BCC Minutes 06/19/1998 B (Budget Workshop)BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION OF JUNE 19, 1998
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:10 a.m. in a BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION in
Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Mike Smykowski, Budget Director
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
second day of our budget workshop. If you will please rise for the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we are ready for another day.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, we are.
Just to go over a few logistical things, today's schedule, we're
going to do the general -- cover all of the general fund, all of the
operating divisions as well as funds that receive operating transfers
from the general fund, such as road and bridge and EHS, thereby making
those departments essentially quasi general fund operations. We are
also going to review general fund supported capital projects as well
as the constitutional officer budgets.
For the benefit of the audience and people watching, there was a
change to the schedule that the board had approved on Monday, which
was letting the sheriff, due to a potential conflict with a court
case, go first today after the opening, kind of general fund overview
is completed. Following the sheriff's presentation, we would then
move into our regular agenda just as was scheduled initially.
I do have -- there was up front on the dais, I left each of you a
revised page. You can just insert that into your general fund summary
notebook. The reason those numbers have changed is the property
appraiser, through his diligent effort, has given us the final
certified taxable values, which he is required to do by July 1st. He
provided those a couple of days ago. So, he's given us advance
notice, and we appreciate his efforts in doing that because now the
board will understand there won't be any unknowns down the road. In
fact, it did have a positive increase.
On the back side of that, it shows what the impact of the
proposed millage rates countywide are based on the revised taxable
values, the dollar impact countywide. Now the total countywide
millage rate in FY 98 was 3.7265 or $372.65 per 100,000 of taxable
value. The total countywide millage rate based on the budget as
proposed is -- will now be 3.6378 or a decrease of $8.87 per 100,000
of taxable value.
So, again, we appreciate his efforts. That's typically an
unknown once we complete these workshops, and the numbers change again
on or about July 1. Again, he's been very diligent in providing that
information now, and we understand what those -- what those dollar
impacts are. So, we, again, appreciate his efforts.
In terms of format today, on Pages A-1 and A-2 in your summary
book in the general fund is an overall summary. On the left-hand side
is a fund summary of appropriations for the general fund. On the
right-hand side is the fund summary of revenues, kind of the super
macro view. Following those pages for each of the respective
divisions or agencies, there are further breakdowns. The macro -- the
super macro view here is by division or by constitutional officer.
Then within the individual greater detail summaries, it includes the
departments within each of the divisions.
So, for instance, in public services where you see a division
total on Page A-i, in the summary later on in Section A, you would see
each of the individual departments; administration, library, veteran
services, parks and recreation, et cetera, as well as the lists of
proposed expanded services within each of the respective divisions.
I'll just -- overall, there's a 6.9 percent increase in
appropriations. Just working down the appropriations page, the
subtotal for the county commission and the attorney is a, frankly, a
net increase of zero.
The next grouping is the management offices or county
administration, which includes the various divisions and elements
under the umbrella of the county administrator, the management
offices; a decrease of 1.9 percent.
Support services is an increase, although that includes the I.T.
Department transition to the general fund in FY 99.
Emergency services reflects the newly created emergency services
division.
Public services, the large increases there are a function of the
proposed expanded services, as well as the current service increase is
a function in large part of additional costs for hospitalization care
and cost of medicines within the social services budget. That
increased over a couple hundred thousand dollars alone.
It's also important to note that one of the major assumptions
within the general fund is in regard to parks on Marco Island. The
cost of those parks were removed from the general fund.
So service is proposed to be discontinued to the parks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the neighborhood parks?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The neighborhood parks.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not the regional --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right, not the regional, Caxambas and Tigertail
would still remain open as county facilities, and we may want to
discuss that further later on.
Community development is principally a function -- the increase
there, a function of expanded services as well as within public works.
As we noted in the opening presentation, the stormwater management
department, that was an increased funding for -- and improvements in
stormwater drainage is an identified strategic goal of the board, and
there are a number of both equipment and crews that are proposed to
perform those enhancements.
The next grouping are the transfers to other funds where the
general fund makes an operating transfer to various other operations
that are funded in part by the general fund.
The Golden Gate Community Center, due to the expansion there,
which is a general fund operation, is up 3.9 percent.
Services for seniors, again, is a -- we use that money to
leverage a number of grant funds that essentially keep people out of
nursing home type care; in the long run, saving the county a lot of
money while also keeping people in their homes for as long as is
possible.
EHS, there's a large increase. That's a function of two new
units as well as a decrease in available carryforward revenue.
Ochopee fire, we had that discussion on Monday. The decrease
there is essentially the PILT payment reduction; again, going from
$357,800 to 276,000 pursuant to the board direction regarding
decreasing general fund support of that operation.
Community development is just building related expenses for
general fund type operations that are housed there. The transfer to
fund 111 is for growth management, which is general fund support. It's
actually the cost of the -- personnel are budgeted within the HSTD
general fund 111, so there's a transfer to offset that.
The HPO is the $100,000 for the transportation disadvantage
program.
Road and bridge operation decreased approximately one million
dollars. Again, in my opening remarks, I indicated that we were
attempting to reverse the amount of gas taxes that have been placed in
road construction, put it back -- some of that back in road
maintenance. So, the million dollars that -- in gas taxes that is
funding road and bridge in FY 99 brings about a dollar for dollar
reduction in the general fund operating subsidy of that operation, and
gas taxes are an appropriate source, certainly of funding road and
bridge maintenance activities, and it also reduces the general fund --
the reliance on the general fund for operational support.
Courts, the courts increase is overall 2.2 percent between the
courts and related agencies as well as the state attorney and public
defender. Within courts, there is one additional probation officer
proposed. The state attorney budget is decreased, primarily a
function of decreased capital for replacement of vehicles as compared
to the FY 98 adopted budget.
Within airport operations, the general fund support decrease is
12.4 percent, and that was in accordance with the business plan that
the board had reviewed, I don't know, within the past three months.
So, the budