who have problems with their own home landscaping and it provides a link between local landscape businesses, too, when they need information from the university about certain pesticides or other things, so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's -- who's the target of those? And why I'm asking is the -- for the workshops or clinics is because if there are some homeowners that benefit, that's great, but if the primary target is -- or your primary attendee is someone who does that for a living, then I don't know the -- that the general taxpayer needs to be subsidizing them. If that's -- if they're not the ones who attend, then I'm okay but -- MS. BLANTON: Precisely. And coming before you next Tuesday is a request for the board's consideration to consider an amendment -- I mean an ordinance change that would amend the occupational license system to add continuing education unit fees to the licenses purchased by the 1200 businesses that do landscape maintenance or nursery, those kinds of things. We had a volunteer program this past year and when people are asked to volunteer to participate, we got a lower turn out than expected. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've used the -- the Master Gardener out there and I think unfortunately most people don't know about it. If you go to a place that sells fertilizer and pesticides and start telling your problem, the next thing you know you've got an armful of garage, you know, that you don't know if they're telling you what the problem is. This is kind of an independent thing. If more people would use it, they'd realize how valuable -- and it's a lot of volunteers in the Master Gardener, so I think this is kind of a -- pardon the pun, nonintended, but a seed to -- to bring more volunteers in. And they actually do a real good job. MR. OLLIFF: To answer you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you answered my question precisely, it was an either/or question, so I don't know which was precise. MR. OLLIFF: I think to specifically answer your question, if I had to -- to guess how their time is spent, it's probably spent 75 percent on residential, 25 percent on commercial activities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we have -- MR. OLLIFF: There is some commercial component. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any counts on residential? I mean, how many individuals do we help a year with that? MS. BLANTON: More than 3,000 a year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's something we need to track, the commercial versus residential, to develop any type of subsidizing fee structure that you referred to. MR. OLLIFF: And -- and just to correct her a little bit, on the -- she had indicated that this coming Tuesday you're going to have something in the way of an ordinance for pesticide licensing. Just in terms of agenda control, I withheld that until you get back from your vacation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a question on -- under Forecast Revenue on Page A-75. Forecast revenue is less than budgeted because only $3,000 of the budgeted 70,900 of revenue from herbicides licensing is forecast. Where did that mistake come from? MR. OLLIFF: That's -- that's the issue she was just explaining to you, that -- that the state currently requires anyone who's spreading pesticides to have a pesticide applicator's license. It is currently done without any enforcement, and so what was proposed to you last year in the budget was that we're going to go out and try and canvass the area and, on a volunteer basis, get them to come to the agriculture center and get the training that's necessary to take the test and get your pesticide license. Voluntarily it hasn't worked, so out of the 1200 people who are currently spreading pesticides around this county, less than 300 actually have the licenses that are required by the state but no one is enforcing that. So, what we're going to propose to do is that for them to get an occupational license that puts them in the landscape business, that they're going to have to prove that those people who are spreading pesticides actually have got their license in hand before they can do that. And that's a way of guaranteeing that -- that they get their licenses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to issue what I think is -- is somewhat of an admonishment. Last year this department came under a lot of discussion and fire. And when it came down to it, I remember you were looking for ways to bump revenues -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is what we had requested. Missing a $70,000 mark by $67,000 is ridiculous. That's just -- you know, we were closer on beach parking and we raised a stink about that. At least we got half of that. So, I'm -- you know, chalk went up in the upset column for missing it by over 90 percent from the projection. What I'm concerned about is that the optimism outweighed the reality. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Precisely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And now the taxpayers are picking the tab up this year for what we would have addressed last year had we been more realistic with that number. So, I'm not real happy about that. That -- that concerns me and it makes me question the balance of this section under the revenue category whether it's realistic or whether it, too, is too aggressive and we're going to find shortfalls next year. I don't want to get in detail for detail but I -- I can't let that slide when that kind of miss is made. That's -- that's just -- there's no excuse for that. Any other questions on agriculture? Okay. Next? MR. VINCENT: The next department is Mental Health. In the summary book, it's on Page A-24. In the detail book -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? I couldn't hear you. MR. VINCENT: It's on Page A-24 in the summary book; in the detail book, A-78. MR. OLLIFF: The request for the David Lawrence Center is the same as it has been for four years running, $710,000. The only thing that I do need to bring to the board's attention is that there is going to be a request coming and -- and we've talked about a detox center for probably two different years now. And I -- I believe Dave can give you more of the details on it but I think that in terms of the construction dollars for a detox center here in Collier County, they have actually privately raised all of the funding for construction at about a million five or anticipate raising that shortly. What they're looking to the county for is -- is $100,000 towards the operating expenses of that detox center once it's on line, and I believe they're looking not only to the county but for local contributions towards that. They're looking at a state grant of $400,000 as well as some contributions from the hospital and the Sheriff's Department. I'll let David explain any more detail that he needs to. MR. SCHIHMEL: Good afternoon. Dave Schimmel, CEO of the David Lawrence Center. Let me say, first of all, I have no affiliation with the Department of Revenue. Let's just get that right out on the table. We're keeping our primary request consistent and what we are asking for is $100,000 in revenue so that we can develop a new service for this community. This is a service that I personally have been working on since 1989. I've done so with a partnership with the Sheriff, with the -- with Kevin Rambosk, with Naples Community Hospital, with a variety of agencies around town. We've been trying to shake money out of the state since 1989 and we finally this year have -- have gotten a verbal promise and we're going to get a contact -- contract from them in about a week for $432,000 in order to try to get this service going. What I'm basically asking the County Commission is to help me match those dollars. And the actual match on those dollars is about $140,000. So, I'm asking you to match up to 100,000 of that. I will raise funds for the rest. I have already raised in excess of $600,000 for the facility. If all goes well, we plan on breaking ground hopefully by January to get this facility going. The advantage to the taxpayer, number one advantage to the taxpayer providing this type of a service, is that for every one dollar invested in trying to treat alcoholism, we ultimately save $7 and I have national studies to -- to back that up. The number one area of saving is in crime and crime prevention, particularly predatory crimes. This is why the Sheriff has been a big advocate of this program for many, many years. Right now, and the figures have increased, but -- but as of 1994 when we first started this collaborative project, 1600 people a year were picked up by the Sheriff's Department and processed through the Marchman Act, which is an involuntary way to pick up alcoholics. There's no place in the county to take them, so those individuals go to the county jail or they go to the hospital ER. And -- and what happens is they recycle back into the community. They become homeless. They -- there is just no way to get them into treatment. For a county our size, we're probably the last remaining county in the State of Florida that does not have this service. And -- and that -- that is not good. That is why we have been working on this since 1989. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dave, what -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say does not have this service, what do you -- how do you mean that? MR. SCHIHMEL: I mean there's no -- there's no detoxification service in Collier County. To access this service, you need to go to Lee County and the emergency room docs in my staff and the Sheriff's Deputies will all tell you that we can't get people into that facility. It's packed all the time. So, our primary strategy was to get the state to pay the -- the lion's share of this cost and it looks like we're going to be effective in doing that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another statistic that I don't know but that I think is -- makes -- makes it even more shocking that we don't have this service in Collier County is -- is the unfortunate high percentage of alcoholism per capita in Collier County. It's higher than the state, I think. MR. SCHIHMEL: Yeah. Well, unfortunately we do have the highest rate of cirrhosis of the liver of anywhere in the country right now. That's actually not something to laugh about but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's horrible. MR. SCHIHHEL: Yeah. This -- this -- I'm not going to sit here and tell you I'm going to save you $100,000 the first year. I mean, I do have national studies and data that -- that backs up what I had said earlier. I really think we're talking about a health and human safety issue in this community. I've got -- and I've had support since '89 from the judges, physicians, court system, just a wide variety of agencies who -- who have to deal with this problem and we're inappropriately dealing with this problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, we're -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're one of the few communities that has something like David Lawrence Center in that unlike Dade County, government isn't, you know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- paying for the whole ball of wax. And we've been very, very lucky that we have the individual contributors in this community to make things like that happen. And part of that is out of necessity because government hasn't stepped up and said we will be the safety net, so out of necessity, those dollars are -- are leveraged. I looked at the last four years and this -- for -- this would be the fourth year, barring this request, that the David Lawrence Center has requested no increase in funding. If you look at a cost of living of plus or minus three percent over those four years, if they've just been getting two and a half to three percent a year, they would be to the tune of $90,000 greater in their request than they are now. So, I don't think there's a question of whether or not the David Lawrence Center has -- has really held up what I'll call its end of the bargain and it has to the nth degree. Let me ask you, Mr. Schimmel, to make sure some things haven't changed. When you and I discussed this last week, you mentioned that what you're requesting is -- is one-time seed money, that you would expect that once it gets off the ground that the state would step up and do for us what it does for other counties, which is something we're not getting in the form of detox so that we would not be seeing a recurring 90,000 item year after -- or 100,000 year after year. MR. SCHIHMEL: Commissioner, that's my hope. We -- we still are working with Representative Saunders to try to bring additional state operating funds to the area. And if we're successful in doing that, then hopefully we would not need to utilize this $100,000 from the county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second item that I want to mention is that I don't think anyone can say a detox center is a bad idea, but I'd like to know what other community resources are available that will help with that. But you mentioned one thing. The number one area that this benefits is putting law enforcement officers back on the street quicker, which means we spend less time out of service, which means maybe the additional deputies aren't as needed as they -- as they appear to be. So, I don't have a problem with putting that item temporarily in the budget to see how we can handle it in other budget areas. If there's an offsetting reduction elsewhere that makes this make more sense, I'd like to have that option available. So, I'm not going to say that this is a -- what I will call a priority item, that it sits at the top of my list, but I think we can find other areas to make this happen. Then -- then it's a pretty good idea particularly with the goal that it be a one-time shot and that you help us shoot for that as to why we aren't looking at the same amount next year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like it more than -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just a goal, put it to a one-time shot. I'd like to have a commitment that it's a one-time shot and -- and -- but you mentioned we can save some money doing this. You said we're not going to save $100,000 the first year, but over a period of time, is there any estimated dollar figure or manpower hours or is there some estimate over a three-year or a five-year span? MR. SCHIHMEL: It's a -- it's a complicated issue, that to summarize it, the national studies indicate that you basically reap a $7 return for every dollar invested. The reason I say it's a complicated issue is you take 1600 people that were brought in or dealt with by the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Deputies told me several years ago that they -- they could spend an average of three to four hours with those individuals. So, you look at that immediate cost to law enforcement. You look at the cost of them housing them in the jail. You look at the cost then of processing them through the criminal justice system. It just starts to escalate and escalate. And the majority of the people who are brought in come back for a second and a third trip. So, it's a difficult thing to quantify but I do have some significant national data and some really good studies done in the State of California that help understand that and I'll make that available to anybody. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. The vast majority of the moneys obviously would be in law enforcement and the court system. MR. SCHIHMEL: I think so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we're not going to get -- when you talk about getting $100,000 back, we can spend $200,000 on this. It's not going to increase in an increase -- result in an increase in ad valorem taxes collected next year. MR. SCHIHMEL: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, this is a sinking fund -- MR. SCHIHMEL: -- there really is a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- from our perspective of revenues. MR. SCHIHMEL: There really is a broadening out of the effect. I mean -- I mean the data that we have collected shows that when we get someone through treatment, 70 percent of them go out and become employed, whereas they were unemployed before. So, hopefully, they become tax paying citizens. So there's just a wide ranging implication that goes into that ratio of every one dollar invested reaps a $7 benefit. I -- I will tell you that in the last two years we've ad -- advocated for a legislative turkey for the facility and we've been unsuccessful in doing that. We now, I think, put a tremendous amount of pressure on the legislature because we've gone out and raised the money to do this and that doesn't happen elsewhere in the State of Florida. Typically, the state funds these kinds of facilities. So, I think we have a good shot to get some operational money and we'll be working with Butt Saunders in order to try to do that. MR. OLLIFF: I need to pass on to you, too, that Lee County is currently in the process of trying to determine how much traffic their detox center gets from Collier County and trying to develop some sort of a billing system, if you will, to charge the county for its citizens going up to Lee County using the detox center. And they're probably going to start looking at that -- this budget cycle. I don't know at all what the numbers or what that cost might be or who would actually be charged, too, but they are going to eventually then try and get a fair share, cost share, back out of Collier County. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How fast can you build this thing? MR. SCHIMHEL: Well, it depends, because I'll need to come back to you for a revised conditional use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to see this -- I'd like to see a $100,000 line item placed in the budget with a flag next to it that we must find offsetting revenues in other areas of the budget, other general fund areas of the budget, in order to do it and that it be put in as a one-time cost to be reviewed during the next budget cycle with the anticipation of having a zero item in that -- in that -- that line. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got no problem with the second half of that, about the one time because obviously we're going to look at that next year, you know, anyway. But along with your red flag, there needs to be another little flag that acknowledges that $90,000 computation that you did that David Lawrence hasn't come back in asking for. And, frankly, as I recall from last year's presentation on the David Lawrence Center budget request, statutorily they're arguably entitled to a lot more money than they ask for, you know, so put a few flags beside that, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- I'm just going to stay off the efficiency train here. Efficiency means reduction in else -- other areas period, so let's -- let's find it. MR. SCHIMHEL: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next department is the Public Health Department, A-24 in the thin book and A-92 in the big book. And I'm assuming that you've all had an opportunity to meet Dr. Konigsberg? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd say with this budget, he's making a big splash right off the bat. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How to make friends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm pleased to say a couple of months ago, Dr. Konigsberg and I sat and discussed his budget and he's brought forth exactly what he said he was going to do then. And I don't see there's anything really to discuss in this budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I especially like is that we see what we're buying; see what you're buying and that's -- that's the biggest, you know, surprise, pleasant surprise, of all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now that -- well, that's what we did last year when we decided those areas of public health that we prioritized as county dollars go -- going towards. So, as far as I'm concerned, our only discussion here is do we wish to change the ratios or dollar amounts of any of those functions? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would certainly defer to the good doctor on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Unless you want to talk us out of approving your budget -- DR. KONIGSBERG: No, sir, I definitely don't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If there is anything you want to add, Dr. Konigsberg, please go ahead. DR. KONIGSBERG: Well, nothing -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, would you identify yourself? DR. KONIGSBERG: Yes. I'm sorry. Charles Konigsberg, director of the Collier County Health Department. I should have heard that enough this morning to know -- to know the rules. First, let me say, I've been very pleased with -- with the level of cooperation between our department and -- and the county. Mr. Smykowski and Tom Olliff have been excellent to work with. There's been an awful lot of good work that's gone on behind the scenes that has made this a lot easier. Tom and I meet on a regular basis anyway, whether it's budget or other issues. And I -- I have been very, very pleased about that. We -- I think these ratios are reasonable at this time. As I've told a number of you individually, these are key public health issues. There are other things that as we -- as the years go by that we will bring to your attention that are health issues, some of which we've already heard, for example, from -- from other discussions. But these are -- these are very, very important and so I -- I'm happy with these ratios we negotiated through these and -- and we look forward to continuing a productive relationship. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have one question. Commissioner Hac'Kie, go ahead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just one comment, that these -- these performance measures are something that I can understand. And I -- I think they're -- they are really good. And I'm, frankly, happy to see that for the money we spent last year, we have 90 percent of children in day care fully immunized because there was a lot of talk about kids not getting their shots last year. And that, you know, the number of children in day care assessed for immunization status is 500 and that for next year our goal for day-care kids to be fully immunized is 95 percent, health screens for primary care for school children at 80 percent. I just think those are exactly what we'd like to know that you're spending the county's money on and I appreciate your creating those as performance measures. DR. KONIGSBERG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Konigsberg, under personal health primary care with a $63,449 line item, is that the health screening for children? DR. KONIGSBERG: Yes. That's -- that's the health screening under school health. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Because we'd discussed primary care and stayed away from it but we did include -- DR. KONIGSBERG: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- health screening for kids, so, okay. DR. KONIGSBERG: This is -- this is strictly the screenings, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. Any further questions? Seeing none, let's move on. Thank you. DR. KONIGSBERG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was a little quicker than last year. MR. VINCENT: The next item is the transfer to the Golden Gate Community Center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pages. MR. VINCENT: Page C-22 in the summary book and C-79 in the detail book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why are we hearing this one now -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Section C? Is that just because it's under Mr. Olliff? MR. VINCENT: This has a transfer from the general fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: C-22 is Road and Bridge in my book, anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Me, too. MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. I think she said C-22 in your thin book. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Summary book. MR. VINCENT: C-79 in the detail book. MR. OLLIFF: The only reason that you're looking at this now is because there is a portion of the Golden Gate Community Center that was constructed out of impact fees and that portion of the build up of the new gymnasium portion is supported operationally by ad valorem taxes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Where in the big book? MR. VINCENT: 79 -- C-79. MR. SHYKOWSKI: C-79. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, at this point, do we do the entire piece now or do we focus on the ad valorem aspect and then come back to the rest? MR. OLLIFF: Ad valorem. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ad valorem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please proceed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 660 -- MR. VINCENT: The expanded -- excuse me? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Half of one percent change? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: $665,000 of general revenue go into the Golden Gate Community Center, which is a half of a point increase over last year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, but the general fund support of this operation increases from two hundred and seven -- two hundred and seven thousand four -- whoops, pardon me. From 183,100 to 211,500, that is the general fund support of this operation. That's increased 15 and a half percent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You need to look at Page C-79. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I'm trying to find it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Top -- top line. That's why I asked for a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The 15 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- presentation. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Under revenue -- under the revenue item, the third -- third item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Transfers. I got it now. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Transfers from general fund. That's how much the general fund is supporting this operation. Again, it's related to the expansion of that facility which was built by impact fees and deemed to be of countywide benefit, therefore it's paid for with countywide funds. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's that computer we already talked about, the $41007 MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's in the expanded current service, also increases. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's it, right? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, walk us through the additional $24,000 that took us from the adopted budget of '96-'97 and '97-'98. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The bulk of that is tied to the capital projects at the bottom of C-79. And there's a breakout of the total project costs and how much is HSTU funded versus how much is general fund funded. The balance is -- is just the inflationary costs, you know, the cost of living adjustments, et cetera, that's prorated between the HSTU and the general fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This -- since this is kind of a hybrid, what -- what parameters do we have for what qualifies as general fund expenditure and what does not, or do we just do that on an individual basis and budget? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We do it on a square footage basis. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: For operating expenses essentially, the initial facility, Golden Gate Community Center building, was 10,000 square feet. It was then expanded to 25,000 square feet. Essentially, the -- the new side of the building is general fund supported and it's -- that's 60 percent of the square footage; therefore, 60 percent of the operating is attributable to the general fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about capital and things like this? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Capital outlay -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Asphalt. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- that's a function of essentially which side of the building the improvements are slated to be made on. If it's the Golden Gate Community Center -- in fact, the actual projects proposed here are a good example. The kitchen renovations are on the HSTU side. That was originally constructed as part of the HSTU. The HSTU was paying 100 percent of the cost of the kitchen renovations. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Zero dollars general fund for that; correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The parking lot resurfacing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was on our side. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's half and half. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's a cost sharing. And there's a perimeter fence that was -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- deemed to be half. So, essentially, what -- the way it breaks out, operating is 60/40 general fund based on square footage. Capital is a function of which side of the building it goes into and personal services is actually -- is actually broken out according to which positions existed for the original Golden Gate Community Center. Those continued to be paid for by the community center. Those expanded positions, when that -- when the expanded component opened were paid for from the general fund. MR. OLLIFF: If you think it's fun to just sit through on the budget, it's fun to administer it this way, too, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I think I just got the understanding, which is they built the first part of the building and they're responsible for all the internal and building repairs on that. We built out of impact fees the second part -- MR. OLLIFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is the gym, so we're responsible for internal on that, but the grounds area we split 50/50. MR. OLLIFF: Because they benefit the entire -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the operating we split 60/40. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Trust me. You make a $1,000 change and it -- it takes an hour to churn through it and figure out who is paying for what. And reserves are split proportionately and also we're -- we're being fair to both the general fund side and the HSTU side. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A litany of small decisions. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Indeed. Sorry for the long diatribe -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, that's fine. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- there but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just you have to be on this board 12 years to understand all of that because that's the evolution of this project. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why John Pistor was always so quick. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions, concerns on that? Seeing none, let's move on. MR. OLLIFF: The -- the last one that you've not looked at so far is simply the transfer to services for seniors and that is simply your portion of the grant -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pages. MR. OLLIFF: -- match. I'm sorry. I'm working off of A-24, the summary sheet. I don't know that you even want to go to the detail sheet for this particular program. This is your grant match. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm drawing on my notes for the end wrap up, so we've got to have these in order. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- I'm sorry. Please give us the detail page also. We have this silly -- MR. VINCENT: The detail page is D-19. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: E as in Edward? MR. VINCENT: D as -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: D as in David. MR. OLLIFF: Data. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A-24. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Delta from the military days. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Delta 19. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Social Services, services for seniors. Am I on the right page? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. MR. OLLIFF: This is strictly the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: D, D. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: D, delta. MR. OLLIFF: Delta, David. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The amount of ad valorem tax money in this budget is? MR. OLLIFF: $110,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it gets spent on? MR. OLLIFF: This is your match for the programs that assist the poor, elderly clients that we have. We, from this 110,000, generate over $700,000 in Federal and state grant funds. The -- the grant amount has -- has been relatively the same right in that hundred, $110,000 range for as long as I've been in this position for the last five or six years. It -- it is simply a function of -- of how much it is that we're required to match for what's available out there in Federal grant moneys. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since there's no big -- yeah. Before we're moving on? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, we're moving on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Read The Gull. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can count to three. Okay. MR. VINCENT: That concludes public services. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. The first department to get through without anything being put on my cut list. In fact, it added. That's not a good trend. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That moves us to Community Development. MR. OLLIFF: Just in closing, your -- your point on revenue in ag was well taken and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I honestly felt like I was misled this time last year. MR. OLLIFF: We're going to see what we can do to see if we can't get that department to generate some of that revenue and -- and increase that forecast before the year is out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There will be more discussions on that because that's -- there's no excuse for that. Community Development. Page numbers, please. MR. KUKULSKI: For the record, my name is Tom Kukulski. I'm the budget analyst for the Community Development and Environmental Services. The Community Development section in the general fund, the summary pages, would be Page A-30 and A-31. And in the detail book, it begins on Page A-102 through and including A-107. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Be a lot easier to review this year since it's a lot smaller than years past. MR. KUKULSKI: I would like to point out to the board that the Natural Resources Department's contribution from the general funds has decreased about 5.2 percent and that there's a list of various expanded service requests that the department is requesting, the third of which the fold-out map request is going to be they're -- they're seeking private funding for that which is reflected under the revenues on the Natural Resources on the expanded service request. $25,000 of expenditures is to be met by $25,000 of private sources. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, normally, I would question this two-wheel, four-wheel drive but I actually got stuck yesterday out on some property in a two-wheel drive vehicle so I won't -- won't question that at all -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- having -- having spent about 90 minutes sitting there trying to get out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You get out and push and all of a sudden they get a four-wheel drive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's called a reality check. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The fold-out map, let's get -- let's go to that one. Fighting boaters with manatee speed zones, protect the habitat areas, nav charge, safety considerations -- is that something we're required to do or is that something that we just think is a good idea? MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources director. This is -- this is an effort that leads or is working from the Manatee Protection Plan in terms of public awareness. It also is important for boater safety. The -- there have been a number -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question was is it required by somebody? MR. LORENZ: No, it's not -- it's not required. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The -- the effort that we're looking for in terms of funding is not from the general fund either. It's from a variety of different sources. The state, FDEP, has indicated that they -- they would provide some information -- some funding. The Marine Trades Association has indicated they provide some funding. We would be looking at some funding from the TDC because, quite frankly, some of the -- some of the effort also helps to show people what destination points in the county's waterways are, plus it's very good in terms of boating safety. This is an example from Charlotte County of what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I've seen the charts and they're great ideas. MR. KUKULSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question is, I see $25,000 under Natural Resources and Expanded Service. Show me the offsetting revenues. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page A-30, Mr. Chairman, under revenue. MR. KUKULSKI: Page A-30. As I mentioned, on the revenue side, there's $25,000 in revenue under expanded service. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This is similar to like the Sugden Park example where the revenue doesn't materialize -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It won't happen. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- the brochure doesn't -- doesn't get prepared. It's as simple as that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Based on that, I'm happy to leave it in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good enough. Any other questions on Natural Resources? MR. KUKULSKI: We -- MR. CAUTERO: There -- there is one issue, Mr. Chairman -- Vince Cautero, for the record -- that we'd like to talk to you about if there are no other general questions on expanded service. In early May, I believe the board asked us to do some additional research on the Sea Turtle Monitoring Program and how we might be able to cut costs with the potential of possibly outsourcing that program. Mr. Kukulski is -- is and Mr. Lorenz have some documents that we want to share with you. One is a letter from the Conservancy that you requested in -- in looking at possibly outsourcing the project. Iwll give you the bottom line. The Conservancy is not interested and they stated that they could not do it any cheaper. And Bill has contacted other firms in the State of Florida, and I believe there are only two who are certified to conduct sea turtle monitoring in Florida. And at least one of those firms has indicated to us that they cannot do it cheaper than the $125,000, I believe, that -- that we spend on the program. Thatws the short answer, quite frankly, and we will be able to provide any more information that youwd like. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we may not like the answer but we did the leg work. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and I -- I asked a lot of questions, too, about the same kinds that we had asked before. What do these people actually do during the day? They get up at five, they go here, you know. And I -- I, frankly, was satisfied with -- with the time commitment. I was surprised to find that I was, that there is actual -- there's not somebody just sitting at the beach tanning or something, you know. This is actually really hard work. And -- and that one real benefit that I learned about from this is, you remember in our Beach Renourishment Program, we had to ask for a few more days from the state to finish up. And we got worried about it getting close to the sea turtle nesting time, and as a result of having someone who is on Mr. Lorenz' staff who has -- you know, who's in charge of this program has a great deal of credibility with the state, they could produce the numbers that allowed us to get the extra days. And that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're saying you agree with the idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A little cut to the chase action there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but I wanted to tell you that. I wanted you to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because, frankly, we don't see a lot of -- we have a hard time finding out when these environmental studies ever translate into something that is -- you know, that we can see and this was a time when it did. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I find it sad even though, you know, I'm -- I'm glad to see the comparison. I find it sad that other counties are paying more per mile than we are. MR. KUKULSKI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe, you know -- hey, let's contract out with them and make money. Now, there's an idea. Okay. All right. Anything else in Natural Resources? Seeing none. MR. OLLIFF: That's it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's it? MR. KUKULSKI: The next item on the Community Development is the Southwest Regional Planning Council and that's just the basic membership in the organization that the county participates in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. MR. KUKULSKI: The next department is the Housing and Urban Affairs -- Housing and Urban Improvements Department. And we can see on Page A-30 that their current service request is lower than the adopted budget by about 12 percent and there is a -- an expanded service request for $170,000 to implement the expanded Economic Development Program that was presented to the board earlier this year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A-104 in the big book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last year the adopted budget was three seventy-eight. We only spent about three thirteen. Why are we adopting three seventy again this year? MR. MIHALIC: Because we haven't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. I'm Greg Mihalic for the record, Housing and Urban Improvement director. We didn't hire an economic development manager so that position has stayed vacant. We now have hired that person if you don't mind being introduced to her. Haelene Casel -- Caseltine from St. John's County. And she just started on Monday and she is our Economic Development Manager for the county and is now in place to start drawing a salary and spending that money for an implemented plan. The plan will implement from here forward. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good news and bad news. Glad to have you and now she's drawing a salary. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A question on expanded services. The Expanded Economic Diversification Program that the Council of Economic Advisors, ten of those -- the old what are we getting for. What's the $170,000 going to do? MR. MIHALIC: Well, this is part of a $350,000 program, that $100,000 is going to be retained within the county for staff and staff support to that program. $250,000 is -- is going to be given on a -- on a matching basis to the Economic Development Council to implement a job diversification program. And while we have started this in a prototype stage in the last two months, we find that in the last two months since we've started custom permitting and -- and custom business retention, we've retained 185 jobs. And we have 166 new jobs within the county during that period, just as we've launched this program. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. MR. MIHALIC: As you know we've also -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mihalic, are you saying that those figures that you just read to us are directly attributable to those efforts? MR. MIHALIC: Directly attributable. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What were the numbers again, please? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. We've retained 185 jobs that probably would have been lost to the county, would have moved to another area and we have a -- an expected 166 new jobs that will be created over the next couple years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any kind of salary ranges on those jobs? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. We have -- we have a Medical Health Care Industry employer, average wage salary, $27,560, a construction services type, a new company into town, $25,000 average wages, a distribution, an existing distribution company, average annual wage is 24,041, a computer software company, which you're familiar with, average wages there are 35,000. And a new communication industry company in town, average wages, $46,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. COHMISSIONER BERRY: 46? MR. HIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This was a commitment the board made and I think there's a little bit of a trust involved in this and that it will develop in the way that -- that we anticipated. And it's one of those things that isn't dollar for dollar if you're -- you know, if you're looking for dollars back in taxes, it's very tough to trace, but those numbers are encouraging. MR. HIHALIC: We think we'll be able to give you direct cost benefit analyses on a quarterly basis to show you where we're going to. I mean, you also know that we have lost some employers in the last six months that we may have been able to retain if we had started this program a little bit earlier. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions on Housing and Urban Improvement? Seeing none. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. KUKULSKI: The next item among community development is a transfer from 113 and that represents the expenditures of the departments in the Development Services building that are in the general fund. The -- the next item is the transfer from the HSTD general fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need the -- we need the detail pages on each of these pages as we go through them, please. MR. SHYKOWSKI: There is no detail page -- MR. KUKULSKI: There is no detail page. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- in the general fund summary. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a reason not to give it to me? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is 48,200 that we're going to be spending in there -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's out of the general fund? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Building operational expenses for general fund departments that occupy space in the Development -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- Services building. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, let's move -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good answer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to the next one then. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. The only thing -- the only other place that would show is in the general fund summary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're not going to tap the full breadth of your knowledge, Mr. Smykowski. We'd be here for weeks. MR. KUKULSKI: The next item is the transfer from the HSTD general fund and that's a prorata share of the Growth Management part of Comprehensive Planning. And the final item is the transfer to the HPO fund for the Transportation Program. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which transportation program is that? MR. KUKULSKI: That is the -- and that is on Page -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Transportation Disadvantage. MR. KUKULSKI: Disadvantage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. We're done with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything else? Any questions? Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I moved us to the Public Works component which is supported by the general fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would be your green pages. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what. MR. SHYKOWSKI: A-34 in -- in your detail book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what. Let's take a five-minute break, give the court reporter's hands a little rest. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to reconvene the board's workshop. We left off at one point -- I wanted to remind everyone, Mr. Fernandez has received a slip -- speakers. We are going to take speakers at the conclusion of the day's proceedings, so we can do it all at one time each day. That is a change from -- from previous years. But we are into the Public Works Department. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. Before we get started, commissioner, just to let everyone know kind of what the balance of the schedule for the day is so people aren't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- milling about if we're probably not going to get to them today. At this point, we still have to get through Public Works, the Airport Authority and Courts, and then we're -- we're prepared to discuss the Sheriff's budget given it's already 3:00. If we conclude with that, we -- people, we'll probably be at or near 5:00 by the time we take public speakers. So, at this point, we'd probably let everyone know we'd probably start tomorrow morning with the supervisor, the Clerk, followed by General Fund Capital and then move into our -- the balance of our schedule as initially planned with the Special Revenue funds if that's acceptable to all -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's acceptable. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and just to be courteous to those in the audience, obviously we're not going to get to General Fund Capital today so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we have an extra 30 seconds, we can do Miss Horgan's budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Let's go ahead -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and proceed with Public Works then. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's going to take longer than that on the Sheriff's budget, another constitutional -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like I said, let's continue with Public Works. MR. KUKULSKI: In public works -- for the record, Tom Kukulski, budget analyst. The Public Works summary page is Page A-34 and in the detail books, the Stormwater Management Departments are on Page A-110 and 111 and the Transportation Departments are A-112 through A-122, inclusive. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KUKULSKI: On Page A-34, as we see in the summary page, the Stormwater Management's overall budget is a 3.9 percent increase in total funding over the current adopted level. There's no expanded service requests within the Stormwater Management Department. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that's entirely personnel related? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. The three -- the cost of living and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And what else? Cost of living is three percent. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just curious. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. Slight increase in operating. MR. KUKULSKI: Slight increase in operating costs. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For fleet charges. MR. KUKULSKI: Fleet charges and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. Any questions on Water Management? Okay. Let's go to the Road and Bridge transfer. And you said those are Pages 112 and 1137 MR. KUKULSKI: A-112 through 113. There is a -- there is a summary of the Road and Bridge fund available on Page A-36 which details the entire fund. The major -- the major highlights in the Road and Bridge fund area is, of course, the policy changed transitioning the gas tax transfer. And that shows up on the revenue side with a zero under the gas tax revenues and the sales tax transfer in the general fund increase. The total appropriations overall in the 101 Road and Bridge fund increased by about two-tenths of one percent. And in the general -- and in the Road and Bridge fund, there's a total of about twenty -- $23,500 in minor expanded service requests of sheds and trailers and utility carts. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is the -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Smykowski. Is this the last year of biting the bullet on that transfer or do we have one more? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. This is the final transition. You see under gas taxes there are no gas taxes in the Road and Bridge maintenance fund. It is all allocated to road construction at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And that, again, necessitates the approximate one million dollar increase in the general fund supports of the Road and Bridge operation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about the -- some of the storm -- stormwater maintenance that Road and Bridge does. That -- am I right that it's your department that uses that Jet Vac truck -- MR. BOBANICK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that we use? MR. BOBANICK: Excuse me. Dave Bobanick, interim transportation director. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. BOBANICK: Yes. We have two Jet Vacs in -- in our Road and Bridge Department now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How constant is -- is -- are they used 24 hours a day, 48 days (sic) a week because there's so many -- I just thought -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mixed a couple of metaphors there, didn't you? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did, but, anyway, the point is are they -- are they constantly in use -- MR. BOBANICK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: MR. BOBANICK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: MR. BOBANICK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because they're -- They are in use throughout the county daily. Constantly, full time? Because there's so many projects that are backed up. Every time I get a complaint from somebody, it's that -- you know, it ends up being that it's a culvert that needs to be cleaned out, it's a pipe that needs to be cleaned out and it is in our tertiary system, which is this one, and, you know, as odd as it is to say, I wonder if this isn't an area where we need to be spending more dollars to get more -- more activity in the street. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think one thing we need to remember is that when people have a driveway, that driveway crossing is their responsibility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep. I'm clear on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: People who enclose that little swale in their front yard where it was an open swale, that, too, becomes their responsibility and only when that truck is available and not on what I'd call primary or county maintained system areas, can we divert it for that? It's really a service. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I -- what I'm suggesting, though, is I don't think -- it should never have been available for that because there's so many county system deficiencies. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except in the wet season when you don't want to flood somebody upstream. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sometimes you have to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fine. But -- but there -- we need to be doing a lot better job in this department than we are. Am I the only one that hears all these complaints? I have constant complaints in this department. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I don't know that it's the department as much as it is, as you said -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. It's an area -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- a question of funding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- of -- of county service, which is the need to keep those culverts that are part of the county system cleaned out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quite honestly, since after the -- the heavy rains we've gotten, I've had complaints trail off dramatically. We did so many improvements following that that I -- I don't know. It's not -- not on my doorstep. Are -- are you having specific neighborhood problems? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Lots of -- lots of -- lots of East Naples problems. MR. BOBANICK: Yes. East Naples is a -- is an old neighborhood. It's been neglected for years, unfortunately. We only recently received the Jet Vac equipment and the idea that it is being used full time. We have two Jet Vac crews out constantly on our pipe cleaning effort. It is a catch up. We are catching up. I think you'll see some improvements over the next fiscal year. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we can talk, not during this meeting, but about what the schedule is for some of those areas because as we're talking to Bayshore and Davis triangle and those areas, this is their primary concern. MR. BOBSICK: Certainly. I -- I understand and I understand what your concerns are and, yes, we can talk -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to. Thanks. MR. BOBSICK: -- about that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions under Road and Bridge? Seeing none, let's move on. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Next area we'll cover is Court. MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jean Gansel. The Court's budget, the summary is on Page A-41, the detail starts on Page A-124. The transfer to the judicial circuit is increasing only 2.3 percent. They are not requesting any additional services or programs. They're -- they are consistent with the board policy of three percent, salary adjustment, one percent, merit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just make sure that on all of these we stay consistent with whatever we end up doing as opposed to assigning three percent? I don't want an employee to think three percent, and if it becomes 2.9 percent come October, then they're mad and said the country lied to us. MS. GANSEL: These would be consistent -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consistent with what -- MS. GANSEL: -- with what your policy -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the CPI policy? MS. GANSEL: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We understand that three percent to be an estimate expecting the CPI to be less than that. MS. GANSEL: Right. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Based upon what the CPI is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. And our experience shows that we're in the two point something range typically. But -- okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't want to mislead any of the employees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MS. GANSEL: Just on -- on the good side, I -- I'm sure you've all read in the paper where we have received 30,000 or will be receiving $30,000 back from the state in regard to the expenditures that we had with Cracker Barrel and will ask Mr. Middlebrook to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that -- that does not show up in this summary, though? MS. GANSEL: No, that doesn't. We had prepared this prior to notification that we would be receiving that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Okay. In the -- the next two budgets are the County Judges and the Circuit Court Judges. Their budgets also are fairly con -- their programs are the same. We pay for their operating expenses and it's small increases that we have in the Circuit Court Judge -- Judge budgets. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions? That's a 1.3 percent increase under the Judicial Circuit Court, is that the one you're referring to or -- MS. GANSEL: No. The -- for the Circuit Judges, there's a 6.6 percent increase, approximately 4,000, $5,000. And in the County Judges, there's actually almost a seven percent decrease. There is computer equipment that we are requesting to purchase through those budgets. The judges have been behind on their equipment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Circuit Judges salaries and so forth are set by the state? MS. GANSEL: They're paid by the state. And they're paid by the state and set by the state. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, the 6.6 percent is actually operational? MS. GANSEL: All operational, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. My question is why 6.6 percent on the Circuit Judges? What is the -- what are the meat and potatoes to get us above cost of living and -- and so forth? MS. GANSEL: They have -- when their Judicial Assistants are on vacation, we -- they -- they contract with different services to provide someone to fill in. Those costs have gone up and that's a fairly big portion of their budget. That's -- counts for about $3,000 of the increase in the operating expenses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was there an analysis of -- as opposed to paying that, hiring a floating part-time personnel to do that? MS. GANSEL: I would turn that over to Mr. Middlebrook. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mark Middlebrook, Senior Deputy Court Administrator for the 20th Circuit. Those positions for Judicial Assistants have to come through the Supreme Court. It's a state funded position and we are not entitled at this time for any additional positions unless the county would like to fund a part-time position. We could certainly look at doing that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question, that versus the cost of temporary positions, was that comparison made? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we've -- we've thought about this idea several times but when we have two secretaries on vacation -- oh, I'm sorry -- assistants on vacation at the same time, we're going to run into the same problem we have now, which is we're going to have to contract with somebody to come in and fill a position and have the part time fill the other position. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why would you have two secretaries on vacation at the same time? That's a scheduling issue, isn't it? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, it's not. They're -- they work for a constitutional officer. They're the employee of the constitutional officer. They don't have to check with the other judges to see when they can go on vacation. They check with their boss who is the judge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But just thinking logically and I know that might be a concern, but thinking logically, if I were a judge and I knew there might not be availability if my person -- my assistant went on vacation a certain week, I would think it would be -- in the name of efficiency you would check and see and if you had one floating employee that went between them, it might be worthwhile to check them. And perhaps they wouldn't, and then they'd go without an assistant for a week, but it seems like there's a way to address that. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we can take a look at it -- at any opportunities that are out there for us as far as alternatives to hiring legal secretaries to come in and -- and fill in for the JA's. We're certainly not against doing that and we'll look at any -- any opportunities that are there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's $4,000 plus, I think, $3900 line item actually in -- in overview. What dollar amount do you spend each year on temporaries? Is that it; 3900 bucks? How much do you spend? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, I don't have the actual figures of what was spent for each of the judges. It's not that significant of an amount of money, though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it $500, is it $5,000, is it -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I believe each -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- $50,000? MR. MIDDLE BROOK: Well, each judge budgets differently, so I'll have to refer -- MS. GANSEL: They budget -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- to the budget. MS. GANSEL: They budget between 1800 and 2500 per judge. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And how many judges are there? MS. GANSEL: In the circuit? Circuit Judges? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six. MS. GANSEL: Six. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have nine judges here, which equates to eight and a half actual judges because one is only here two weeks a month. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But don't that -- doesn't that include County Judges? Aren't we talking about circuit? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah. Well, I'm totaling -- I'm speaking in total -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've got $16,000 in -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- but each -- each judge is required to have an assistant and we need to have coverage for that assistant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess my point is, I'd like -- I'd like to hear more on that because if you take six judges or even eight judges at $2,000 a pop, that looks like a part-time position to me. And they're -- again, I want to see that -- I want to see that comparison. I want to see what was spent by the judges on temporary. And let's look if there's another way to do it to save a few thousand dollars. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We certainly can do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, let's -- let's flag that one line item to -- to discuss later. Anything else in the Circuit Judges or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under Domestic Violence Unit, are we -- are we down to that point yet? MS. GANSEL: That's included in the transfer in the judicial circuit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- just from an update standpoint, when this was put in, we were told we could expect certain results and certain decreases in repeat offenders and so on because of this. Have we seen any? Are there any statistics to back up what we were promised? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm not so sure about results as decreases in -- in offenders. That was, again, prior to my time, but I can tell you that we have increased steadily the amount of injunctions that are issued each year since the inception. I believe, if -- if you follow the logic here, we went for an entire year without a death. We just recently had some incidents this year, but in the past year, we made it a year without a death involving a domestic related issue on someone who had an injunction. So, we do see an increase in -- in the safety but, again, this program expands beyond just us. It has a lot to do with the Sheriff's initiative and the -- the city police and so on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Middlebrook, we can't use that as a measuring stick because we've had two deaths this year. Does that mean we should absolve the -- the Domestic Violence Unit? I don't think one begets the other. The -- the question is really more of we were told at the time that the Domestic Violence Unit would take elements off the docket of other judges. It would free up other judges to do other things, so we would anticipate a commensurate reduction in other areas of the judicial system. What we're seeing is continuing increasing in those areas and so I think we're looking for the offset that we were told we would get as opposed to a ten percent increase in the Domestic Violence Unit. I -- I haven't seen the offset and now I'm seeing an increase in that unit, which is we're stacking the negatives as opposed to going the direction that I -- I was under the impression we were going. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, sir, the increase in dollars has to do with both the annual percentage increase in their salary as well as some computer equipment and so on. We're not increasing our employees. That's just the normal cost of doing business for this -- for this unit. I cannot show you any quantitative information as far as judicial time being reduced by having this unit. I can show you efficiency as far as we formed an entirely different unit, a domestic violence court, that was not in existence. We did remove that responsibility from one of the Circuit Judges and it's assigned to one of the County Judges at the present time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. We're looking at a 6.6 percent increase. I -- I think you understand the point, anyway. It's that we're seeing increase -- ten percent may be the cost of doing business but if every element of our budget had a ten percent increase in it, the taxpayers would be going crazy. So, you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is that -- MS. GANSEL: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- every time there's a new program, no matter how well intentioned we're promised, it's going to have some outcome at the other end. There's going to be some positive result. The taxpayer is going to see a decrease somewhere else or a more efficient use or there's -- there's some reason for doing it. We've only had this in place this way for a couple of years. There were -- those promises were made and now I'm asking, okay, where are we on those? And you haven't been able to answer so far. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, I believe Mr. Brock might be able to demonstrate some savings he has had. We, as the courts, have not had a substantial savings. That's what I was trying to allude to, that other agencies are involved in this. I believe Mr. Brock will be able to tell you that he has saved some money by having us take this -- this responsibility. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the Domestic Violence Unit, it's -- it's still the same good idea it was, but, you know, we -- we've stopped taking things at their -- at their word on the surface that you'll save money down the road. We're trying to track it now and, so, I think that's what we're looking for. Maybe we'll make that notation for the Clerk's budget when we review that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I could -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And while we're at it, maybe we could ask the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a note of it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the courts or Judge Wilson, since this is primarily her program, somebody to give us a status report. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Status report will be caseload has increased dramatically in the Domestic Violence Court. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. What is that -- what I'm saying is that's fine, but if we use that as a measuring stick, then we'll just keep -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- dumping money into it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Frankly, Judge Wilson is who told us what we could expect. So, she knows what she told us. I'd like to ask her to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't expect a hundred percent return this year but I'd like to see that. Even I, guys, would like to see that we're making progress along the promises that were made. So -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wasn't suggesting anything different. Golly. MS. GANSEL: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, could I make one clarification? The ten percent that's listed on the program page as ten percent of the total transfer is for domestic violence as opposed to a ten percent increase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're right. But it's -- since it's not pulled out anywhere else, I -- that's the only thing I can point out to but '- MS. GANSEL: And -- and we can -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is in the Domestic Violence Unit? What is the increase? MS. GANSEL: It's included in the Administrative budget. We'll need to pull all of that out. We can pull out the personal services but we will get back to what that percentage increase is. I have to look at the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was the total increase of the department? Not much, so -- MS GANSEL: No. MR MIDDLEBROOK: No. Our total increase, I think, is 2.6? MS GANSEL: Three percent. MR MIDDLEBROOK: 2.3? MS GANSEL: I believe so, in the operating. MR MIDDLEBROOK: 2.3 percent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, we aren't seeing an increase, you know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. The question is centered around tracking that one -- that one promise. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh. And you'll convey that message to her for us, that we'd like to hear -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay. Certainly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- some sort of a report. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And since this doesn't include the Cracker Barrel money, we'll see that when this comes back, right? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That check is being issued to you, the board, so you'll be receiving that as soon as they mail it to us. It's 37 -- or $30,700. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. We'll be glad to add that to the revenue line. And thank you for that. We appreciate it. You want to add that to revenues, Mr. Smykowski, 37,000? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come on, put it down. New money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. However it shows up, we appreciate it just the same. Thank you, Mr. Middlebrook. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you. MR. KUKULSKI: That moves us to the Airport Authority. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. VINCENT: For the record, Gary Vincent, analyst -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Page. MR. VINCENT: -- Office of Management and Budget. The pages are alpha 44 -- THE COURT REPORTER: Just start over again. I didn't hear you. MR. VINCENT: My name is Gary Vincent, analyst in the Office of Management and Budget. The summary page is alpha 44 and in the detail, it's alpha 148. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we use the term alpha because now we're discussing aviation? COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- my guess is Mr. Vincent may have some military experience? MR. OLLIFF: Why don't we just put an A on there? It doesn't matter MR. VINCENT: Yes, sir. An aviator, as a matter of fact. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you're not biased on this section of the budget at all, are you? MR. VINCENT: Not at all, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd at least like to thank you for is to talk into the microphone. You're the only person I can hear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You need to have some hearing checked. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shut up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead with Airport Authority. MR. DRURY: For the record, John Drury. I'm the executive director for the Airport Authority. I would like to introduce Monte Lazarus who is the vice-chairman for Airport Authority, and worked fairly hard with the other board members on developing this budget, and putting me through some serious budget cuts before we came before you. I'd also like to introduce JoAnne Leamet. She's our new finance coordinator, whose sole mission in life is to get us self-sufficient faster than our ten-year promise to you that we made three years ago. I'd like to just really summarize briefly, maybe for the new county manager, where the Airport Authority has been very quickly, and then get into the details of the budget. Three years ago, when this authority was developed, a business plan was created, which basically said that if the county invested in the airports, the airports would become self-sufficient and make a profit within ten years kind of like the Naples Airport and the Fort Myers Airport and the Charlotte County Airport, all who were subsidized at one point in time, were invested in and are all now making a good profit. The board members, members of this board and previous boards, had the foresight to set up a mechanism to get paid back the county's investment in the authority. Unlike these other airports that I've mentioned, who are now making a profit who had -- who did not set up a mechanism to pay back their boards, this board created that mechanism up front, which means that all the dollars that are put into the Airport Authority are to be paid back with interest at such time as the authority becomes self-sufficient. We created a 10-year business plan and presented that to the airport -- to the Board of County Commission and we are following up on that business plan. Today, there is a budget before you and it does show a $250,000 increase and I'd like to explain where those increases are for you. First of all, 54,000 of that is in internal fees that we pay to the county and those are -- those are like support service fees. Our -- the computer department fees went up about 140 percent for our computer use and we'll -- we pay that to the computer department. The Office of Management and Budget went up about 55 percent. Fleet Management went up about 63 percent. Risk Management went up 95 percent. That's primarily because we have new infrastructure out there and new buildings; therefore, our allocated costs for insurance went up 95 percent over last year. And then the maintenance for our vehicles went up about 100 percent. That totaled $54,000 increase that we basically will be paying to other county departments for services that they provide for the Airport Authority. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Drury, do you operate -- or do your vehicles utilize our Fleet Management services? MR. DRURY: Yes, they do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the Airport Authority has -- went up a hundred times. Help me with understanding how maintenance of vehicles went up a hundred percent. MR. DRURY: I -- we have one new vehicle budgeted for the Everglades Airport. He currently uses his personal vehicle to maintain the runways and the airport and do his bank runs. We are asking for a personal truck for that. In addition, I think the calculations for the -- that Fleet managers puts on maintenance -- went up slightly with the budget department as well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DRURY: Uh-huh. The other area that went up by $47,000 was the cost to support our new infrastructure. All of our terminal buildings are coming on line this coming year. The Marco building will be completed in October. Our electric bills, sewer, and water have gone up, and we have shown again a truck and a tug for the Immokalee Airport to move aircraft out of the way of the fuel pumps who tend to park and block our way. That totals $47,000 and is basically to support the new buildings and the new infrastructure that's been built over the last two years. The new position for the finance coordinator is in here as -- as well as two part time -- three part-time line techs at the three airports. They were increased from a Line Tech I position to a Line Tech II position. And the reason we increased that is we had inherited from the Road Department people that do like jobs but were un -- classified in unlike positions. For instance, we had a line tech person that was classified as a two and one that was class -- and two that were classified as a -- as a one. They were all doing light jobs and, so, we brought them to the proper classification for the job that they do, which is fueling the aircraft and providing the customer service at the -- on the apron. The last item as far as increases go is our marketing of $11,000 and that's primarily to help market the new Airport Industrial Park in Immokalee. We had several decreases which contributed to this 200,000 -- $250,000 revenue decreases. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, the marketing item you mentioned, what do you anticipate? What do you mean by marketing? MR. DRURY: That went up by $11,000. What we do is we advertise our industrial park in magazines that reach the manufacturing community. We also pay dues for companies that will give us leads on companies that are looking to relocate their plants from out of a -- maybe a union environment or state to a nonunion state. And we have a video that we send out to CEO's that may be interested in relocating down here that will be about two years old. That needs to be updated. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DRURY: The negative revenues that we experience this year include a $29,000 carry forward decrease from the previous year. Also, not budgeted in here is grant funds to help pay for this position. And I think the reason it didn't get put in there by the budget office was because you all have not voted on the Capital Program which includes the grants portion of it. Dependent upon what projects go forward with the associated 80 percent grants, then we would transfer that money for the projects that Hiss Leamet works on to help pay for that position. And that's -- you'll see a $17,400 -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: John, let me just clarify that. I think -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I have some quizzical looks up there. The Airport Authority has -- had requested a number of capital projects supported by the general fund. They were not recommended by the County Manager; therefore, at this point in time, there would be no reimbursements available. If the board opted to fund any or all of those projects, then a portion of Miss Leamer's time for administering those grants would be reimbursable and would be a reimbursement revenue available to the Airport Authority operating fund, but that is dependent upon your decisions based on the capital review which will now take place tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My guess is the capital funds required so far exceed that portion of Hiss Leamer's salary that could be recouped, that we're still dealing with a huge deficit issue. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is also true. MR. DRURY: The third -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No offense, Hiss Leamet. MS. LEAMER: Yes, sir. MR. DRURY: The third one, our reserves went up $40,000. That, I believe, is a calculation that the budget office calculates, so that went up. When you total the county fees, the cost to support new infrastructure, the finance coordinator's position and the marketing, along with the three negatives of a negative carry forward, the grant funds not being there and the reserves, you come up in excess of the $250,000 increase and that's really what we're talking about here. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, I look and I see a quizzical look on your face now. Maybe you could share with us Some '- MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'd like to clarify a few things. MR. McNEES: Maybe Mr. Smykowski will. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On A-44, there's a summary of the Airport Authority operating fund. As we're discussing general fund, the key point here is transfer from 001 which is about in the middle of the revenue. The adopted budget in FY '97 was $215,600. To support current service operations of the Airport Authority, the general fund transfer increase is $182,900 to approximately $400,000. In addition, there are proposed expanded services totaling $71,400, all being supported by the general fund -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- resulting in a 118 percent increase in the general fund support of this operation, so we -- we are going the wrong way in terms of becoming self-sufficient. MR. DRURY: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we don't want -- just a second, Mr. Drury. We don't want to lose sight of the fact that there was an investment up front. We knew a period of payback to -- to make these self-sufficient and then actually then become revenue producers in order to pay back that loan amount. But I want to take it from the banker's standpoint. What general fund support still remains is what we would call an unpaid balance on the development of the air parks. How much money have we put into these things so far total that we have not received either grant money or revenues in return to pay back? What is the un -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The status of the loans. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- paid balance? MR. DRURY: I don't have that figure with me but there are two figures. There's your grant share in the capital side and, let's say, you've put in $6 million into capital and your share of that, let's say, was 40 percent and I'd have to -- you know, these are numbers that are not accurate -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: McAdam (phonetic) -- MR. DRURY: -- without me -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm sorry. Are you getting those numbers? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- instead of you trying to just pull it up. MR. DRURY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I'm starting to look at this. MR. DRURY: And then there's the operational side as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm starting to look at this from, I guess, the standpoint of a banker in that every time we take a step, we're told that revenues will be created, will be generated to offset that step. And then, as I look at us going from last year's general fund contribution to this year's general fund, it's -- it's the opposite. It's not an offsetting revenue. It is -- we are the offsetting revenue for expanded services. And I -- I know that your desire to grow and to increase the share of business the airports gets is an attempt to increase revenues, but the rate at which we do that is something I don't know the general fund can handle. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I have another question just while -- while you're thinking about how to answer all of these and that is in your ten-year projection in your business plan, when you projected that at the end of the tenth year, you would be paid back and profitable. What did you project in your third year or your fourth year, wherever you are in that? Where -- where did you think you were going to be? MR. DRURY: That's the chart in front of you. It's -- a new business like this -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. DRURY: -- takes about five or six years before you see the curve -- and let me -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this is what -- while he's passing that out, what I was thinking about from the perspective of a banker if you -- if you're investing in a new business or if you're loaning money to a new business, you know that you're not going to make money for the first, I was going to say, five years. So, I -- I just didn't know what your business plan had projected, about when we'd start making money. MR. DRURY: Basically the original business plan said that revenues -- I mean that's the -- the pink line -- would increase at a certain rate and expenses would increase at a certain rate and eventually those two will cross in year ten as that investment in -- in all of these revenue producing facilities and these tenants come on line. That was our overall business plan. And in the year 2004, which ten years, those two would cross, we would begin making a profit and we would walk in here one day and hand you our first check. And from then on in for the rest of the airports' life, they would continue to pay you back for all the investment that you have made. Most airports in the United States never set that up. Charlotte County, Naples, Fort Myers, Page Field, they all spent ten, 20 years subsidized and then they made a profit, Gainesville probably as well, and now they're making a lot of money but they didn't have the foresight that this board did to set up a payback schedule and that's sort of the difference here. No, we cannot be expected to be making a profit or downward trend in year three of operation or year four or year five. Years -- Year five, year six, year seven, you should see that trend. Mr. Smykowski is saying the trend isn't there in year three. We never said the trend would be there in three from day one. We've always said that this would take -- this would be a ten-year prog -- process -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And is this -- MR. DRURY: -- to go through. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: This chart here is -- is what you gave the board when they set up the Airport Authority three years ago? I mean is -- is this what you promised them or this was in your business plan? MR. DRURY: Our business plan did not have that specific chart in it but our business plan basically said that in ten years our expenses would be -- would cross with our revenues. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that, but my question is did you have a projection for your third year? MR. DRURY: Not as specific as -- not with -- with dollars and numbers. It sort of changes as we find out what infrastructure is approved year to year, what -- how many T-hangars are going to be built, what -- if we got a new tenant, how many new tenants, how many gallons of fuel. Of course, one of the things that our finance coordinator will be doing is updating our business plan this year based on all the new data that we have on how our fuel sales are going and how our other revenues are going. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're aware that this shows from years 1995 through the year 2002, a half million dollar deficit each year? If this graph is correct, it's a $500,000 deficit every year for seven straight years. MR. DRURY: Yeah. The -- the goal as of -- of the authority is to keep the break even need always below 500,000 and to begin squeezing that number to four to three to two to zero and then turning it around. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We may have the desire to squeeze it a little earlier than you do because I don't remember in any discussions that we've had on the Airport Authority the number of a goal being a half million dollars lost revenue per year. This is the first that number has really been heard by me. And had I known that, maybe the decisions would have been a little different in the past, maybe not to scale it so big or so large out of the outset. We may have outgrown what I think collectively this board understood to be a business enterprise because I -- I sit -- I can't sit here and look at seven years of a half million dollar contribution every year. It just -- MR. DRURY: One thing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No bank in the world would. MR. DRURY: One of the reasons that -- well, you have to remember, you know, when you're building airports that are 50 years neglected and you want to make them profitable, it does take time to build that up. And, as I said earlier, most airports in Florida spent years doing that. We're trying to accelerate that. We have brought in a finance coordinator to accelerate for the -- the sole purpose is to address your question right there. We don't want to wait ten years to become self-sufficient. I wish I could walk in here with three new manufacturing plants at Immokalee and -- and -- and say thank you for supporting us for the last three years. We don't need any more. It worked. I can't do that today. I hope to be able to do it in three years. The plan said ten. Our goal is to spend as much energy on the financial side this year and next year to reduce that ten year for you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, John, as much as -- as supportive as you know that I am of your -- of your program, and I continue to be, what I -- what I'm confused about or -- is, I guess, similar to what Commissioner Hancock was saying, and that is I knew that we weren't getting money back until the tenth year. I didn't really realize that we were going to spend a half a million dollars every year for ten years. Do you see where I'm -- I mean that's -- that's the part that -- that I'm asking you was that in your business plan in 19947 MR. DRURY: It wasn't as specific as the dollar -- the dollar figures were not that specific at that time, no. They were not. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead, Hike. MR. HcNEES: Just for what it's worth, having been through maybe a little bit more of the detail, maybe I can shed a little more focus on some of the specific budgetary issues that you're kind of leaning towards. In fact, I used exactly the same words that you just did when we reviewed this budget, which was the Board of County Commissioners is the banker, and that I was going to ask questions that the banker would ask. And here are some of the specific things that as I reviewed this budget from a business standpoint, we -- we had, as a staff, some concerns about. Fuel volumes continue to grow significantly but the cost of goods sold continues to grow more than fuel revenue, which says we're selling more but we're making less and the margins continue to come down. I understand there are elasticity problems related to the prices at the Naples Airport and that it's all very complicated but the bottom line is -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we getting low balled by Naples Airport? MR. HcNEES: Sometimes, I understand. But the bottom line of all that is we're spending more to make less in that situation, and that was one of the issues we'll talk tomorrow about in some of your capital discussions; some of the things we did not recommend for some capital projects, where the paybacks were 20, 25 years were from a business standpoint. Again, being the banker, it was hard for the manager to say, sure, we recommend this as good business. So, those were a couple specific areas. The other area, from a business standpoint, you focused on the marketing expenditure. We would have liked to have seen something on the revenue side to say, okay, what's this marketing going to target and how is it going to generate revenue? And the part that we tried to work towards was, you know, okay, if this is all legitimate expenditure, if this is all going to develop the airport, let's focus on how can we budget and target some more media revenues. And because, you know, marketing expense with a five-to-seven year, which is what we're talking about -- we're in the third year of a ten-year plan marketing expense with a seven-year payback. You're the marketing guy, Commissioner Constantine. I don't know if that's, you know, good -- good business or not, but those were the kind of things more specifically in this budget -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even if Parks and Rec were -- MR. HcNEES: -- that we looked at on the staff level. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- where they increased their marketing budget this year, did they also show revenues expected this year? MR. HcNEES: We required them to show revenue at least equal to the marketing that they spent, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Drury, I have -- as you know, I've always been a very strong supporter. I'm the one who introduced resolution to create the Airport Authority and then have been a supporter all the way along and I -- I certainly realize as with any business there is a time frame in which he puts money up front, you've got to make some things happen, and then in the long run you make some money, hopefully. And I -- you know, Commissioner Berry and I were just looking at the out years when you get to 2004 and beyond what the differential is if -- if this holds true and what kind of money that turns back every year at that point. If it's 200,000 ranging up to 600,000, then that's an admirable goal and I -- I look forward to that. And I don't want to do anything. I don't want this board to do anything that hinders us achieving that goal but there does appear to be a growing gap. And -- and -- MR. DRURY: I think it's for three -- three more years but, go ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to say the -- the -- the fact that the gap is getting a little bigger concerns me. Mr. HcNees, his points on fuel concerns me, and some of that is within our control and some is not, but I just need some reassurance here on the track we're on. MR. DRURY: Can I talk about the fuel because we are comparing one year to the next year? Last year, Congress did not pass the Federal Excise Tax. That meant that the cost of fuel went down 18 cents a gallon. We budgeted with no tax on fuel because they did it the latter part of '96. So, we were -- for four or five months, we were buying fuel, the whole country was, less expensive at 18 cents per gallon. We did not pass that cost saving on to our customers. The industry did not. We kept that revenue ourselves. In January, Congress reinstituted the Federal Excise Tax and our cost of goods went up 18 cents per gallon. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. The costs went up. Well, this year I budgeted for the cost of goods with the Federal Excise Tax, so we are comparing a nonFederal Excise Tax year to a Federal Excise Tax year. When you do that analysis, it doesn't look -- it looks like you're making not as much money because you had a windfall for four or five months of no taxes and that was good for us for that year. But when you get into it and you're going to do a -- analyze that, you've got to take into consideration that the Federal Government did not tax us by a good portion and that really affected us. And I should say, likewise, when the Federal Excise Tax came back in January, the industry did not pass that on to its customers either. Didn't say, well, we just got hit with 18 cents a gallon, we're going to jack up our jet fuel prices by 18 cents a gallon. In fact, at Marco, we sell gas for about $2.35 a gallon and Naples sells it for about $2. We're pretty expensive. And -- and -- and we're -- our gas fuel in Everglades City is more expensive than Naples. The only one that's a little less expensive is Immokalee and that's because I have a location-location-location problem on marketing Immokalee. I have to go to attract people out there because I'm not on the Gulf Coast. So, we -- we spend a lot of time looking into all of these numbers and we're sitting with our business plan of -- of committing to that ten year. I think in two to three years, you're seeing this gap get smaller and smaller and our finance manager, his sole goal is to do that flex analysis on fuel sales and inventory where our pricing should be and help us negotiate contracts with Chevron on our -- on our cost of goods and really get into making sure that we meet the goals that you're talking about, which is reducing that $500,000 figure every year to self-sufficiency and then paying you all back for the rest of the airports' life. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me -- on Marco you forecast $518,000 in revenue from fuel sales. You're expecting now to take in about 30,000 less than that and yet for next year you're forecasting a considerable increase. You only took in four eighty-four and you're forecasting five fifty-six for next year. MR. DRURY: On our total fuel for Marco. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On Marco fuel sales, you took in 30,000 less than expected but you're budgeting 40,000 more than you had budgeted last year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: John, that was on the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excise tax issue? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. That was Avgas. MR. DRURY: Oh, is he looking at Avgas? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Avgas. MR. DRURY: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, before -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking at total revenue from fuel or total -- total revenue. I don't -- frankly, the source, whether it's for gas or whether it's because you're selling candy -- MR. DRURY: Yes. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I don't care. The point is you -- you -- total revenue, you had projected one amount and you took in less than that and yet next year you're projecting even more. MR. DRURY: We were -- we worked with the budget office and we've looked at it, you know -- of having a more, I guess, less conservative approach to budgeting, meaning we are forecasting that we're going to be selling more gallons of fuel because of the pressures we received from county staff that you all are being a little conservative in your forecast of fuel. And we relooked at that again and I -- I think, if I'm not mistaken, we forecasted more fuel, more gallons sold based on the trend that we're seeing and that we are selling more jet fuel. Our Avgas sales have gone down primarily because Naples has put in a self-service fuel system and we've lost some customers to Naples because they -- they're -- they're selling it less expensive. But we make most of our money in jet fuel and we see our jet fuel number of gallons increasing and we've carried that forward. I -- I don't know if that helps answer that question. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioners, the work sheet I handed you identified as fuel sales, the cost of fuel purchased, the revenue to be generated on the net profit margin at each of the airports. Commissioner Constantine, to answered your question perhaps a little more specifically, the -- the third row on that work sheet identifies the Marco Island Airport. It shows the adopted budget based -- predicated on 245,000 gallons of fuel being sold. The forecast is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A hundred and forty-two. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- two forty-two and the proposed and current service is 264,000. The issue is, though, you're increasing gallons sold by 19,000 gallons, but on the revenue side, the profit margin only increases $2700. I think you see the profit margin based on the budgeted fuel in the adopted '97 at $254,200. The total profit generated from selling 264,000 gallons in the proposed budget in FY '98 is only 256,900. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. I'm still on 25,000 more gallons. Why is there only a $2,000 increase in revenue? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's kind of the core of the issue within the three airports because the principal revenue source, operating revenue within each of these three airports, is the fuel sales. They can live and die on that. The -- the other things are tie-down fees and all that, just ancillary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you answer my question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've gone fairly far and did you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I need to hear it. Mr. Drury, can you answer that question? If we're doing an extra 25,000 gallons, why is there only a couple thousand dollars difference? MR. DRURY: Down at -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Marco. MR. DRURY: -- Marco. If we're doing 25 -- 25,000 gallons? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're projecting a substantial increase in the amount of fuel just sold. We're projecting a $2,700 total increase in revenue. If we have such a large increase in sales, why such a small increase in revenue? MR. DRURY: Oh, that's the Federal Excise Tax issue. You're comparing last year to this year. And we -- it's costing us 18 cents more per gallon and we have not -- we have not increased our two thirty-five dollar -- $2.35 sale price by 18 cents because we would be extremely -- we're already the most expensive fueling depot in the -- in Southwest Florida, that would push us beyond. We -- but I should say this, that we're going to be looking at that a little more closely. How far can we push it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we're the most expensive, what are we doing then that makes us anticipate selling substantially more fuel? MR. DRURY: Well, we put a new localizer at Marco. We have the most sophisticated nay aid in Collier County now. And that will be attracting many more jets and many more aircraft. We -- we do have a trend of selling more fuel and attracting more -- more aircraft to the airports and that's -- that's our -- our intention, to keep doing that. And the -- the -- we've built a lot more hangars which means we're attracting a lot more aircraft. All those aircraft that are coming to our airports are buying fuel as well. And that's helped. And we're really looking forward to the industrial park. If we fill that industrial park with just one or two corporations, they will have corporate aircraft and they will all be buying fuel and putting their aircraft in our hangars as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Drury, there was a -- a division a couple before yours where we had an experience last year that revenues were overprojected in a ridiculous fashion. I'm not accusing you of that. I think your explanation is reasonable. And we can probably go through every single line item in here and you could give me several very good reasons for why these are in the budget. And that's why they're here. That's why they made it through Mr. HcNees' review is because there are good reasons for them. But that doesn't get away from the fact that the bank is overextended this year. We are looking at -- if we don't do -- take some drastic measures, we're looking at a -- at an unprecedented second increase in the millage rate. And I can't increase the millage rate because of the airports, plain and simple, so we could -- MR. DRURY: The only thing I would comment on that is that you began a program of building these airports up and we told the board it would take us ten years to get to that point. And we are doing everything we can and we'll continue to reduce that. To pull the rug out from underneath the authority at this time when you are in your infancy would -- would -- would create a situation where it would make it even harder for us to reach that goal of paying you all back. And that's the only comment, but I understand you're making some tough decisions today, and I respect that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Frankly, Mr. Drury, to pull the rug out from me -- from under you would be to eliminate the general fund subsidy. And that's not -- MR. DRURY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is keeping it within a limit that we can afford this year. Last year we took a hit in a lot of divisions and -- and I respect what you folks did because you operated with -- in total a little more, but a little less general fund subsidy last year, and I understand that. I don't see us appropriating the entire general fund amount on this. I just -- I can't do it when we're faced with the other divisions. The amount that that's going to have to be reduced is going to be significant. We're talking about an additional $254,300 from the general fund alone over what it was last year. I'm trying to figure out what's an appropriate amount and I'm -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I said, I don't want to do anything, I'm going to -- I agree with your point, Mr. Drury. We don't want to pull the rug out from under you. And I said I don't want to do anything that will hinder us achieving that goal, but I finish that comment by saying I'm -- I'm concerned at the growing gap. And I know from the chart you'd given us, and that starts to narrow again in four years, but it's a pretty healthy gap right now and -- and I don't know that we had discussed specific numbers of a half million dollar or more gap -- MR. DRURY: You know, it's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in the past. MR. DRURY: -- until you -- I come before you next year, it's hard for you to judge that, but I feel good about what this Airport Authority and what this board has done as far as getting that gap further -- smaller quicker. And one of the -- one of the main reasons is now I have a finance person on board who is -- whose sole mission in life in this -- this coming year and the next year is to really be looking into those things and making some real good recommendations to do that. Can I tell you today that it's going -- that I'm not going to be here looking at absolutely? I can't, but I can tell you we're going to try our hardest and I feel confident that we will. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, don't tell her family that's her sole mission in life. MR. LAZARUS: For the record, Monte Lazarus. I'm the vice-chairman of the Airport Authority and we do appreciate your problem. The majority -- the overwhelming majority of the seven members of the authority are business people with business backgrounds and we have been concerned enough about the budget that we've -- we have looked at every single item, knocking out things as -- as insignificant as weed spraying up to an operations vehicle that was ticketed at $28,000. We -- we went through every single thing we could. Having said that, we do appreciate your problem. Our concern is making this Airport Authority as self-sufficient as quickly as possible. Again, we appreciate your problem. We just beseech you to do what you can for us because you have a -- you have a difficult problem and, frankly, so do we because of the competitive nature of the situation, particularly with the Naples Airport on -- on fuel sales. And fuel sales are -- are our life's blood. So, we appreciate your consideration. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think everybody's made their position clear. I would like to see us bring this to closure. And is it the intention of the board members to -- to look at eliminating individual items or just pick a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a budget number and then -- and let the Airport Authority work it out themselves? What -- what is the intention? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My desire would be to do that, to go through and evaluate each item individually. As to whether or not I think it's more important than another, I -- I'm not qualified to do. So, I think we need to look at giving a figure back somewhere well short of the $469,000 general fund, see what it looks like when it comes back and determine if -- if that's -- if that's acceptable to us. A 117 percent increase, I -- I just -- we can't do this year. And I know everyone's looking for a number. But out of that 254,300, I think an increase to the general fund in an amount of somewhere between 50 and $100,000 is about all I can do. Beyond that -- beyond that, I think we're being irresponsible in reference to the other elements of our budget that we have -- have held -- have hold -- had to hold very tightly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the couple things we have to -- and I don't know what the totals are, Mr. Drury. Maybe you can help us. The -- the water and sewer and operation and day-to-day maintenance of the new buildings, obviously we have to do. MR. DRURY: Yeah, the two -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have a new position, we need to take care of those. And then beyond that, I -- I don't know what those amounts by themselves tally up to. MR. DRURY: Just the internal fees that are going to go back to the county are 54,000. In other words, I have no control over that. Those are fees that I'm going to -- you're going to give to the authority and I'm going to give right back to you is what it boils down to. The -- the cost to support the new infrastructure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we -- are we focusing though on just the transfer, the 001 general fund transfer that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that -- it's the one that has the $71,000 increase, and -- and if I read it, it shows 470,000 is the total request from the general fund for this year. And I guess the question is, you know, how low should that number be if not four seventy? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the year before, if I can just get myself straight here, the year before that number was two fifteen six hundred? Am I in the right line again? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. MR. DRURY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me rephrase because I -- I thought I asked a question but perhaps I just kind of threw out a point. And, specifically, what will it cost for water and sewer and for general operation of the new buildings we have that were not included in last year's? MR. DRURY: Flat years, break-even need? The water -- the water, the sewer, the electric to -- to support the new infrastructure was 47,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. MR. DRURY: And then 54,000 for the increased county fees. And 75,000 for the new line techs and the finance coordinator's position. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of that is the finance coordinator's position? MR. DRURY: 60 with benefits. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, with the addition of the finance coordinator position, to do what you did last year, you're saying it's going to take another $170,000. MR. DRURY: Correct, to support the new -- the new infrastructure and the new county -- the increased county fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, if we did -- took the two fifteen six hundred and added to it a hundred? Is that what you just said? What was the number? Was it 100,000 that was a ball park? MR. DRURY: Are you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going -- I'm going to propose that -- we've been scratching -- there's chicken scratch all over the place if you're trying to arrive at a number, so I'm going to propose and -- that we see something back with a general fund increase of $107,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That will take care of your water, sewer, your operations that you have to do. That will take care of your new finance director. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the new finance director which will increase revenues this year will help make up for some other that -- that you didn't get. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No pressure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've indicated that a big chunk of that finance director may be offset by other things. If they are, then that will free up an opportunity to do some of the -- other things you've laid out here. MR. DRURY: That's correct. Depending on how the capital program goes tomorrow, depends on how much money I can transfer from grants to this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At this -- at this point, we're not assuming any transfer; is that correct? MR. DRURY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, this is worse case scenario for that position. MR. DRURY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the dollar figure that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The dollar figure is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One forty-seven. 147,000 is the cut to what's asked for. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. It's a reduction from the general fund transfer of $147,300. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It becomes three twenty-two, roughly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to be very specific here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It becomes three hundred twenty-two thousand -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three twenty-two three hundred, I have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- six hundred dollars. MR. DRURY: Three twenty-two -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Six hundred. MR. DRURY: Six hundred. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. DRURY: And that -- that does not do the county fees. It does the new infrastructure and the finance position. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You figure out what it does and doesn't do and we'll see you back. MR. DRURY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that okay with everyone? MR. DRURY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, on our list of target at a hundred forty-seven three hundred. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioner Hac'Kie, we did get a response through the Finance Department. Almost $2.4 million between capital and operating subsidies plus interest that have been transferred, inclusive of the transfers in FY '97. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we'll be adding to that the -- whatever the amount is we just added. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Three twenty-two six. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Okay. MR. DRURY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Drury. Okay. That takes us up to -- we're going to hold General Fund-Supported Capital Projects till tomorrow morning. Let's go ahead and get to the Sheriff's Office; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sheriff, correct. We conclude with the Sheriff today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We took a break at 2:30. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's 4:00. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I -- I believe they have a slide show or at least an overhead to set up, so you might want to take a five-minute break and they'll get set up logistically. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have something before we break? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick comment. One of the things we had -- had got into the practice of doing, I think last year, maybe for two years, is rather than trying to nitpick every single item with these folks, they know law enforcement better than we do, is to try to come up with a general number that we're all in agreement with and then that might be easier for us to do. I don't know if you all want to do that again. That worked pretty well last year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's set it up to receive our presentation and then we'll start the discussion that way. Five-minute recess. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' Workshop on Budget. We are to the Sheriff's budget and I understand we have a presentation and there may be someone even standing behind the projector. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can't see him. How are you doing, Don? Good, Tim. I'll just -- You? I'll just lean to the left, which is CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: SHERIFF HUNTER: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: SHERIFF HUNTER: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: uncharacteristic. SHERIFF HUNTER: a flat head before. Am I on? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: SHERIFF HUNTER: That's not my head. I've been accused of being You are. Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County, Florida. Good afternoon, board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I'm going to be brief with my comments. Just give you a quick overview of some of my concerns and then we would appreciate the opportunity to have Jean Myers, our budget officer, make a presentation to you to give you perhaps something you can get your arms around when we talk about the budget, point out the highlights and give you an overview from the numbers perspective. This year, like every year for the last, I'm going to say 17, 18 years I've been affiliated with the Sheriff's Office, we've seen dramatic growth, dramatic growth especially in terms of single, multifamily homes going up, new construction, new developments. You -- you see it in the Vanderbilt Beach area, Beach Road, the north end especially, Pelican Marsh, the Quail Nest, Quail Creek type developments. We have Davis Boulevard, which is -- seems to be busting at the seams towards buildout. Each one of those new structures require some consideration from law enforcement. We are required to provide patrols because each one of those new structures represents another targetive opportunity if we don't have the types of visibility, the type of visibility that we've enjoyed in years past. We've had population growth, calls for service growth, which is our service indicator. Our demands are for responding to people who have complaints and we've been adjusting to that. We've tried to introduce educational programs, to ask the public to work with us so that we don't have to respond to every type of complaint, that we might be able to handle complaints over the phone or through walk-in traffic with the complainant coming down to the front desk and having a duty officer or complaint taker complete a report. We're exploring those types of cost benefits and economies of scale. We have more vehicles on the street, we have more vessels in the water, and it goes on and on. And I -- I know that I don't have to educate you on the world issues. All of that taken into consideration and the fact that we have intensification in our crime situation, especially with youth gang activities, drive-by shootings, we have a core group of young people who appear to be more intent on acting out. We've had a crime rate increase. We've had reported crime increases in our Part I crimes, our most serious crimes, in dramatic ways. Our Part I crimes are up 17 percent, reported up 17 percent. Our crime rate is up 13 percent over last year. And these last two years have been the most dramatic for Collier County law enforcement because we have had rate increases in our crime. For five years prior to that, we'd had rate decreases. We're now back to almost the same place where we were in 1989, the first year that I assumed office, in our crime rate. We hope this isn't a trend. We hope that what has happened is through community oriented policing efforts people feel better about talking to law enforcement officers and reporting the crimes that are actually occurring and that we're not seeing new organic crime. What we're seeing is better reporting of the crime that's out there. As you know, we have new high schools going in, new elementary schools planned. We're up at the -- just about 30,000 young people, school aged young people now, and we're building schools in rapid succession trying to accommodate that growth. The Youth Relations Deputy Program has been very successful in the schools and we are trying to extend the Youth Relations Deputies in the school, that's School Resource Officers, and trying to accommodate that growth. That you will see reflected in the budget this year, three new Youth Relations Deputies. I have kept to a minimum, as I've indicated to almost all of you in private session, the number of new people that have been requested even though we've seen growth in population, growth in structure and development, new growth, growth in our crime trends. I kept it to 13 positions. We're hoping to convert some of the historically difficult positions to fill into new road positions and investigator positions. We've been very lucky with grants, grants and aid, even though we all know that those are somewhat short-lived and, in terms of five-year, ten-year projections we've been very fortunate over a period of years of being funded and refunded to some -- in some areas four and five years' worth of grant awards. But I have kept the number of new positions to a minimum intentionally. We -- we started out with requests of about 75 new positions in order to maintain pace with our growth and our concerns with new crime, but I've whittled that down to 13. Those are five road patrol positions; three in East Naples, two in North Naples. East Naples happens to be the number one area for calls for service and, as I said before, that's what determines our demand. Three new Youth Relations Deputies; two of those for the high school, one to rotate through our elementary schools to reduce the number, the ratio of deputies to schools, provide for better fit, one new marine patrol position, which would be to service the Marco Island area, which is where we get our -- the largest share of our net ban complaints during the season, and four bailiffs due to the expansion of the courts, new judges and the caseload. The judges are proposing, for instance, a new administrative procedure where they would actually remove themselves from the process, keep themselves toward the back end of the process, perhaps mediate some of these court cases before they get to a judicial officer, but in order to accommodate that, we do have to have bailiffs to maintain security and proffer protocol in the court setting. I donwt -- I donwt believe I have to instruct the board of the serious problems that are occurring around us; radical, militant, militia groups. We have a -- a number of different types of cults, want-to-be cults, street gangs that are all developing out there. We are attempting as best we can as law enforcement professionals to stay in front of all of that. With the overcrowding of the jails, we have the usual problems that you would see with that that militate towards hostilities between inmates. Thatws a safety factor for jail deputies. I havenwt requested any new jail deputies but I do want to keep the jail expansion on the front burner and I know that we are involved in a study that the board has commissioned that will perhaps give us some direction. I think Jeannie will cover this, but we have estimated our budget on the typical $100,000 dwelling unit to equate to about fifty cents per day per homeowner in this county and we believe that thatws -- that is a reasonable figure for law enforcement, for good law enforcement in Collier County. And not once in the history of Collier County, that Iwm aware of for the 20 years that Iwve been associated with this agency, has it ever been demonstrated that the Sheriffws Office is misspending or in some way mishandling the moneys that have been given to the agency. In fact, what you have seen is Naples and Collier County continues to be a destination of choice, for new residents and visitors. Wewd like to keep it that way. We like to maintain a high quality of life. And we believe -- I believe and I certify to you, board, that this budget will accomplish that. Iwm going to reserve the remainder of my comments to the end and to respond to your questions as best I Can. Thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Sheriff Hunter. We have an addition to the material we had already received, the Sheriff's Annual Budget presen -- budget -- Proposed Budget in print. We've also received some additional work today. What is your, I guess, most clear course to take to -- to present the budget increases for both our benefit and that of the public? I'll leave that to you but -- MS. MYERS: Jean Myers, Budget Analyst for the Sheriff's Office. Our intentions of that five or six-page handout is I do have some overheads that do mock this and we can go through that and answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think that would be a good idea. MS. MYERS: Is everybody able to see that? If not, I'm just going to go over this handout. It points out our areas of increase in each of these separate areas; Personal Services, Operating and Capital for the Sheriff's Office Budget. Personal Services, $856,900 is per the board policy on three percent if that's what you end up proposing in the -- on -- on COLA on 10/1/97. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to be clear, you -- you folks will be consistent with whatever on it. MS. MYERS: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that being 2.9 -- MS. MYERS: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or 3.1 or -- MS. MYERS: That was in the budget instructions was the three percent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you're not changing the way in which you administer that. You still administer cost of living on anniversary or do you -- MS. MYERS: No, sir. In this budget, we've gone to your budget instructions. We used to. And if -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You used to do it all on anniversary. MS. MYERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I sat and argued with Crystal last year about which one actually proved more beneficial and she was convinced the way you were doing it was better for the budget, so why the change? MS. MYERS: It does save money. That's -- the majority of this increase is because we are going to ten one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's what I'm asking. Why make the change? If you were saving money the old way, why do it this way? MS. MYERS: Board policy and -- and I think it's -- if you all recall the discussion last year when we had our pay plan discussions, part of our whole plan was that we would follow your direction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't remember giving a policy direction to change the manner in which they did their annual increases. That's news to me. Does anyone else remember that? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, actually -- actually -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do appreciate the spirit of cooperation. And that we're trying to make sure we all do it the same. SHERIFF HUNTER: We're doing it the same. And I've just adopted your policy. It's your policy apparently if you're paying on October 1, so I've adopted your policy. That's an area for discussion now, as we discussed in private. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Because I'm thinking about us adopting the other way, but anyway -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's do it. Let's do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm only interested in consistency when it saves money. Thank you. SHERIFF HUNTER: Of course. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please go ahead. MS. MYERS: Then to follow with that, we do have an increase in overtime and benefits, the $561,800. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain that to me? Because last year when we increased the level, we're paying all the different individuals and so on, we were told that would save considerably in overtime. Sure, you have more people now, too, but what -- why the increase of half a million dollars, almost 600,000? MS. MYERS: There again we've gotten to that discussion of overtime. This is purely based on our actual forecast for this year and based on our actuals from last year. We're running, even though like you say, our vacancies, we do not have any vacancies in law enforcement or corrections at this time. And that is -- I will point that out a little bit later. We are still historically running large amounts of overtime per pay period and this is just based on our forecast -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and I'm just -- MS. MYERS: -- where we will need to be. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- asking what happened to the suggestion of a year ago that we would have, hopefully, as we filled all those positions, the overtime would go down? I mean is there -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's see. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it just because we haven't -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I might be able to help you with it. Let's take a couple of examples and I'll use these -- we can -- we'll try to extrapolate from the examples I give and apply it to the 876 positions of the agency and the work that we do; warrants, service of civil process, communications, jail, everything. But if you take the jail position, for instance, and we use that as an entry level position in the agency and a recruitment ground to try to transition people in the law enforcement positions. Unfortunately, what happens, we -- we gain a benefit but there's a downside. The benefit is Deputy Sheriffs working in the jail are exposed to the people who route -- who are going to become inmates, who become inmates, and they learn the manipulative style of those particular inmates. They learn the face and the name and they have a -- at least a familiarity with that person. So, when they arrive on the street and they're faced with a confrontation, that person recognizes the Deputy Sheriff, says, yeah, I remember you, and suddenly there's a deescalation, plus jail deputies learn to use verbal skills as opposed to reaching for the gun or the PR-24 or the mace first. They use verbal skills to try to handle situations. Now, the downside is that's it's a five-month academy. When I move people out of the jail in blocks of ten or 12 people into the academy, I have a ten or 12-person vacancy typically. We try to hire and keep everybody available, but when I move a jail deputy into that position, I have to send those people to the academy as well. So, you work for a period of time with ten or 12 people not in position. They're supervising housing units, those jail deputies supervise housing units and the State of Florida mandates that you have a supervision ratio. You cannot not staff a housing facility. So, what you do is you pay overtime to the people who are on your roster as certified jail deputies while you wait for those people to come out of the academy. Both things are accomplished. We're filling positions, we're getting people certified, everybody is moving into positions, but it's a recruitment ground. We've had historically difficult positions to fill such as in communications. We've run as many as 20 people short. We're down to about 11 -- no. We're down to nine right now in communications. But for this year we've been running about 12. You can try to get communicators to come in and work overtime but our problem is the people that we recruit into our communications bureau typically are young, child-bearing age. They're not the candidates for overtime. They're mothers, typically, young mothers, who don't choose to work midnights. They'd rather be with their family. And I come up with a difficult decision. I'm not going to require them to work that overtime because I'll probably be running them off and I'll have to fill that position. So, what we do is we pay Deputy Sheriffs to come in to sit at those consoles, dispatch calls, receive the calls and they're being paid overtime at their rate. That's an expensive endeavor and we're hoping to fill those positions at base salary for a dispatch position. Those are some of the examples I can use right away. It's not that we're not filling the position. It's not that we weren't hopeful of reducing our overtime. It is that -- the dynamics of the situation, the way -- the mechanism requires us to pay overtime for positions that have to be staffed. We had some other things that have happened; as you know, the Hartinez murder investigation, the Hardis murder investigation. A number of different things require overtime to be expended and what has -- what you see here is a projection based on the trend that we've been paying. As the streets become more violent, as we see more homicides, as we see more robberies, armed robberies, as more time is expended and larger blocks of time by more people in our forensics unit, in our investigative units, then you're going to see those costs rise. This is a moving picture, though. It's not as though -- I can't just stop the action and say we're going to save some money. Here's where it is. It's a moving picture. We're up to 10,000 Part I crimes this last year. We only had 8,000 Part I crimes reported the year before. Each one of those news -- new crimes required additional time being expended by Deputy Sheriffs that we hadn't forecast. We were hoping the trend would be the opposite direction; 7,000 crimes reported instead of 10,000. So, again, what I want to leave you with is this is a moving picture and just hiring new people doesn't take away the need for the overtime. Unexpected events have intervened and have caused the overtime. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. MYERS: Another point to make maybe, Commissioner Constantine, is if you remember last year, we did cut $200,000 out of our overtime at -- at budget workshop time, so this number actually represents the same level of hours, but with the salary increases from this year into next year, we're -- we're still at the same hourly level. We're not increasing the hours of overtime. Of course, if we have emergencies and things to investigate, that happens. The next item here is the Cops Grant Match. This is the three-year required match that you have -- were all aware of and -- and have approved three years ago. This is finally where the Federal money is running out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, after this year, those officers become a part -- they get assimilated into the -- the total force and become '- MS. MYERS: Correct. Actually most -- some of that money is running out now. We're actually picking some of them up now in fiscal year '97 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: -- and all of them in '98 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: -- our first group. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you going to talk about the 13 expanded positions or does that come in later? I see you changing sheets. MS. MYERS: I can address that now if you'd like. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At some point I'd like to. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah. That -- that just -- whatever -- I think she's going to get to it or -- MS. MYERS: Right. This is just showing here how we get to the bottom line. It includes then, of course, the personal services of the 13 expanded positions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got another slot later for that. MS. MYERS: Right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because there are several facets to those positions. I think they show up in different areas? MS. MYERS: Correct. There's -- there's the part here now in -- in the operating expenses for those 13 expanded. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MS. MYERS: I'm just going to try to keep those as a separate issue as far as our ongoing operations. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MS. MYERS: Operating Expense Analysis; $90,100 in minor operating equipment. Basically, there again, in the technical area, probably not a surprise to many of you. Minor Operating Supplies; $18,700 in the expendable operating supplies. Auto Repair and Parts and Maintenance; two-thirds of our fleet out of warranty. I don't think that's a surprise, either. We were -- spoke of that last year. $364,000 increase in our Drill Academy Match. $26,700 in building repair and maintenance. $12,300 in training expenses due to a legislative change in the Fund 608 Revenues. We are receiving less money into our trust fund. Equipment Repair and Maintenance for AFIS and Photo Lab and some of those equipment items, technological equipment items, and there again the expanded positions brings us to a total increase -- excuse me -- in operating expenses. Any questions on any of those that I can address further or... Capital Expenses. Increase in our personal computer replacement. This is our ongoing replacement. This is -- by no means would clear and replace all of our personal computers that need replacing in the agency. This has been a phase in and we are continuing that. $300,000 for 30 mobile digital computers. Those are the in-car computers that have been on the news and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since we're not going to be making capital decisions today, are we -- even on the Sheriff's budget, is that capital for tomorrow, Mr. Smykowski, or is it all for -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is operating capital within the Sheriff's operating fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, that's not a separate capital issue for tomorrow. This is all in one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. Please go ahead then. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is -- would go in his fund. MS. MYERS: Right. This is our capital and our regular operating -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me -- MS. MYERS: -- budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the $300,000 benefit of the in -- Sheriff Hunter and I talked a little bit about this in -- in my office, but of the in-vehicle mobile computers. MS. MYERS: The benefit or what all they would be able to do or that this -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why do we need them? MS. MYERS: Why do we need them? Technological advancement. I think we're one of the few law enforcement officer -- agencies that do not have these. We are hoping to save time, increase the efficiency when a deputy does make a stop and be able to be connected right to the FCIC and NCIC computers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's going to have these? MS. MYERS: We're -- we're starting this year with 30, but the road deputies. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question that -- I don't know. I'm not insinuating anything. I just don't know, Sheriff. Is it from a safety standpoint for the deputies? If they call in, they call right now, while they're awaiting that, they can do some observation, they can see what's going on with a situation. If they're -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- tapping in information, they're obviously not going to be observing. And is there any sort of a safety issue there? SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. For the benefit of the board and for the public that may be viewing or will review this, the examples that I've given, there's a twofold benefit to the computers in the vehicles. One is that it gives fresh updated information to the deputy and this dovetails into the -- to the other cost consideration. It's something of an economic spin-off benefit. But the benefit to the Deputy Sheriff in the car, because these will be going to road patrol officers first, that when you -- and I used the example, Commissioner Constantine, when you and I spoke, of a road patrol deputy making a traffic stop. Right now, the intervention is that the road patrol deputy must wait for a radio traffic opportunity to get on to the radio, call dispatch center, ask a dispatcher to run a tag for them, and after they have the tag, which will give them the record, the owner of record, they ask that the dispatcher then take that name and run that name through the warrant program to determine whether a warrant is out for this person and also look at the possibility that there might be a bulletin out on the individual, to be on the lookout for this car or -- or the occupants of the car. That's human intervention. The dispatcher then runs that through a Teletype system through the FCIC-NCIC information network and gets a response, hopefully, back from the State of Florida and from Washington. That information is then communicated back to the Deputy Sheriff. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that's a lengthy process and requires a dispatcher which is an expensive position. It's a recurring cost to intervene in that situation and get the information collected and give it back to the Deputy Sheriff, again, waiting for traffic, radio traffic, to respond back to that Deputy Sheriff on the street. In the meantime, the deputy is, hopefully, watching the vehicle, the occupants of the vehicle, maintaining a safe condition and not approaching the vehicle if there's any suspicion whatsoever that there may be some violence potential or confrontation possibility in that vehicle. If, on the other hand, we had mobile digital terminals in the vehicles, the Deputy Sheriff makes their own inquiry, and it is by the speed of electronics, without human intervention on the other end of that terminal, goes directly into the mainframe with a linkup, as is programmed in this budget to give us the linkup capability, to get that information back direct from Washington and Tallahassee, back to the Deputy Sheriff sitting in the vehicle. No dispatchers required there. And right now we have a post that mans the Teletype. A full-time post, 5.4 people, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We hope, as we phase this in, as other agencies have done, that we can make that post go away. No more Teletype intervention necessary. We don't have to have that dispatcher sitting at the teletype console. There are other advantages. Deputy Sheriffs can become much more proactive when they tour the county and when they see vehicles parked next to a business in the industrial park or they run through a parking lot, they can run tag numbers without -- again, they don't have to have a dispatcher do that. They run the tag number, they get a hit back. Maybe that vehicle is stolen, reported suspicious in some other complaint that we've received within the last few days. Maybe we're looking for that vehicle because of a missing person or as some form of evidence. Those are the advantages of mobile digitals in the vehicles. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The two questions I had, one was just the safety issue. I mean if -- if I'm tapping some numbers into this calculator, I'm not looking at you at the same time. And is there any safety issue there as far as just the well-being of the deputies if they're punching out -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I can remember back in the early seventies, mid seventies, when this was an issue with the Federal Government under Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. They did not want to fund mobile digital terminals because they were afraid that accidents would occur with drivers of marked units trying to watch a screen down here while -- and type while they're driving. Obviously, that's a personal decision on the part of the Deputy Sheriff to continue driving and manipulate a cell phone or radio or mobile digital terminal. But there have been no demonstrated accident rates that I'm aware of in any of the literature on mobile digital terminals that would suggest that you don't do this because you have a large accident potential. Naturally, the potential exists. What we want to see, rather, is that the Deputy Sheriff, in a safe manner, especially in a traffic stop after you're stopped, you type in the information. And that's when you run your information and try to get the hit. The other side of that is the one we'll be more concerned about and that's when dispatch center sends out a complaint to a digital -- mobile digital terminal. You get a beep on the terminal. You know you just received a call. You hit a function key. You do have to look down right now until we get the up -- until we get the heads up visual displays that are supposed to be manufactured into the new vehicles. They do have to look down at the terminal to see what their complaint is and where they've been dispatched to and to respond. Yes, I'll be 10-51 to that complaint. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and I really wasn't talking so much about accident history. Just as far as observing whomever you've pulled over in the event you have someone -- you're a little shaky about -- they still have the option of dispatch or -- so that they're not taking their eyes off the vehicle or off the other person. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, all of that is a concern. Right now they have to dial in a frequency; if they're on the wrong frequency, which some units would be if they're investigative units making a traffic stop. So, there's always going to be a safety feature. What we -- what we train the Deputy Sheriffs to do is to make safe stops. You -- hopefully, you're not going to make a stop on a suspicious vehicle until you have some backup. If there's any possibility whatsoever that there may be a pursuant involved, we ask Deputy Sheriffs to wait for the appropriate time, the appropriate moment, to make that stop with backup available. All of those are procedural issues that we cover in our Operations Manual but, certainly, there are safety factors involved in the use of any of our technology. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One final question on this and that is what's the operational cost? How do these operate? Is it via the 800 megahertz, is it by a cellular? How -- how do these operate? SHERIFF HUNTER: The 800 megahertz with a device known as the Gateway System, that EMS also has the advantage -- will be installing. The Gateway accepts this frequency modulation information, converts it into messaging into the computer system. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no additional operating expense. SHERIFF HUNTER: No additional operating other than the mobile digital terminal and, of course, conversion costs of installing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is one of the things I saw in the budget that I was intrigued by because when my brother started with Hillsborough County ten years ago, they had mobile digital terminals. And when I rode with him and he pulled up to an address, when the call came in, he'd punch one button to get the address and the history of calls and activities to that address. So, he knew if there's a history of domestic violence or a history of whatever. And when it's your brother, you're -- you think, hey, that's great. He knows the history going in. Well, you know, it's -- it's true of any deputy so I was actually -- this is hard to say, but I was happy to see that capital expense up here because I think it's well worth it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wouldn't want my brother going into those houses not knowing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your brother just stays outside until other people show up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. SHERIFF HUNTER: It's a very important -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- a very important feature that Commissioner Hancock hits on. You can flag addresses not only with call history but mentally impaired, emotionally unstable. A lot of different features come out of that; people who have confronted us before, aggravated batteries, battery on a law enforcement officer. You get that information of weapons at that location. Essentially, tactical intelligence information would be available through the mobile digital terminal right there at that moment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a great one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on the other items so far? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. A couple of other items. One, will the software help us spell intelligence properly? MS. MYERS: Yes. I have to make -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I couldn't believe that. MS. MYERS: -- that correction. I'm so sorry that it was like that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I heard of that word being messed up. MS. MYERS: There are two L's in intelligence. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, my God. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other question I had is Mr. Smykowski pointed out to me that the -- your 2000 software, we're purchasing a whole big package through, I think over at -- MS. MYERS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the Clerk's. MS. MYERS: The Clerk's office. This software line item that we have here is not a duplication of the financial software. You have to remember that we also have civil warrants, booking, and a lot of these other modules that are not financial but will have to be addressed with that same problem. So, that's why you see it here on our budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me the difference in your booklet that came out? It had a -- I think a $900,000 price tag on it or is that some other software that has to do with the year 2000? MS. MYERS: In our -- in the 301 capital request? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MS. MYERS: Right. That -- right now the Clerk's office, we are -- we did work with them jointly on the RFP manipulation and I believe that's gone out. But we feel that may -- that still may not include us to the capacity that the Sheriff would warrant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The '- MS. MYERS: That's in the 301. This here -- this line item here is for the other modules. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. I just want to be careful we don't do duplication as had been indicated to me that there might be some duplication. I also had seen another number, 210,000, somewhere in your paper work. So, I'm confused as to what the -- and that's my confusion, not yours. I'm just saying that I'm confused as to what the actual dollar amount requested for that is but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The total cost requested for conversion to year 2000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Throughout the whole county, yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Countywide. I'd love to know that number. And I have -- not right now, Mike, but -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: I don't know if it's that easy to come up with. It's awfully hard. MS. MYERS: Exactly. It's -- we're all kind of still in the dark on where to go, how much. Some people say that's not enough, that's too much, you're going to need hardware, you're going to need this -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can figure it out as we go along, we know that, but I'm just curious what we've got in this year's budget total countywide for the year 2000 conversion. MS. MYERS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I'm normally amortizing for year 3000 at this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point. No, they've corrected the problem. It would be -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what are the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- four digits it's added to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- telephone system upgrades that are there? What is that? MS. MYERS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are the telephone system upgrades that are listed there for a quarter of a million dollars? MS. MYERS: Those are -- yes, our upgrades to phone systems. Among -- a few different things. The Immokalee substation is requiring a new phone system. It was at capacity when we moved in there. Our -- our -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did we buy one when we moved in there? MS. MYERS: Yes. There was -- the one that was installed that was at capacity. And we've now outgrown that. Our intention is to purchase a new system for that substation, move the current phone system in Immokalee to the East Naples substation because the phone system there is un -- unuseable. It cannot be expanded or upgraded. And then we also have some T-1 lines for the phone and datum. All of our substations are at capacity and these are upgrades to do that. There's also -- also between Building A and J, the phone system has not been upgraded since 1989 and we need some upgrades to be able to do -- we are out of -- they call them ports for the computers. We don't have any more, so something has to be done. That will also get us some voice mail capabilities and other things like that that the new software says they will do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Basically, you're not buying fancier phones, you're buying more phone access, more users? MS. MYERS: More users mostly for the data. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. Hodem lines, et cetera. MS. MYERS: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But not -- it's not, you know '- MS. MYERS: It's not an enhanced -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- new phones or '- MS. MYERS: -- system or anything that's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- some fancy phones. MS. MYERS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How long ago was that building completed? I think I was at the dedication two years ago. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Immokalee? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MS. MYERS: I was going to say -- I'm sorry. What building were we referring to since we were -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. The Immokalee or was that just a few '- MS. MYERS: Yes. No. It was only two years ago. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This isn't the same consultant that sold us that system, is it? MS. MYERS: I certainly hope not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that system was not new two years ago. It was old two years ago, right? MS. MYERS: It was a brand new substation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ha. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They put a new phone system in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow. It lasted for two years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's just -- that's an awful -- awfully short recurring cost -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and that's problematic. MS. MYERS: It is. That -- and there again, that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you're moving that system '- MS. MYERS: -- was not a Sheriff's Office project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to East Naples. MS. MYERS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, it's not just gone. MS. MYERS: That can be saved, and used, like you say because it's only two years old, so we can move that to the six-year-old substation that's in East Naples. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions on that page? Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's one page, as I'm doing some figuring here, Mr. Smykowski. I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're looking at the same thing I am, the difference between what we show adopted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Depending on which page you look at, there are some differences between what the number is for the fiscal year '97, Adopted Sheriff's Budget. On Page 6, it indicates $44,621,700. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's Page 6 in the summary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the summary book. Is that accurate? Is that the correct number? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is just the general fund piece. That excludes the 111 component, so that is accurate, but, again, that includes -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the general fund. MR. SHYKOWSKI: General fund, plus the board paid component which is also in the general fund. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And that's the difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're still not -- they're still not consistent, though. We're off by almost a million and the adopted '97 under general fund, you have $44,621,700. And on Page 6 on the general fund transfer under revenue for '96-'97 adopted, we have 43,787,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you add in the 834,700 the board paid, which is two rows down from that, the sum of those two would be equivalent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Expenses paid by BCC. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. Because that's actually a cost of the Sheriff's operation, although by statute the board is required to fund that. We reflect that on the -- on the Sheriff's page -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- to iljustrate that it is a cost of his operation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't want to beat a dead horse. I just want to deal with the -- the -- the applicable number. Where did the 44 come from? Is that -- or is that -- oh, okay. I see what you're saying. That equals forty-four six twenty-one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The two together. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Isn't it nice for questions not to be aimed at you occasionally? MS. MYERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and continue then. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The positions. MS. MYERS: The positions were expanded. The Sheriff did go over these in detail on where they were slated to go. If you have any questions on the dollar amounts or how we arrived at those, if -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, I don't know if you -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MS. MYERS: -- had a particular question or not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Youth Relation Deputies. That's just to put one in each school that is opening; is that correct? MS. MYERS: Our intention for the new high school that will be on line, Gulf Coast, I believe is the name, our intention there is it's going to be such a large high school that we would like to put two Youth Relations Deputies at that particular high school and see how it -- how it goes. We -- when the Sheriff's Office started the Youth Relations Program, I believe like Naples Community -- or Naples Community -- Naples High School, excuse me, was 600 students. And it -- and we have had one Youth Relations Deputy and I think the enrollment there has doubled or tripled and we still have one, so we're trying to get ahead of the times and -- and do two at the new high school. And the third position there is for elementary schools that they ro -- they do rotate. They're don't -- they are not assigned. Only the middle and high schools are assigned one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I may be mistaken but that school is not opening until a year -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: Until '98. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- from this fall. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I know. In here it says 1997 and that school doesn't open until the fall of '98. MS. MYERS: Right. And in the meantime, they will be used -- they will be training and they will be used for the elementary program as well. COMHISSIONER BERRY: And that would be the DARE program? MS. MYERS: For the whole -- that's part of what they do is the DARE program. But how that they -- they rotate -- we have -- I think it's 18 elementary schools. And right now each of our Youth Relations Deputies are trying to handle five elementary schools to one Youth Relations Deputy. We would like to bring that down to three. This will help supplement that. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Have they got -- and going back to the high school, have they given you an opening enrollment for that school, because I don't think it's going to open at 2500. MS. MYERS: I think they're saying -- it was -- I thought was like 1700. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That number included the assumption that all the seniors will be transferring, which I understand that's not the case now. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not going to happen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It will just be the juniors -- MS. MYERS: That may be changing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- from the two contributing schools. COMHISSIONER BERRY: So, I -- I think you -- but here again, you're probably going to have to adjust that but I -- I don't think you're going to have a -- a full load there that first year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wonder if you couldn't make that two instead of three this year considering that we're -- we're not going to have -- the school is not going to be open and that the population is going to be -- not going to be maxed at the beginning in the first year. SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me -- well, let me clear up -- what I hear is maybe some confusion. I'm not staffing a high school based on number of students, with a student to Youth Relations Deputy ratio of some magic number somehow arbitrarily contrived by me. What I'm trying to do is staff high schools with two Youth Relations Deputies. What's happening is more and more arrests, more and more events, more and more suspensions, more and more interruptions in the school day. The Youth Relations Deputies are pulled off campus to book or meet a guardian or parent. That leaves the school unprotected for a number of days per year. What I've had as a request from principals and administrators, to consider a second Youth Relations Deputy at all -- at all the high schools, which are the high risk schools right now. We're completely inundated at Lely. I had to staff -- I had to put an additional Deputy Sheriff, take him out of investigative work and staff up at Lely due to some threats that were issued against a Deputy Sheriff. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So, you have two there now, Don? SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER BERRY: You have two there now? SHERIFF HUNTER: We had two there. We -- we can't afford to continue that at the moment, but what we're trying to get to is two deputies for the high schools that will handle the increased work load and the more intense nature of the complaints that are coming in at the high schools. So, this really doesn't fit back very nicely to the number of students that will be enrolled at a particular high school. This is based on our experience, based on what we know to be occurring at the high schools and based on our success with the high schools at preventing youth gangs from developing, that we need to staff up, keep everything safe and keep the good situation that we have today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I agree. I think it's a great situation but as the school doesn't open for another year, so maybe we can wait for another year before we put that one in place. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, it won't take away the need that we have right now. We said, fit that to Gulf Coast as an experimental school. It won't take away the need for Naples High, Barton Collier, Immokalee High School or Lely. Everglades seems to be okay. We can use those people, plus we need to get them in the school, properly trained. That's a five-month period, as you know. And during the summer months, Youth Relations Deputies are working on the gang situation out in the neighborhoods, so it's not that they would go unused. We fit that to Gulf Coast -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I just see next year when -- when Gulf Coast opens, if we move them there, then we're going to need someone to fill where you're using them this year, so -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, we'll -- yeah. That's true. We're about 75 people down from the road patrol staffing that I'd like to see in the Collier County Sheriff's Office today, so I'm saying to you that we certainly could use these extra Youth Relations Deputies to help maintain some security and -- COHHISSIONER BERRY: Well, eventually that's what you're going to go for. You're going to go for two -- two deputies in every high school. SHERIFF HUNTER: In all high schools. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, we're sort of amortizing -- SHERIFF HUNTER: And probably eventually -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- into that at this point. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- to all the middle schools as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which makes a lot of sense that we're amortizing into that. SHERIFF HUNTER: This will tie into that program and that fits with the policy. We were told that Gulf Coast would open back when we were preparing the budget. That's where we programmed them to go thinking that we couldn't afford to implement the policy this year, but I would like to see the Youth Relations Deputies kept in the budget and permit me the flexibility to deploy them as we need to to various high schools as threats and -- and the intensity of crimes and activities go up at the high schools. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, one of the things -- what I said just before we took our break is I think he knows better than us how to implement specifies of law enforcement. And I wondered if, like we did last year, it might be more appropriate just to come up with a number we're comfortable with and not try to tell you, okay, we do want this position or don't want it. I -- and I'm not comfortable doing that. You know better where the need is. And if we come up, if there's a dollar figure where everybody can be comfortable, let's do that and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The other thing I want to be careful about, though, is that we don't send a message to the Sheriff or to anybody that we're going to play this game of, you know, ask for more than you want because you know when you get there the first day, they're going to cut a million bucks off the top. And we don't want to, you know, send that message that the gamesmanship is going to go on. And I know that's not what you're suggesting. I'm just saying that might be an unintended consequence if we say, okay, we don't even talk about it. We know you -- we know you fluffed a million bucks in here, so go get rid of it. And I hate to -- I hate to do business that way. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let me assure the board, as I have in private already, to the board members that I visited with, that it has never been the policy of the Collier County Sheriff's Office for as long as I've worked there under the former Sheriff, and my policy is consistent with his, that we program in moneys that we think would give us cushion if you should choose to cut money out of the budget proposal. We've always budgeted what we think we need. And in this case, as I told you, in my private discussions, it took some doing to get below double digit increase as we had last year, 14 percent last year. This year we tried to keep it below ten and I think that Jeannie -- and I've already given her my appreciation. She knocked it down to nine and we found some ways of doing that. And she's going to propose to you a couple of ways of maybe reducing that further. And we've touched on one area already. Perhaps we can push on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and -- and try and get through the elements of the presentation and then condense the meat of the discussion at the end here until we can -- we can arrive at some board direction. Please continue. MS. MYERS: Okay. If I can refer back to that Youth Relations discussion to your budget book, maybe, Commissioner Berry, Pages 66 and 67, there are a couple -- two -- two page graphs there with the middle school criminal activity and the high school criminal activity that the Sheriff was referring to. Gives you some staggering numbers there just as a reference -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- MS. MYERS: -- of why we may need more than one interrelations deputy in the middle schools and the high schools. I just wanted to briefly touch on our position and vacancy rate because that always seemed to be a discussion in years past as it -- as it still -- still is. We did follow board policy and budget, reduce our budget by the four percent vacancy reduct -- attrition factor. And that number that you see there at the bottom is the million seven. That has already been cut from our budget. And, as you can see up above, the current vacancy rate that we are running right now, 1.26 percent, so that's why we -- if you look at the Sheriff certification page, he is still asking for that vacancy, four percent, to be reserved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a part of the overall budget request already as presented? MS. MYERS: No. It has been taken out but he -- on his certification page that is still -- we are still requesting that amount as a reserve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just always a -- a concern to me. A couple years back, we -- we set some aside and it doesn't appear in the Sheriff's budget. It appears just in the general BCC budget. Later in the year, there was a request, you came back and said, gosh, we have a -- some expenses we need here and, you know, we asked you to set that aside. And now, by golly, it's been set aside for us. We -- we expect to be able to use it. And, I mean if -- if you anticipate a need, then put it in your budget is how I feel about that anyway. And if you don't anticipate that, let's not hide it in a reserve fund or the Board of Commissioners, because it -- it balloons up the overall budget but it doesn't show under the Sheriff's budget. And, frankly, I just find that a little frustrating. If we think there's a need there, include it. If we don't, let's not budget it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, currently there's no separate reserve on the general fund side, though, for Sheriff's attrition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I know. It was always lumped in with all other reserves. When we had -- when we had a reserve a couple years ago, we had the $900,000 issue and that was set aside under BCC reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, the board took that money out of our budget proposal that year and said, we'll -- rather than just striking this completely, we'll just reserve it. So, we thought that that's what you would be doing again this year. That's all I'm doing is try to follow along behind what you've set as prior precedent and ask you to reserve that money even though you asked me to remove it from the budget on the front end as attrition money. We're not hiding anything. We just mentioned it. In fact, we brought it to the table. We're not hiding that at all. All I'm saying is just be aware that we've already taken the four percent out because that's what the board policy has been, four percent attrition. Move it up or down. I take that amount out but remember that we're not running the numbers that we've been running the last three years in vacancy factor, that the attrition number is much lower than four percent for the Sheriff's Office. And I'm saying to the board that as short as we are working, that we need all those positions. And if -- if the board deems it appropriate, that we'd ask you to reserve that money in an account that we could come back before you and ask for the money to fill the positions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There -- I think there's an inconsistency here. Mr. Smykowski, obviously, a percent attrition is a financial amount. It's four percent of salaries or is it four percent of -- I mean tell -- it's four percent of what? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Personal Services, which include salaries and benefits. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The vacancy rate shown up here is 1.3 percent of positions. Well, it's -- it's ironic that the two numbers are exact. Eleven positions out of 865 is 1.3 percent vacancy. That's vacancy of positions. We're talking about a percentage of salaries. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For a total cost of personnel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Salaries and expenses. And what I'm curious is if you had -- you may currently have that as of May 27th in positions, but throughout the year in unpaid salaries due to vacancy, what is the number? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what we operate on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not on number of positions not filled. And I don't -- I haven't seen that anywhere in here and that just -- my attention goes to that. So, I understand what you're saying position wise but that's apples and oranges. We're talking about dollars not spent due to attrition as opposed to positions not filled due to attrition. The two are different. So, something you may want to -- may want to rework because I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you give us that number? MS. MYERS: You're correct in that that's a vacancy, the 1.26 as opposed to the Personal Services that like these -- you had said the four percent is taken on, four percent of Personal Services meaning just salaries and benefits. I don't -- we were showing this as a discussion going back to our vacancy rate that has been discussed in the last two years. As far as that number, it would probably actually be less. The point that we were trying to make here is you've already taken four percent. Looking right now, we do not have any current vacancies in our corrections positions or our law enforcement positions. We have more conditional offers so we're so-called stacking positions or offers. Those 11 vacant positions, as the Sheriff was saying, the majority in our dispatch center and they are civilian positions that we are trying to fill and hope to. But as far as that actual percent, the way you -- I -- I could get that for you for wrap-up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because my concern is what happens is at the beginning of the year, as far as the budget says, there's 20 new positions. Now, I understand once you make an offer to someone for an academy, you've committed the balance of the salary for the year. But the time between the start of the fiscal year and the time in which that position is offered is paid in the budget but not paid to the employee. So, I think the attrition rate needs to be based on unused salaried positions, which takes a little more accounting than just vacant positions on a given date. I think we're going to find that your attrition may be closer to that four percent fiscal number than -- than you think. That's -- that's a guess but that's '- MS. MYERS: I can't -- right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- how I'd like to see it figured if you could break that down. MS. MYERS: I can agree with that. Right now, like I said, and that is today and this budget is for October 1 through next -- through September '98. And we -- like I said, we have more conditional offers out there than even the vacancies that we have, so we are not going to have that -- that difference in salaries. They are going to be on the payroll and they are going to be paid. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then I -- if it doesn't show what I need to know '- MS. MYERS: Because this is the picture now, today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Time frame, all those conditional offers are out even though they're -- it's not considered a vacant position then; is that correct? MS. MYERS: Right. It's conditional but all of -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I just have one of you talking? Crystal is talking at the same time. I'm having trouble hearing. MS. MYERS: The conditional offers, they are -- right now we are even hiring people on a conditional offer. They are coming on the payroll and if something falls out of their review in future months until that's completed, then they are on a probationary status and then we would go on to the next person. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From the time they can -- MS. MYERS: So, we're almost on a -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From the time a condition '- MS. MYERS: -- someone leaves, we can fill it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From the time a conditional offer is expended, until someone accepts it and come on -- comes on board, is that a day, is that a week, is that month? I assume there's some time frame in between. MS. MYERS: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know how long that time frame is? MS. MYERS: It can be where -- be anywhere from two weeks to two months. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it would usually be at least two weeks. MS. MYERS: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: During that time frame, those positions are not considered vacant; is that right? MS. MYERS: No. They're considered vacant but right now we only have 11. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My point is we don't have the fiscal accounting of the vacancies. What we have is a numerical accounting of how many vacancies there are at a given point and the two are different. I'm asking for just the fiscal accounting dollar wise of what wasn't paid in salaries that was budgeted as if 876 positions were filled from day one in October to the end of September the next year. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, that's a different presentation. That's end of year, we've got an excess, a surplus in moneys that we provide back to you or we may have spent some money on overtime additional to what we had budgeted because we tried to fill those positions, especially in dispatch. As I explained the anecdotal situation to you before where we -- where you have a dispatcher that won't work the overtime because of family concerns, but you -- you wind up paying a Deputy Sheriff, maybe even a sergeant, whatever you can get. I need somebody to sit at that console, dispatch calls, receive complaints. I try to take the least expensive route. It could be a Community Service Deputy, but they're still making more money than the dispatcher. So, what we're doing is -- I -- I haven't come to you today with an accounting and an audit of what we spent this year to date. I -- I can't testify to you today on that point. What I can say is we have 11 position vacancies. The conditional offers are a legal device set up by the Federal Government. A conditional offer is you fill that position. And we have more people under a conditional offer right now than we have positions available. So, those positions are filled. They -- they are in different stages of being processed. So, a civilian won't have to have a physical exam as a certified Deputy Sheriff will. A civilian won't have to have certain other elements. They won't have to have the extensive background investigation, but we have drug screens to perform, polygraphs to administer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are those considered vacant when all that's going on? SHERIFF HUNTER: No. Those are considered filled in the sense that a conditional offer exists and I can't back out of the arrangement -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you're not yet -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- point for the government. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- paying for them; is that correct? SHERIFF HUNTER: But the body is not there and we're not actually paying them at that moment, right. That would be correct. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the point I was trying to make before and that's where some of that attrition, even though there's only 11 vacancies, quote, there are still going to be some other things where for a two-week span or a three-week span -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Or whatever that is. It could be longer. Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. SHERIFF HUNTER: We're not actually paying that money at that -- that point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Interestingly enough, two weeks happens to be almost exactly four percent of a year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. The -- out of that was just simply that it was -- it was -- it's apples and oranges. Four percent attrition that we talked about is not the same vacancy rate that you show up there. So, the two shouldn't be on the same page if we're talking about attrition. That -- that's my point. Number of positions vacant has nothing to do with the attrition and the way that we -- we calculate it, so... COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- and you'll give us that number at wrap-up and apples to apples for us. MS. MYERS: I think where we're confused, too, is this analysis was -- was to kind of go back and show us this year when we had this discussion last year. The 876 authorized -- and we are now currently paying in paychecks 865 people. We only have 11 vacant positions regardless of the discussion on conditional offers or whatever. That's a different picture. Because what we -- the picture we're trying to present here is even fiscal year '97 our budget was reduced four percent for attrition. We are not running at that right now. We're running at 1.26. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where you're wrong. MS. MYERS: And to get it next year -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where -- that's where you're missing it. You are running at a number other than -- you're running vacant positions at 1.3 percent. Your not running fiscal dollars at 1.3 percent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me try. Here -- this is the way -- see if I'm -- see if this -- we're saying the same thing. I think we are. The BCC policy is for four percent of the total cost of positions; salaries and bennies. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's in services. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you're -- yeah. And you're giving us 1.26 of human bodies. I would like you to translate 1.26 from human bodies to total cost of the bodies, so then we'd have apples to apples. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It goes deeper than that because 1.26 is based on a snapshot taken Hay 27th, 1997. I'm talking about 12 months or as many months up to date of unfilled positions, of salaried projected positions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, there's two parts to it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My whole point, Jeannie, in raising the question, if a conditional offer, it it -- if it had been -- was no longer considered vacant, according to what the Sheriff just said, and there may be a two-week span between the time that's issued and when they come in. It may be longer. But during that two weeks, it's no longer considered vacant but you're still not paying anybody. And, so, this snapshot isn't the same. It's what Commissioner Hancock said. You do that the whole year on that two weeks, as Commissioner Norris said, for all these different positions would be roughly four percent. Now, you figure in your overall vacancies as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll get to that at -- at another point. MS. MYERS: Right. We'll equate the 11 vacant positions to a dollar amount and come up with that number -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. MS. MYERS: -- for you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, no, no. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the part that I'm saying but there's more to it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. The 11 vacant positions, which are dispatcher or whatever, have a certain annual salary but that -- that's not the point. The point is out of 876 positions, a great number of them at one point during the year were not being paid. And it may be less than a great -- it may be a hundred of them at one point during the year was not receiving a salary. MS. MYERS: But that's this current year we're in. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here's -- here's what we're going to know. Look at your Personal Services Budget under law enforcement, five twenty-one. Personal Services, $30,459,500. That's for this current year's budget. We won't know how much attrition you have until September the 30th when you can finally calculate how much dollars you actually expended during that fiscal year and subtract it from your Personal Services that you had budgeted. And if that figure is four percent, then we're right on track. But you won't know that. You can estimate it. You can track it month by month and extrapolate if you want, but you won't know that figure for a fact until September 30th. Now, you can look at '96. SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that over time -- SHERIFF HUNTER: And remember that last year we didn't get the four percent. It's not reserved somewhere. We haven't been spending that money. Whatever vacancy we've been carrying is vacant, is true vacancy. But we'll give you an end accounting of what that vacancy was and what the moneys were that were expended. All I was trying to say with the overtime example, as you know, we're -- we are spending some of that -- some moneys that we may realize from excess vacancy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have mitigating reasons on - on overtime because there's some positions that can't go unfilled. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those need to even be separated from the ones that are, you are internal shifting. But, yeah, I understand there's some mitigation to that unlike if the secretary or the assistant is not there that day, they're just not there. You have some positions that don't qualify for that, but that 1.3 percent is on the wrong page when you put it next to what we call four percent attrition. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, the reason it's there, once again, is because we're talking about positions and the four percent board policy, we wanted you to be aware of what the actual vacancy rate is today just looking at gross numbers of positions. It's not looking at individual positions and saying that this person's paid X number of money and as a result of that, we're carrying X number of dollars now excess in the budget. We haven't done that. That's not -- we're not at that point of the year yet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think we beat that horse. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We beat that horse to death. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: I agree. We can go on. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Please. MS. MYERS: The best point and the last point I will make at this point -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a great point. We -- this is an old, old, old sales technique called reduce to the ridiculous. It's like you can buy this washing machine for ten cents a day. I mean, it's the same thing. It's the old -- it's -- it's an old sales scheme from 50 years ago. You're not fooling anybody with it. MS. MYERS: Based on the millage rates -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Undeterred, she plods on. MS. MYERS: -- on the $100,000 taxable value home, the cost of the Sheriff's Office services is $183.89 per year, which equates to about fifty cents a day, the cost of the Naples Daily News. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, that's an interesting analogy. MS. MYERS: Take that as you may -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. That's good. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She looked like the man who needs a washing machine. MS. MYERS: It's late in the day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's their operating budget? MS. MYERS: If you subscribe. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's the greatest value here? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How would you rather spend your fifty cents? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, if I cancel my subscription -- no. Anyway, never mind. MS. MYERS: Right. The Sunday paper is more, so I'd have to say, I guess the Monday through Friday issue -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Paying more for the paper than the -- MS. MYERS: -- you'd be able to pay for your law enforcement service for a year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not just the increase, the total. MS. MYERS: The total. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And to show you the value of this, I sold a $1100 vacuum cleaner for pennies a day. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No one needs an $1100 vacuum cleaner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A 15-year payment plan on that. MS. MYERS: Yes, I can -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was a good thought, anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Thank you, anyway. You've got to have a little levity throughout the day. Okay. We've all received the -- the complete budget that the Sheriff's Office has prepared and we've got our staff summary and now have the additional highlighted information. I think the best way to start this off is to pick up where I left off with Mr. Drury. If we went through item by item on every single dollar of additional expense in your budget, I am confident you could justify it three ways to Sunday and that it -- if I have the money sitting around, it would all be a good idea. But the bank's overextended again this year. My opinion in last -- is last year we took a 14 percent hit in this budget with the understanding, and maybe we just spoke it and it wasn't agreed upon, but the understanding that the following years we were not going to see that level or near that level of increase. That's what -- and maybe it was our spoken desire, but regardless, I think we tried to send a message that 14 percent one year and coming back with 14 percent the next year weren't going to fly. As much as your efforts are -- are appreciated, ten percent isn't a heck of a lot better. I got a lot of reaction when tax bills went out last year and people didn't buy the answer, call the Sheriff. You know, I'm still -- I'm still held responsible for that in a lot of people's eyes. And I have to look this year at avoiding raising those taxes for a second year. So, I express to -- to the Sheriff that I'd hoped for four percent and he came in at ten, so somewhere between the two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was it ten or, according to this sheet from Mr. Smykowski, it's 11.8 percent? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's Page 6 in our summary book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe that's the general fund impact. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. And the summary on A-80 shows a total increase of 10.4 percent inclusive of the board paid component as well as the 111 component, so that's the distinction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we have to look at the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 10.4 overall on the -- on the part where Mr. Hancock is saying where the bank's coming up short, we're looking at 11.8 percent. Anyway, I agree with you, somewhere between perhaps four and ten. Whether it's 10.4 or 11.8, it's -- it's -- after last year being 14, it's an awful lot of money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let -- let me make sure. You know, this -- on Page 6 relates strictly to general fund only and it's 11.8 increase. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, what then, quickly, is the increase in -- in the unincorporated? MS. MYERS: 1.4 percent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the numbers don't jive. On Page A-8 of our summary, it says the general -- transfer general fund increase s 10.9 percent. And on Page 6, it says 11.8. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, again, that's adding the general fund transfer plus the board paid component on A-8. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the board paid component in this case has an increase of 58.5 percent? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- about that in general. How -- how s that board paid component in the Sheriff's budget different from the million dollars for postage in the tax collector's budget? Or that I suggest -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 100,000 in postage for the tax collector. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. 100,000 -- a million dollars in stamps. Sorry. Thank you. $100,000 in -- in postage for tax collector. Why is one in the constitutional officer's budget and one in a sort of other, Board of County Commissioners' budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I don't have a good answer for that. We -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The interpretation of what the statute says we're required to do for the tax collector. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. The tax collector, we did research that. I promised you an answer by the end of the day. Chapter 197 identifies postage shall be paid out of the general fund of each local governing board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just still think that -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Whether or not we show it in tax collector board paid or other GHA, I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it would be little more straightforward if it was in the tax collector's budget like this a million three is in the Sheriff's budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just to get us off the mark here, I -- I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of five percent, six percent, somewhere in there, increase is fair. I think that obviously the Sheriff needs to increase some of the road patrol, wants to take care of -- put some deputies in school and doing those things and I don't think we need to get into arguing over individual ones. I agree with you. But I think as we look at 11.8 percent, that's just -- we can't afford it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, last year I made the mistake of trying to get inside the budget and justify this position versus that position. And I realized how insufficient my qualifications were in that arena, so I agree with you. As I looked at what we need to try and do to give the taxpayers what we told them we would try to accomplish this year, I was in the same arena. I was in a 5.5 percent increase for the Sheriff's budget and -- although I was hoping for four. That's where I think we need to start, quite frankly. And without saying it restricts this or restricts that or where it goes or where it doesn't go. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody do the math for me and tell me how much -- how many dollars difference that is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's still two and a half million dollars additional. That's a two and a half -- two million, four hundred fifty-four thousand, a hundred ninety-three five. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two and a half million dollars over last year's budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, for the -- the sake of -- of comparison, we talk about five percent additional. Which number are we basing that on there? Are we basing it on the proposed or the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. '97 adopted times 105.5 will give you the new figure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The total adopted inclusive of the one eleven piece as well? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The number I was using was the forty-four million six hundred and twenty-one that was adopted last year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Talking just the general fund here, the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. Correct. And 1.05, that's two million four fifty-four and some change additional. I mean, that's still a healthy, healthy increase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That incorporated both the expenses paid by the BCC and general fund 001. We're lumping those together. Is that correct, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, the total increase of the general fund, 001, again is two million four hundred fifty-four thousand one hundred and ninety-three thousand (sic)? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what's the math on the cut? What's the dollar amount of -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What cut? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The reduction in the amount of requested increase. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to be really careful with that because we always get painted like we're cutting the budget there. I want to make sure -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cutting the request. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's like the Hedicare cuts -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that were lower increases. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much -- what is the reduction in the requested increase? What's the dollar amount? The Sheriff is asking for X, we're offering Y. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's asking for $5,248,200. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we're -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: That equates to 11.8 percent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct. So, Mr. Smykowski, you're doing the math for me, aren't you? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a savings -- with the number we just threw out, that's a savings, Commissioner Hac'Kie, of 2,448,000, almost two four forty-nine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's mostly right here on this Page 6 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that top line. But I see the math yourself -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The number I think we really need to focus on is how much of an increase over last year is that and it's two and a half million. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The one thing the Sheriff made me aware of when we met is that there were a given set of years in which things were kept very lean by his agency, in the two to three percent arena. And as much as that was commendable, I almost wish that hadn't happened because it wouldn't have put things behind the eight ball. But I think looking at 14 percent increase last year, looking at a five and a half percent increase this year, I think within the parameters of -- of the tax rates that we need to be concerned with, I think we're doing what is expected and what's possible. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. That's three. SHERIFF HUNTER: I missed the last comment or -- or a private discussion -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- was it? No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. That was -- SHERIFF HUNTER: By Commissioner Hancock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we met, you discussed there were a period of years in which you kept things very, very low at two and three percent increases and that that created a -- in essence a backlog, if you will, of -- of things that you needed to get done. And I was under the impression last year that we were really resolving and taking care of a lot of those even though we were still going to be a little bit behind, so I think in addition to a three percent or a four percent increase for personnel services, to add another two to three percent on top of that for expansion of the agency to a 5.5 percent total increase is -- is trying to meet that desire obviously not as much as you would like but -- but I think we can answer to the public that -- that we're trying to be fiscally responsible and trying to help, not penalize you further for the lean years, quite frankly. SHERIFF HUNTER: I understand the board can do whatever the board desires and you are somewhat behind the eight ball yourself because of prior board actions when those years came around where we had two percent increases. It wasn't by choice. We tried to fit the proposal to the -- to the adopted board policy. There was six percent caps issued. There were five percent caps. There was a year where we had $780 lump sum salary pay adjustments and a number of different devices were used by prior boards to try to keep costs in check in a growth county, one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. I would -- I would request of the board to let's take a look at what is being said. We just gave you an overhead presentation. It was brief, I know. We touched on as many of the priority issues as we could to try to help you get your arms around the budget so you'd understand what the considerations are. If you cut two, three, four percent out of the budget, a lot of the things go away that need to be done infrastructure. I've heard you talking about it all week and for the -- for the last many weeks you're going to be taking away the ability of the agency to provide the services in the manner in which they need to be provided in the future. I don't see how we get to a number. I know what you want to accomplish back to rollback or below rollback so that we can continue to have below millage neutral budgets. I'm not sure how as a constitutional officer I can continue to perform the duties of the office each year, as we have been for the last many, with such proposed policies adopted. I'm willing to work with you and I -- and -- and we certainly have some ways, as I discussed with you in private, that moneys could be cut; go to anniversary date pay for adjustments, wage adjustments. We have just received our actuarial study for our health benefit program that identifies about $200,000 additional that can be gained in the budget that we can take out, excise, redact down, another proposed phase in of positions that we would pursue as best we can that might yield another quarter of a million. We can work with you but I don't see the efficacy of adopting a percentage reduction to get to a rollback number or below rollback as being in the best interest of the public. And that's not what the taxpayers are telling me, and I'm elected at large. And I at least would ask you to wait for the town halls to be completed. Let's hear some comments from the public, let's not adopt yet a tentative millage that would force you into a corner. I would ask that you work with us as we've attempted with all alacrity to work with you and let's see if we can't come to a better number. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But, Sheriff, if you take the two increases, this one and the one of last year, that means in 24 months it's a 20 percent increase. Are you saying you can't live on that? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, and we had increases of 24 percent and the Lee County Sheriff's Office had 42 percent, and these are growth counties and these are growth years, and the onus is on us, and this is a tough position that you serve in and I understand that 14 percent is a lot. Nine percent is a lot when we've had two percent years and six percent years. But we are trying to maintain pace with the growing area, with the visitor traffic and the Hurricane Andrew immigrants that came to Collier County. We're trying to keep it safe. And I -- I continue to certify to you that it is safe here. We're below the crime rate of the State of Florida. We're below the crime rate of our city. It's a safe place. We want to keep it safe. But I can't continue to ignore those forces and the mechanisms that play on law enforcement and corrections. And I -- I'm asking you to at least give it some time to develop and let's see what the taxpayers believe, because the reaction that I've had from the first two town halls has been absolutely overwhelming in favor of the budget without cut because they understand what the issues are and they know that you're faced with some very tough decisions. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff, I understand -- and I don't think any of us are suggesting we compromise safety so that we can meet rollback and -- and I'm certainly not. But I've got to agree with Commissioner Norris. I mean that since last budget season, 20 plus percent is pretty healthy. Before last year, it was 38 million and some change and now we're -- the request is almost 50 million. And, so, I -- I know you're trying to be very careful to meet some of the -- the tough challenges and the growth and so on, but an additional almost $12 million in two years' time is a ton of money. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let's -- let's put it back -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- if I may -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- let me just say one thing, that -- because I think that if we're not trying to evaluate safety issues based on rollback tax rates, then we need to approach our cuts from a different perspective than -- than we are because the analysis that we just undertook to suggest this what, $2.8 million cut from the requested budget is based on, what does it take to get us to millage neutral? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what it's based on for me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that -- this -- well, then what is it based on? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's based on the fact that I don't think in a year's time or in two year -- two budget seasons an 11 to $12 million increase is necessary, but well over 20 percent, twenty-two point something percent. And I can't do the math in my head. I don't know if that's necessary to maintain the same level of safety. I want to maintain a level of safety but I'm not suggesting that we compromise that. And I -- I'm frustrated if -- if anybody is suggesting that. I don't think any of us are. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then how did you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we're talking -- we are talking financial numbers here, not safety issues, or not rollback numbers. We're talking an 11 or $12 million increase since a year ago when we first started the budget season. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I think that there's some cuts that are available here in the Sheriff's budget but what I don't want us to do is to arbitrarily say here's what we need to get to millage neutral, go find a cut that will get us there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what we're saying, so you should feel comfortable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor do I. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, thank you, but I don't. SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm afraid I've missed the point also. I think you -- Commissioner Constantine, you make your own point when you say you're not trying to reduce it to a certain number but you can't base it on anything except that 24 or 22 or 20 percent is a lot for two years. Remember that we had wage adjustments that we phased in, a very significant hit. You all were right there standing with us and taking that -- shouldering that responsibility and I appreciate that and so do the members of the agency. That was a significant increase in the budget. 14 percent seems like a lot until you begin to analyze what -- what was driving that. For -- for the last ten years, we've had an average of 11 homicides per year, per year, in Collier County. I had eight homicides in Hay this year. And we already had four on the books. We're not even halfway through the year yet. Things were -- you know, a lot can change in two years in law enforcement and corrections. A lot can change as a county commissioner. We try to respond to those changes. We try to respond to the trends. We try to be as scientific as we can about it. We try to be as professional as we can about it. But to say that I'm adopting a number that's in my head and this is what I want you to come back to, Sheriff, regardless of what you see, regardless of what is on the horizon, regardless of what may happen to Collier County next year, would not be prudent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is this. You stood up a few minutes ago and -- and suggested that we're going to compromise safety in order to meet rollback. I don't think that we're compromising safety if we go less -- with an amount less than $50 million. A -- a year ago we were looking at the prior year's at 38 million and you're telling me that in 18 months or so in time, the only way we can maintain the same level of safety to the public is by increasing from 38 million to 50 million. I'm saying I respectfully disagree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To not -- unfortunately, there comes a point in all of this discussion that it gets reduced to numbers, because when people write the check for their property taxes, it's numbers. When people get their cost-of-living increase on a fixed income from Social Security, they're very small numbers. We're looking -- I guess we talk about growth as if growth stipulates the -- the need for higher and higher increases in services. But we're -- we're ignoring one point, and that is that every year new construction and increased valuation gives us a dollar amount higher than the growth rate. Our population only grows at about four to five percent but our revenue grows at a constant millage rate of around seven percent. So, by never touching the millage rate, we have higher revenues than the growth rate. We should not be raising taxes. We should not be raising the millage rate as long as we amortize our future expenses appropriately and plan for it appropriately. Every now and then wewre not going to do that. Wewre humans. Wewll make mistakes. But you have an agency that no matter how much we give or donwt allocate to the Sheriffws Office, people are going to be murdered, people are going to get hurt and therews never enough money to ever keep that from happening. So, itws tough for me to sit here and say youwve -- you say therews been -- therews been too many murders already, which implies to me and maybe to the people listening that if we donwt appropriate the amount -- the proper amount, wewre allowing or encouraging more and more murders to occur. SHERIFF HUNTER: Then you would be misleading the public, Commissioner Hancock, because thatws not what the Sheriff is saying to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. SHERIFF HUNTER: What the Sheriff is saying to you, Mr. Hancock, is that with eight murders on the books in May and the overtime expended from forensics and technical services collecting evidence at those scenes and the investigator spending overtime and we having to do our part of the process, including taking it to prosecution, means that wewre going to spend more money. Not that Iwm going to prevent murders if I put more people on the street. Thatws not what I said, so please donwt misinterpret my comments. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I appreciate that clarification because I -- you know, I do -- SHERIFF HUNTER: That clarification shouldnwt be necessary. When I made my presentation, I said those very comments to you during my presentation. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Well, then, Iim wrong. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: It doesnlt matter. Letls stick to the -- to the numbers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What you need -- SHERIFF HUNTER: If we -- if we can hold open this conversation for the summer and let some of the town hall meetings congeal a bit and see what the taxpayers believe, if they see what we see and if theylre -- theylre living in the neighborhoods just as you are, and Iim having to write checks also. Iim not suggesting an overwhelming incredible amount of money thatls going to break the bank. Since welre using bank analogies today, at $8, my understanding of what was said, at approximately $8 per annum to the taxpayer to fund the budget of Collier County, thatls not going to break the people I know. And Iim not saying that every dollar of that is needed. I just told you that we have about 900,000 that we came in prepared to talk about today. Because of board policy, you have adopted a policy to pay out October 1 for the wage adjustments. I think we can do better than that. I think we can save a lot of dollars and itls in the public interest to adopt the Sheriffls Office program that welve had for many, many years and we tried to explain to the board that that is a cost savings. We can save about $500,000 -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Can I -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- by going -- just using our program. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Can I pause you right there, because if what Iim hearing is, is that you -- you can find a cut of maybe a million dollars -- I mean you said $900,000 -- you might be able to find a way to reduce your request by a million dollars, the board is so far talking about asking you to reduce it by almost $3 million, so we could -- we could reduce the discussion here to a $2 million or -- I mean, I'm just trying to broker here a little bit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure where the $3 million came from. The number we had talked about was two -- SHERIFF HUNTER: 2.4? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and change, yeah. SHERIFF HUNTER: And mine is based on tangible numbers and programs that I see right now, and just adjusting your policy slightly, we can come up with about a million. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, Commissioner Hac'Kie, if you're suggesting two, I think we're getting close to the right neighborhood. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what I'm identifying is -- is -- is I did the math and you guys interrupted and let Mr. Smykowski do the math, so let me ask you. The request was for a $5,250,000 increase. The board is suggesting that instead of that, we would give you a $2,454,000 increase. So, the cut, even though we don't like calling it a cut, but the cut is about two million eight. Am I doing that right? He wanted five million -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- we're going to give him 2.4, so we're giving him 2.8 less than what he wants. He says he can find 900 of that pretty easily. So, there's a $2 million spread that we're looking for here to find out -- if we were going to ask him to cut everything you guys are suggesting, he needs to find another $2 million in addition to the 900,000 he's already told us he can find. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The general fund increase is 4.8 million. Look at your Adopted Budget number -- SHERIFF HUNTER: That's what we're asking, 4.8 million. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the total total, using the BCC paid expense, is 5.25. SHERIFF HUNTER: Again -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, 5 million '- SHERIFF HUNTER: We're responding to the policies of the board. The board has said we won't construct you additional space, so go find some rental space. Those are costs paid by the board that I didn't -- I didn't ask you for. I would much prefer the permanent hard space on this campus where we can talk to one another in a common professional manner as a law enforcement office and to get our job done much more efficiently. But those costs to the board that Mr. Smykowski has to add back in because that's a policy of the board to account for it this way, a constitutional cost, will cause you to get to a different figure. All I've asked for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Get that out and tell me what's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is 4.8. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 4.8 is the general fund number and -- and you guys are saying you'd be willing to give 2.4 of that? Was that what you all are saying? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was -- roughly, that's the numbers we're talking about, yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: $2.4 million increase in the Sheriff's budget, correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, you're saying you can find 900 of that 2.4 that they're asking you not to -- SHERIFF HUNTER: With an adjustment to board policy, if you adjust your wage policy, pay out anniversary instead of October 1, and with the new -- just recently, a week and a half ago, we have our actuarial study complete. It wasn't available Hay 1 when I submitted the budget. They say that we can take about $200,000 out of the proposal for health -- the health benefit program -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, so far '- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- and then phase in positions for another two -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So far, unofficially, you -- you're being asked to find another million and a half. And I'm asking you for your reaction if you have to cut another million and a half, where is the first place you're going to go? SHERIFF HUNTER: Those are programs. I'd have to look at the program budget. Could -- obviously, mobile digitals will be postponed for another year. We started looking at that in 1983. We'd just postpone it again and then we've paid the recurring costs of dispatchers when we can find them. So, we add in some overtime money. We'll have to. We would have to work on that. But, again, that's -- those are tangible things. All I'm asking you to do is, well, let's work on that. Let's work together on finding some tangible things. If you want to delve into the budget and look at the way that the moneys are being expended by law enforcement in Collier County, a safe county, then we can do that. But let's not just adopt a number because that's the number you felt today was the right number. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm writing checks with other people's money, Sheriff. SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm writing checks up here with other people's money in these decisions. And it's those 180,000 people, those 200,000 people, we're trying to respond to. You know, to say that -- that public safety is the -- the main or only consideration, I think ignores that, so there has to be a number. SHERIFF HUNTER: Don't misquote me. I did not say it's the main. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There has to be -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I said -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- a number that we arrive at. SHERIFF HUNTER: Absolutely, and we will arrive at it. We've already spent approximately six months getting to 55 million working as a professional organization, providing you with the numbers, background, detail and justification to demonstrate need for law enforcement, corrections and bailiff services in Collier County to keep this safe place. This -- a safe place, and all I'm doing right now is suggesting that perhaps rather than just pulling a number out of the air which is what I see right now and because I haven't heard any detail on how we arrived at that, why don't we permit this to congeal over the summer, let me get the town hall meetings, let me get out there, as we have been doing, and talk to people and find out what the taxpayers say and want. I'm responding to at large taxpayers as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you about the town hall meetings. What are you telling them? I mean surely -- SHERIFF HUNTER: You just saw what we're telling them. We're giving them the whole budget presentation. We make the book available. We have condensed that into a readable format that gives them the numbers, the 55 million. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my concern is this. You know, you could go to a town hall meeting and say -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty cents a day is what they're saying. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I need this -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'll correct that; $8 a year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's your staff number. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's even better because if you amortize that over a period of $365 -- or 365 days in a year at $8 for the year, it's going to be an even better number. I'll use that number. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Whatever number you use, I mean you're -- you're saying to the people, I -- I need to ask the Board of Commissioners for this amount of money to do these things to keep you safe. Well, they don't know what you're doing with that money really. I mean they -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Oh, I think -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- really don't know. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, now you're -- now you're misinterpreting my town hall meetings. Don't misrepresent -- unless you're going to come to one. Tonight is East Naples. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. So, what are you doing? SHERIFF HUNTER: You'll hear tonight what we're going to say. In fact, this will be a good opportunity for an infomercial. We're going to have it at Thomasson -- on Thomasson Drive. It starts at seven and what we do is run through the whole budget detail as much as -- and as little as the people want to hear, but we try to give them a sense of what does this mean in terms of actual practice on the streets? What kind of visibility are you going to get? You won't get as much as you had in 1985, 1987, 1989, but you'll have what we can provide. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, may I just suggest that We -- We '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait. What? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I haven't gotten to my point yet. The point is the people really don't know what you're doing with your money in detail. They don't know. SHERIFF HUNTER: They don't know what the board does with its money in detail. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly correct. SHERIFF HUNTER: We do the best we can to tell them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And that's fine and that's -- that's part of what you're supposed to do. But, you know, what if instead of $50 million you went out to the town hall meetings and said 75 or a hundred? They wouldn't know. They wouldn't know whether that's an appropriate number. The point is they don't know what is an appropriate number. They just don't know. I don't know. You don't -- you may not feel -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I do know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it probably is. SHERIFF HUNTER: I spent six months getting -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's your job to know. know. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- to the appropriate number. It's my job to COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But it's our job to try to arrive at a number for you that we feel would be one that will allow you to do what you need to do at a -- at an appropriate figure, and that's why I've been talking to you here today -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I appreciate -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- otherwise -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we didn't -- if you didn't come in here to talk to us, you might raise it to -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Oh, I came -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- a hundred million dollars. I don't know. SHERIFF HUNTER: I came to talk. And I didn't give them a $75 million figure because that's not appropriate because it would be unprofessional of me to propose that. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If that's not appropriate -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I went -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- how can you say that this is appropriate? SHERIFF HUNTER: I was an unopposed candidate for Sheriff last year. I think there's some level of trust, that we're doing the right thing, we're doing a good thing, we're doing an honest thing. To suggest that this isn't an honest budget, which is perhaps what we're hearing -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no, no. I'm not trying to say -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, you're mischaracterizing us. SHERIFF HUNTER: I think the board's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not what I'm trying to say. SHERIFF HUNTER: If you come with me to the town hall meetings, you'll hear the presentation, you'll hear the comments, you'll get an opportunity to get a feel for what the taxpayers are saying about the Collier County Sheriff's Office budget. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It still ignores the central point that I'm trying to make is that -- that we don't know because we only get exposed to this for a short period of time, precisely to the penny what it will take you to run your organization the way you want to do it, but that's not our business in the first place. That's yours. What we have to do is try to figure out what's appropriate for you to do the job as in -- and to represent the taxpayers. That's what -- who we're representing here today is the taxpayers to make sure that we help you get the most law enforcement for the taxpayer dollar. That's our job. SHERIFF HUNTER: And we're with you on that. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: All right. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's exactly what we want to do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate -- further demonstrate Commissioner Norris' point is if we're using the $8 a year per person example at $50 million, you could have a $75 million budget and say that's only $12 a year, a buck a month. And -- and -- I mean, again, to your -- your average bear, myself included, what's the difference, a buck, seventy-five cents, fifty cents? Great. It all sounds wonderful but it doesn't have anything to do with the big picture of 50 million or 75 million. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That wouldn't be quite right. SHERIFF HUNTER: $8 for the whole budget as I -- is my understanding for the Board of County Commissioners included. I'm -- I'm not suggesting that $8 is some easily swallowed pill but it's not a poison pill either. It's a -- it's a -- an example of a plan necessary to keep Collier County safe. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- SHERIFF HUNTER: And I believe -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- may I make one particular suggestion if I can and let's -- why don't we poll the board and see where we're at? We can have the discussion well past your 7:00 time for your town hall meeting and still perhaps not progress. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can. There's one point that -- in all of this. If you ask the average person what did you pay in property taxes last year, they'll know within a couple hundred bucks. They don't know to the penny. They don't carry that amount in their head. But this board has the opportunity to run budgets to look at the trends of our departments, of constitutional officers, and try and make sure that trend is in line with the community. In '94, 6.3 percent increase, in '95, 6.3 percent increase, in '96, 2.5, in '97, 14.6, in '98, 9.6 proposed. That is the highest trend of any constitutional officer in any agency in Collier County that I'm aware of. That is where we arrive at a number. When we try and look at what is consistent both trendwise and dollarwise with what the community expects on their tax bill, you're part of a greater whole, like it or not. So, that's part of where we arrive at that is the -- the public trusts us to know that history, to review it and make sure it is consistent with what the community is asking for. Your town hall meetings will touch what percentage of -- of people in this community; two percent? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I -- I think that would be offensive to the Naples Daily News that covers those. I think that it's at least 35,000 but how many of those are taxpayers? I don't know. What I'm suggesting is a little bit different. You can look at trends, how much has been allocated to the Sheriff's Office, not what was requested but how much was allocated. And you could suggest. I didn't believe, logically, but I think you could suggest to the public that that's going to determine how much we allocate to the Sheriff's Office for the next ensuing year. And that might be five percent because the average has been six percent a year. But that doesn't take into consideration any of the changes that have occurred in Collier County. It doesn't take into any -- any consideration on the intensity, violence, volume of crime, what is happening out on the streets and in the correctional facilities. What I'm suggesting is perhaps a little bit different than what you are suggesting. I'm suggesting that it's nice to have this trend information. We provide it to you because that's what you've asked for from time to time. And we've learned over a period of years that that's what boards are interested in. But that doesn't give you the whole story. It doesn't tell you how many times a person is picking up the phone and asking for services from the Sheriff's Office, how many times that's going to deal with a murder, how many times that's going to deal with a robbery, how labor intensive those types of crimes are to investigate. It doesn't give you any that of information. What I'm trying to convey to you today is some of that information. If you choose to make a decision based on artificial trend information that doesn't take into consideration any of the variables intervening over the years, then so be it, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say 35,000 people come to your town hall meetings? SHERIFF HUNTER: No. Indirectly, I suppose you'd say, since it's reported in the papers of this county, including Marco Island and the Everglades Echo and Golden Gate Gazette. No, I did not say that 35,000 people -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- attend the meetings. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard that number and I -- SHERIFF HUNTER: No. No. Our meetings would be a little bit better attended than this but, typically, there's a lot of good questions. We go into a lot of detail and we give the answers the best we can and it's all honest answers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think, Commissioner Constantine, you suggested that we poll the board. On this, much like issues of Social Services, we can't win the war of sound bites because it's not popular to do anything other than meet the, quote-unquote, needs of law enforcement or the needs of others. But there's this little thing I keep reminding myself, and that is that the one real statistic out there is people's ability to pay increased taxes. Who do we penalize? Who do we charge more than they have the ability to pay to live in this county? And -- and I think that's a very real consideration. And that's why we have to arrive at a number we're comfortable with. There are a lot of people in this county that could afford the ten percent increase. There's a good number that can't, so we've got to do something to address those needs -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Before you vote -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let me just make one -- just another -- a balance to that is that the same people who cannot afford that increase are the people who are in the greatest need of service. And, frankly, the people who are going to be paying for the increase are those who don't make the greatest demand on the system. But -- but to take away service in the community is a very frightening concept to me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not suggesting taking anything away. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He just told you that if -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioner Hac'Kie has hit on exactly the point. This has been an economic discussion. If you -- if you take away the -- the ability of county government to raise the revenues and pay for the services, you push the cost back on the individual. What we're going to see is individuals, instead of paying the property tax next year, they're going to be told, look, we're not going to fund you for public safety costs, go and buy the bars for your window, go and buy the alarms for your house, go get yourself a big dog. That's -- that's what you're talking about. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Come on, Sheriff Hunter. You think if we don't give you an 11.8 percent increase this year, people are going to have to put bars on -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Very dramatic -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- their house next year? SHERIFF HUNTER: -- commissioner, very dramatic. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not nearly as dramatic -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I asked for 9.6 percent -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't mind me -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- not 11 percent. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- finishing my comment, not nearly as dramatic as bars and dogs. Who's being dramatic? SHERIFF HUNTER: Look around you, commissioner. Look -- why don't you tour some of the industrial parks? Come ride with me and I'll show you the bars on the windows. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And why don't we take the people on fixed income and parade them in front of your town hall meeting and ask them if they can afford a 10 percent increase? I mean which group are we talking about? The answer is we're talking about all of them and we have to consider all of them in these decisions. SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioner Hancock, the whole discussion on Marco Island is about one small element of people paying more taxes to fund all of the services of Collier County, the same discussion as was occurring in Pelican Bay. That is the nature of the beast. We know that the moneys that are being raised and the revenues being raised by the people who can pay the taxes are going to service areas outside their domain in Immokalee and Everglades City and Golden Gate and various other areas of this county. That's the way it works and we all know that. I'm not suggesting that we run people to the poor house to fund public safety budgets or the whole budget of Collier County. All I'm asking is that the board take the position that instead of adopting some number out of the air, let's hear what the public comment is, not on the first workshop cut. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to comment that -- that Commissioner Hac'Kie's comment here shortly ago when she said we were taking something away. I -- I really find it difficult to understand how we're taking anything away by granting a two-and-a-half million dollar increase. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's called growth. The community has grown. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, and so has -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In some -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're proposing to give more, not take away, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That -- that sounds nice but it's not true in reality. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's more than the community has grown percentage wise. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize you're not trying to take anything away from the people who can't afford to do this, but I don't appreciate the suggestion that we're somehow trying to come to a place where there's going to be dogs and bars required. I mean, neither one of us are at that extreme and we're trying to find a place in the middle and 11.8 percent increase again this year isn't -- isn't it. SHERIFF HUNTER: I haven't said what you just said. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All I'm saying is these are hidden costs. If you say we're not going to adopt the tax base to fund the budget, the -- the cost just comes back to the individual. They're still going to try to maintain some level of safety whether they purchase private security services, bars for the windows, which are happening, and all of the environmental designs that your -- your development park -- department is working on right now, if you'll look, include bars and fences with spikes on top. That's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'll tell you what. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- crime prevention through environmental design. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Now, you can push that cost back to the individual and let them do their own thing out there or you can help. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what. I worked in one of those industrial parks for a number of years when I first came to Naples. In the mid eighties we had barbed wire on the fences and things on the windows because we had million dollar aircraft parts in there. And it wasn't worth taking any risk. It doesn't necessarily have to do with the level that we're funding your service today. That's industrial parks. That's not homes. We're not seeing bars on windows in homes. And to suggest that if you get a two-and-a-half million dollar increase this year, the result is going to be people have to put bars on their homes -- SHERIFF HUNTER: I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it's outrageous. SHERIFF HUNTER: I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the inference you made. SHERIFF HUNTER: This was a discussion of economics. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the inference you made. SHERIFF HUNTER: That is certainly the way that this discussion was going over a period of years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's poll the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rather than battling for headlines -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we have a -- well, no. I mean we -- you know, we've been listening to rhetoric for the most part. One fires it, the other answers back and that's enough. We've got a budget issue before us. Let's decide on something. What we have is we have -- you keep mentioning board policy -- one board policy we like is millage neutral, of not charging people higher taxes. Ten percent, 11 percent is not millage neutral. We -- five-and-a-half percent has been suggested, a five-and-a-half percent increase. Let's just ask the board. Where do you want to go with this? MS. MYERS: Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment on that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just poll the board, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to have to get to a decision. MS. MYERS: I'm going to try and take a different approach. This is going to go right to the point. I believe this morning Mr. Smykowski, in his opening statements, to bring you to millage neutral, you need $3.7 million. Our portion of that, according to Page 7, is 1.8, and now you're asking us to brunt the whole with two or $3 million, the whole amount for the Sheriff's Office? We are 41 percent of the general fund. If we take 41 percent of our million eight, that's about $682,000. We already -- we're almost giving you a million dollars -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What millage rate are you speaking of? MS. MYERS: -- in concessions right now. Page 7 of your summary book. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Using that logic, you never would have got a 14 percent increase last year because you were far more than 40 percent of the increase to the taxpayer when you got the huge -- MS. MYERS: But that's how we're funded. You're talking about funded in taxpayers and how much it cost the average person -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know but to suggest -- MS. MYERS: -- that should be the number we're using. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To suggest that your portion is one specific amount is absurd. Last year there were cuts in park services and many of our other services to accommodate -- MS. MYERS: We'd have to review that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- nearly 15 percent -- if you can let me finish -- allow me to finish -- to accommodate a nearly 15 percent increase, 14 point something, from the Sheriff's Department. And, so there is -- there's no magic number here where you specifically get a 40 percent piece of that pie. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, let me offer something. Let me offer something and let's see if we can -- if we can poll on it. The -- the last thing I want to do is to infringe on the ability of the Sheriff to -- to produce his -- his crack law enforcement that's he's been doing so far. And everybody knows he's doing a good job. Just look at the -- the crime rate. But at the same time we do have this responsibility to the taxpayers to protect their interest. We are looking for a millage neutral budget and the taxable value is up 7.8 percent. If we want to go millage neutral with the Sheriff, we could go with that figure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that taxable value full application to the general fund? Does that include the MSTD and the general or just the general fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 7.8 is just the general fund. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just the general fund. We're only in terms of the general fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, if we increase the Sheriff's budget by 7.8 percent, is that what the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be millage neutral as I understand it. Is that correct, Mr. Smykowski, as compared to last year's adopted -- or this current year's adopted mill? MR. SMYKOWSKI: In other words, no, because that would not have -- only four percent of that increase is attributable to new construction. The rest would be an actual increase. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's going to be tax, isn't it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's talking about rollback. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not talking about rollback. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're talking about just millage neutral? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Millage neutral. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to -- adopted millage of this current fiscal year to adopted millage of the next fiscal year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The same millage as last year, we would have to cut $1.6 million. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the Sheriff's budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Of the total general fund budget to get to a -- the same millage rate -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- as was adopted -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- in the previous year. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, but what he's saying is what is the increase, the percentage increase over current budget to keep the millage rate the same. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. What percentage increase over current budget? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In other words, if every division funded by the general fund had the exact same increase for millage neutral, what would that be? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which it should be the same as what our general fund increase is. I mean -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it doesn't go -- right here on Page 5 of our -- our little summary, it says current year gross taxable value, 7.8 percent increase. So, if the Sheriff's budget was given a 7.8 percent increase, it would be the same millage next year; right? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if that's the only way we can get three, I'm okay with that, but I just -- I don't know that we need to use that formula because last year there were other departments that suffered because we had to give an unusual increase to the Sheriff. And if it happens to be slightly above or below this year, the exact millage rate, if it's -- if it's more than a contribution back -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think you're right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Commissioner Norris, then I mean -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I understand what you're saying. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Please go ahead. MR. FERNANDEZ: I really think that's -- that is the issue that you haven't really talked much about, that this is a question of balance of programs. And that's why it's important that you have this discussion and in the context of all the other discussions you've had today. It's not a discussion you should have in isolation of the rest of your budget. Evidently last year, a decision was made that in order to accommodate the important request of the Sheriff, that it was necessary to make a shift in that balance of programs. You did that last year. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We did it for two years before that, too. MR. FERNANDEZ: And the question is do you feel that it's appropriate to do that this year? Is balance about right or does it need to shift in one way or another? And that's really the question. I think it's important to recognize the fact that the Board of County Commissioners has the obligation to consider this request in that context and not in isolation of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's exactly what I'm suggesting is perhaps it's appropriate to make a shift slightly in the other direction for the first time since I've been on the Board of Commissioners. COMMISSIONER BERRY: May I ask a question? If you use -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- the same 7.8 percent and applied that to the other areas, does that apply to the other areas as well? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: To the other budgets? COMMISSIONER BERRY: To the other budgets as well. I mean though some of them may have not have requested that much, does that apply as well? MR. FERNANDEZ: If you do that, what you're saying is the mix of programs that you have right now is about right for the need. But there's no need to change that. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay? If you give everybody the exact percentage increase, then you're really not making any -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- priority decision changes from what you have right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the problem is what you started to say there is some may not have requested that. Someone may have requested two percent but in this mathematical formula, they should theoretically, but then someone would be -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: But that's all right -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- be awarded seven eight. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- because if they're able to maintain the current programs and the services that they have, that's perfectly all right. This to me appears to be the max number. Just an observation. This is my first time through this but this appears to be the max number that you can go and anything more than this is going to be out of line. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHHISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER BERRY: understanding this right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You mean new taxes. The -- new -- it's going to be new taxes. No, not necessarily. I hope I've under -- I hope I'm That's not the only option. The other option would be to do as we've done for the last two or three years and that is to cannibalize money out of the County Hanager's office in order to fund the Sheriff's Department and keep a millage neutral budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which I believe you can do. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHHISSIONER BERRY: COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Cannibalize is the wrong word. You've done that in the past, right? Prioritize would be another way of -- We've done that in the past. -- characterizing that. We've done that in the past. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's all I'm suggesting is that this is the first in -- since 1992 that we've ever looked at doing it up-tilt to the other direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, if we -- if we increase the Sheriff's budget by 7.8 percent, what's the math? He wanted -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be 1,750,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Which piece are we talking about? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought we didn't care about the numbers. Let's make up our mind. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course we do. You told me why I should care about the numbers. You persuaded me. I care. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, that would be roughly one-and-three-quarter million dollars less than requested. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Which piece are we taking? There are three components. There's the one eleven the board paid and the general fund and I just need to be clear which piece we're taking this 7.8 percent on. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're talking about the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: General fund. MR. SHYKOWSKI: As a whole, inclusive -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- of the board paid. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Inclusive of a board paid, correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh. Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What are you -- you're going to leave that alone? It's a million three over 800 last year? It's another $500,000 we just leave alone? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's different from what we -- from the math Commissioner Constantine did just a few minutes ago. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's different. So, if we're going to compare apples to apples, we should do it without it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. So, we're going to add 7.8 percent in total to the adopted general fund component of the budget which is inclusive of board paid. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is different from the analysis we previously did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can look at this. I'm still comfortable with a number smaller than that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I played deal maker last year and I didn't feel -- and apparently my constituents weren't happy with that, so I'm not interested in -- in dealing this year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I am. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've just got to get some numbers. I mean we've got -- I've got to know so... CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. The general fund increase would go to forty-eight million one oh two one ninety-three, leaving the 111 piece where it is at six million seven eighty as the request was. The total share of budget requests revised would be $54,883,000. That would be a reduction of one -- just shy of $1.8 million. Conversely, it would be an increase of $3.6 million. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 3.6 million. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Increase. You'd be cutting 1.767. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're closer. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And we're going to deal with -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. We're further away. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to deal with one eleven at some other point. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That would be tomorrow -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That will be tomorrow. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- after we finish the -- the balance of the general fund issues, the capital, et cetera. Another thing to consider is that to a certain degree down the road, we'll have an answer on the law enforcement impact fee. Obviously, the Sheriff has some items in his budget which if an impact fee were available perhaps that could be funded through an impact fee, thereby reducing the general fund. You should have those answers by your final public hearing as well. Just another -- and I realize no final policy decision has been made whether or not to implement that fee, and you haven't seen the study yet, but that is something just to keep in the back of your mind as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we have a -- I understand we have a -- a direction to increase the Sheriff's Department by three? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a suggestion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A suggestion to increase the Sheriff's budget by $3.6 million did you say? It's a 7.8 percent increase. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I'm rounding to the nearest hundred thousand dollars. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, would you consider splitting the difference between those two suggestions which would have been 2.45 or 2.4 and 3.6 and making it an even $3 million increase for the Sheriff? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Certainly. Anything that anybody want -- let's just -- somebody make a suggestion and let's poll the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it seems to me that the most fair thing is what Commissioner Berry pointed out and that is that 7.8 percent is neutral. And, so, unless we're making -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: then, so... COHMISSIONER BERRY: here didn't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was my -- Oh, I'm sorry. It was Commissioner Norris I just had him explain it because dummy over Okay. That 7.8 percent is neutral, so unless, as Mr. Fernandez says, unless we're making a priority decision that we need to shift some money away from the -- the prior year's programming of how much money goes into the Sheriff's budget, 7.8 is the neutral place to be. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's assuming that you don't make a reduction in property taxes though in the millage rate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. It's neutral. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's assuming you -- you hold the same millage rate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's where I'm coming from is last year I was under the impression that by taking the big hit, biting the bullet that one time, we're going to be able to reduce the millage rate to give people back a little bit of what we took last year. And that's what I looked at, the five five. That's why I looked at less than the 7.8. Hell, I'll take seven. I'll take six and a half. Let's go ahead and start bidding for all I care, but I want the opportunity to give back to the people who paid taxes last year a little bit of what I expected us to do. Even if it's a tenth of a mill, I want to bring it back from that big hit we took last year. That's me personally, so if someone's looking for a suggestion, I suggest we increase the Sheriff's budget by 6.5 percent, see where it goes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can -- I'll go with that if we can get three there -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's 6.5? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if we can do the math, find out what that is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't care. It's -- it's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because at least 7.8 has some basis, you know, some '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, so does 6.5 -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to the people who pay it. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- could we articulate it? What's the basis for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just did. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Last year we took 14 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- percent from the Sheriff's budget. Okay? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we did that the discussions, excepting such as, with additional deputies, we can see a reduction in overtime. We -- we looked at saying, okay, we're going to take this hit but next year we expect to see something less. By less, I didn't mean four points less. I meant less to the tune of more in line with our ability to provide at least millage -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- neutral. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'm saying is that this 7.8, I understand what the basis is for 7.8 as opposed to 7.5, and I don't know what the basis is of 6.5. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me try to explain what -- in my mind what it would be, Commissioner Hac'Kie, and that is in the past as Commissioner Norris said, we've actually cannibalized the other programs because it wasn't just a particular number all across the board. It wasn't 7.8 for everybody or whatever the number happened to be that year. It was considerably higher for the Sheriff, considerably lower for everything else. And I'm saying we need to bring that back into whack and not just make everybody even this year, but we need to return to the parks departments and some of those things that actually had programs cut and add other things. We're not -- we're not sure we can cut below the cost again this year for them and the only way to assure that they're there is to have a little bit of excess here. I'm not suggesting you should make it great big but -- and whether that's six five or six eight or whatever it is, that allows some of that room to make sure we take care of every other program in the county as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'll go as far as saying I -- I'm not going to hold the Sheriff to a line that I'm not willing to hold our own agency to, but I'm confident we, our agency, is going to come in under 7.8 percent. I'd be surprised if we experienced eight points -- eight percent growth underneath the board this year when our population only increased four percent. If that's the best we can do, we're not doing our job. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, you suggested six five. Can you just poll the board and see yes or no from each of us if we agree on that? And we don't, fine. We can continue the discussion. And if we do -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's the dollar? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Want to go to 6.5 on the general fund component. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we're kind of going around in circles a little bit. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, we are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean if -- if the board doesn't feel like we're going to be able to hold our own agency to something in that range, then -- then maybe you need to pick a number you think we're going to hold our own agency to because I want to be fair. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That cuts two million three hundred and forty-seven thousand eight. The increase amounts to just shy of $3 million. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't you just make it an even $3 million then? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And let the percentage fall where it may. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the percentage fall where it may. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll -- I'll then ask that we increase the Sheriff's budget by $3 million. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't agree. COMMISSIONER BERRY: My only concern is that we do this this year and what happens next year? I mean are we -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We battle the same battle again then. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is an annual occurrence. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. And, as I said, this is my first time at this, but I don't like paying taxes anymore than anybody else does. And I certainly would love to get a tax bill where there was a reduction on it. At the same time, I don't want to artificially, and -- and if I may just comment on what I -- what I observed in the past, you all held the taxes down and you -- and I think last year you paid the piper. Just an observation. I'm not saying it's good, bad or indifferent. I think that's what happened. I don't want to get us into the same position where we do this year after year trying to keep the tax rate down, trying to keep phone calls at a minimum because they don't like their taxes being increased. I don't, either. At the same time, we're going to walk out of here and everybody will jump on about -- you know, I can look at it one way. I would love to sit down and go through Don's budget and say, Don, why don't we cut this and that and the other thing, but we don't have the authority to do that. Okay? At the same time, I don't want to jeopardize street safety out there and those kinds of things. And, Don, I'll really be watching if you don't have those guys out there on the street; however, I -- I am really more comfortable with the 7.8 percent and leave it at that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could support that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, we have -- we have three that are at an increase of $3 million, which I assume works to be about 6.6 percent or 6.7 percent increase, whatever the percentage is. That's an increase of $3 million. And we have two that are advocating that 7.8 million. So, consistent with -- with board direction in the past and we'll move ahead to the next step with a $3 million increase in the Sheriff's budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. That represents a reduction then from his request of two million three forty-five one hundred. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That represents a $3 million increase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And what's the percentage, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: General fund alone. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. What's the percentage, Mr. Smykowski, of a $3 million increase? What's the increased percentage then? My -- my gut is six six or six seven at the highest. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Probably six six. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While he's doing that, Commissioner Berry, the one thing that I talk to people about is that we live in a growth community. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a lot of negatives associated with that but one good is as long as we don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg, we have increased valuations on top of growth. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's true. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we need to live within that budget. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if we can't as a growth community live within that budget with impact fees already being out there for capital construction, then we're failing to do our job. And you're right. Years in which we jumped it down too low that year without a lookout to the future may have caused last year's bump to occur. Either way, I think we need to be reasonable but we should still be able to bring it down maybe a -- you know, a one percentage point even. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think it necessarily happened with the -- with the -- this current commission. I -- this isn't something that happened one year or two years. It's a cumulative effort, you know, over a long period of time, Tim. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not being critical. I'm just -- it's an observation and it may be a wrong observation, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interesting point on the -- how -- we had five years, I think, in a row of a decrease and then the one bump last year, but even with the big bump, it was still lower than the first year we started decreasing, and so your percentages -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The first year we took office. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The first year. It was still lower than the first year we were in office. And that's -- because as your number is smaller, it doesn't match to appear as a six percent or eight percent or ten percent number. COHMISSIONER BERRY: True. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything else we can do? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Did we get to that percentage, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, not yet. I'm sorry. I'm -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We've -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- having a brain fade here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The dollar -- the figure is set, so we know it's about 6.6 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, divide $3 million by forty-four point six two one seven hundred. That will get you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Divided by -- I'm sorry -- forty-six what? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. Run that by me again. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Divided by what? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Divided by -- We've got it over here on this calculator, Now, we're all looking for it again. $44,621,700. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 6.7 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 6.7 percent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The last item on the agenda? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's it for today -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Public comment? MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- other than public comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Public comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those that are here, we'll start tomorrow with -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Supervisor, then the Clerk, then General Fund Capital -- support of capital projects. Then we'll move into the Special Revenue Funds, Unincorporated Area General Fund and Community Development and our -- all the HSTU's the board administers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: One final comment for the public record and for the benefit -- perhaps the biggest benefit for Commissioner Berry. The Sheriff's Office has run, just so you know, 1994, six percent increase, 1995, six percent increase, 1996, two percent increase, 14 percent in '97 and proposed 9.6 for '98, an average for the last three years of six percent. The last three years, six percent adjustment. Yes, we have bumps from time to time, wage adjustment last year, major adjustment, Parks and Rec have had major adjustments. We believe it's been running about ten, 14 percent. You can look for yourself. It's a matter of public record over the last several years. This is not the Sheriff's Office as some anomaly out there, but we're requesting a huge number of adjustments every year. I don't like to come before the board and ask for large adjustments. What you've just agreed to by poling I will be able to fund basically the wage adjustments by your policy for this year, drop out the -- the people that were requested, drop out the overtime, drop out the mobile digitals and the replacement vehicles and all of those things. I can fund the wage adjustments, if you continue to hold to your policy, with the numbers that you just cranked out. I'd like to be able to revisit this before the tentative millage is adopted, naturally, and we'd certainly like to work with staff and we'd like to see some opportunity for the town hall meetings to yield what they're intended to yield, public comment, and we'd like to see what the public comment is from the workshops as we progress. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's interesting. I'm glad you brought up that last little figure there, showing that for the past several years you've had a six percent increase on the average because this is somewhat above the average and -- and that should be -- SHERIFF HUNTER: As Commissioner Berry reflected, these are all cumulative impacts by board policies over a number of years. And the six percent would hold for this year as well for the last three years. If you add all those numbers together, the percentage increases for the last three years yield you about 6.4 percent. I don't have a calculator in front of me but you can figure it out. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 6.7. SHERIFF HUNTER: 6.7 percent. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, it's right in line. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On average, we're right on target. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right on line. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- we've got people from the public that have been here all day waiting to make comment. How many do we have, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, you have -- you have three on one note and three other -- others, so that makes six, but the three on the same note have asked to be given the opportunity to make their comments first thing in the morning rather than this evening. They feel it's gotten a little late for them, so I thought I'd ask you about that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I -- we kind of adopted a policy as we started today that we'd do it at the end of each -- each afternoon, so I'd -- I'd like to ask that we stick to that policy. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have the right to waive and you may speak tomorrow afternoon, if you like, also. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll just call their names in order and they Can '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- exercise that right if they'd like to. The first is Bradley Cornell. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's gone. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Gone. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's not here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was too late for him. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is Mr. Eric Watler. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's here. MR. FERNANDEZ: He's the one that's asked to be considered tomorrow morning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And following him would be? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mark Albanese and Janet Vasey. MR. WATLER: Eric Watler, GNCA. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. Eric, before you start, could somebody move that so I can see the person who's speaking? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we get some lights back? Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. WATLER: A general comment first on the budget. I thought this year was a -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, can you identify yourself? MR. WATLER: I thought I just did. Eric Watler, GNCA. Eric Watler, W-a-t-l-e-r. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The third time is a charm, Eric. MR. WATLER: If you put wall products, it gets very objectionable. A general comment on the budget. I thought the -- the way that the binders were set out and the ability to work one's way through it was very, very much improved over prior years. And it's good to see some of the suggestions that we made already incorporated in what's a fairly short period of time, so those are good things. We, in investigating some of the other budgets, with the constitutional officers, we were able to look at what I think is a pretty important number in endeavoring to evaluate the forecasts on the budget sheets. But that number was a year to date actual. For example, when we looked at the Sheriff's budget, and I believe at the Clerk's budget also, set in the Sheriff's budget, because I looked at it myself, we were able to look at eight months actual from their operating statements. And that was a -- a very useful tool for us to evaluate the validity of the year end assumptions and then leading into the following year's budget. So, if we can incorporate that in the budget sheets for next year, I think that would help everybody to evaluate, as I say, the validity of the -- the year in forecast, which is an important number. And, also, if we could also include on -- on separate sheets what we'll call the elements of expense because in looking at the copies they gave us of the operating statements, you can really see where the money's going, not just in the total numbers that we see on the sheets here. And if we don't have enough columns on the sheets, we could always make the numbers to the nearest hundred or nearest thousand and count the insignificant numbers off, so I don't think there's any eight-and-a-half-by-ll problem on that, so, that's just a commentary. We kind of went through the budget and kind of prospecting for opportunity and we found some, we thought. And I'll start with Point Number 2. I think it might be Point Number 2 on your sheet, which were increase '90 and '98 revenue estimates for specific officers by $300,000. The departmental revenues grew and then they're flat. They're the same this year as they were last year. And we looked through the various departments. That was 4.8 million in a space of 4.8 million. That's shown on Page A-3. So, we looked at the -- the various departments and our suggestions for your consideration is additional revenue could be obtained in this -- in this way. These are round numbers, they should be looked at again. The Office of Management and Budget, probably want to refine them, but these are the numbers. These are the eyeball numbers. Facilities Management, plus 100,000, the library, plus 40,000, Parks and Rec, plus 120,000, and the Stormwater, 40,000. That comes to around, I think, $300,000. We think there's opportunity there to increase the revenue by those amounts. The second -- the first point is now my last point, and I'll hand over to Janet Vasey and that concerns -- well, it's a little anticlimactic now because you've been through a lot of COLA stuff with the Sheriff, but nevertheless I think it's worth saying again. And if I understand it correctly, salaries were adjusted to reflect -- in April '96 to reflect what people should be paid. There was a three percent approximately, three percent increase paid in April of '97 COLA. The budget includes another three percent six months after the last one and, so, we're suggesting that that three percent should not be effective in October but should be effective in April, as we now are on an annual April to April basis. If we elect to do that, then we think we can save $1.3 million. You've already spent 500 of the 1.3 because 500 belong to the sheriff and their anniversary date, COLA method, certainly saves money and I suspect would certainly save the county money, too. So, the other $800,000 belongs to the county and the other constitutional officers, so we would ask you to look at that, to consider that and -- and I think it will be a -- a very substantial saving for the county. So, those are my two observations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Watler. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, one of the suggestions that he had here had to do with attrition rate going from four to five percent? MR. WATLER: Janet Vasey will address that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good. MR. WATLER: I just had these three points. We kind of both wanted to say something. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey for the record. I was going to continue with the next point on attrition. What we've decided to do is not discuss the attrition issue. When we got looking at all of the issues, we felt like we might be double dipping a little bit because the Item Number 4 deals with an attrition-like issue, too. So, we're just going to scratch Number 3. The fourth one talks about phased and expanded programs with new hires to save $600,000. And, basically, we've talked about the four percent attrition rate but we cut -- we assume with the expanded programs that we would fully fund them for a whole year. And that's, you know, everything -- everybody's on board as of one October. I don't think that that has to be done that way. I think you could phase in the positions realistically. By the time people have new positions, they get the job descriptions ready, they get it out for advertising, people are coming in for interviews, a selection is made. These things all take time, especially if an organization already has some attrition or some high -- some attrition on other spaces that they need to fill also. So, you pool all that together. We made a -- a stab at -- at using 33 percent hire lag and that's assuming that the new hires would be on the rolls by the end of January. And this would save approximately $375,000 on proposed new hires for the county organization and two and -- $225,000 for the Sheriff's organization. The next item that we have was sort of a technical one. I'm going to refer to Pages A-2 and A-3 if you -- if you want to follow the numbers. You may not want to. Currently, the computation for contingency reserves includes all funds that are transferred to the constitutional officers. And, as you know, they turn back large portions of those funds and Hike Smykowski has -- working with the constitutional officers has made a great -- has made great progress in identifying more totally the -- the total turnbacks. But the way the computation works, the contingency is held on the full amount of dollars that are transferred to the constitutional officers without considering the -- the turnbacks. So, if you take the turnbacks off first before you actually calculate the contingency, you could save $150,000 by that methodology. And then my last one has to do with the 1997 Revenues and Expenditures. You know, we went through a lot of this last year and, as I say, the slip-ins -- the pickings are a little slim right now because you've already scraped off a lot of this. However, we did find that there was a little bit more money left and we came up with an estimate of about $600,000. And I think that you can verify that as you get a little closer to September by maybe looking at July actuals. Looking characteristically or historically at -- at what has happened, there are some departmental expenditures that will not occur in these last couple of months just looking at what happens between forecast and -- and final year end. And we recognize a couple hundred thousand there, a couple hundred thousand probably from the Sheriff's Office, maybe a little bit more from another constitutional officer and a little bit more revenue. And that's how we came up with -- with the 600,000. It looked pretty clear that it was somewhere up to a million dollars and, so, we kind of took a medium range of about 600,000 would be our projection of -- of that little difference between -- that you've left between forecast and year end. And those are the -- the items that we particularly wanted to bring to your attention, knocking out the one. That's -- that's coming up with $3 million worth of reductions that you could make to the whole thing. Also, I -- I would like to comment just for a second on the -- the reviews that we participated in this year and -- and I'd like to echo Eric's observation that they were very professionally handled and -- and you -- you got a -- a lot of cuts out of it early so that the budget that you're looking at right now really does take a lot of the -- the excesses out so it's a -- it's a tighter budget than -- than some people might think. I guess that's really all I need to say. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next one is Mr. Eric West. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And following Mr. West will be? MR. FERNANDEZ: Hubert Howard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hubie has left unless he's in the hallway but -- MR. WEST: I think he's already gone. Good afternoon. My name is Eric West. I've been a resident of Collier County since 1991. I'm speaking as an individual. I've served over the last two years on -- as a member of the Public Safety Committee for a very large civic organization and as an orientation towards business issues. I'm not speaking for them but I would share with you that I have been focussing in those two years on law enforcement, corrections, fire and rescue and EMS kinds of issues. And with that background I attended the infamous Second District meeting recently whereby the Second District hosted a review of the training center and possibly to the fire station for the North Naples Fire District. I believe that that is germane, interestingly, to today's conversation on the budget of the Sheriff because I was not affiliated with any of the speakers at that meeting, but sitting there, I have to share with you that that was a real eye opener. And my specific observation is that on a countywide basis, as a taxpayer on a countywide basis, I believe that there's a significant misallocation of public safety tax dollars in this county. And I'm fully aware that this board does not have authority over all the units in this county. I do understand that. But I wanted to share that sense of perspective with you. In terms of specific observations, listening to that town meeting, I believe that on -- on the scale of things, the Sheriff's Office, relative to some of the other public safety units in this county; for example, some of the independent fire districts, that there's a real difference in the amount of openness and proactive sharing of information. And this is just one example on one end of the scale of a -- a large document that is leading the process, coming out early. And I would share with you that as of noon today, this is the only proposed budget document that is in the Collier County Library available easily to -- to the citizens. Secondly, there is obviously a process, you've already heard today, about -- in addition to this, the town hall meetings, but there's also the access to budget staff and for those of us who do from time to time fall into a masochist mode and actually muck around with spreadsheets. It's helpful to go into a budget staff and not only ask questions but when you come back the second time for follow-up information, you're not looked at like you're from Mars or when you come in for a follow-up to a follow-up of that analysis of the spreadsheet, but that appears to be part of the normal process in this public safety group. But I'm not finding that in other entities, particularly the independent districts. Also, in terms of mission versus resource allocation, at that town hall meeting I was a little disturbed by what -- I had a sense of that they were -- that that particular district was awash in money and they were in a mode of trying to generate missions to fulfill, for example, a beach patrol was certified staff, whereas the process that I see you folks going through not only with the Sheriff but the County Manager staff, it's a process of a list of things to do that is very large, and it's a process of trying to obviously whittle it down. But from a taxpayer's perspective for Collier County, I'm looking at two wildly different processes. Again, I understand that this is somewhat out of the survey of this board, but from a taxpayer's standpoint there's a misallocation going on here somewhere in the process. The third point that I would make is -- is sort of an appetite among these public safety units for figuring out how to stretch the resource dollars and do things creatively. And I saw an example in that meeting of a public safety organization with no volunteers. The fire fighters in that organization are coming up to me and saying, we have faster response times than does EHS. Then I'm saying, what's the sense of priorities here? And I say there's something wrong with that mix now. I don't have the data to establish that but if that is in fact true, as a taxpayer I'm saying, well, what's going on here in terms of response times? So, I think that would be a subject that would be worth looking into as to determine whether or not that is in fact the case. And beyond that, on the -- on the Sheriff's side, I'm glad to see volunteer programs, certified auxiliary, volunteer citizens people who are doing real work, posses, neighborhood watch community policing and leveraging. And I think that this board -- board ought to take that into consideration. I know you've got a tough job in terms of trying to keep millage neutral or whatever. I'm just taking a different cut than anything I've heard today. And I'm saying across the county, I'm seeing a -- wild differences in terms of the -- the tough trade-offs that you all have to make in terms of mission on the one hand and the dollar amount of resources on the other. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. West. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Appreciate your points on the response times and all that. I'm actually compiling some of that information right now, so I'll be happy to share it with you if you want. MR. WEST: I'll be in touch. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Howard is not here. MR. FERNANDEZ: Hubert Howard was our last -- MS. STUDENT: No, Hubie left. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that it? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Smykowski, I -- I had on my schedule 8:00 a.m., so I was here bright and early this morning. Are we convening at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning? MR. SHYKOWSKI: 9:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll still try to get here at eight. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Tomorrow and Monday, 9:00. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:37 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY: Sherrie Radin Rose H. Witt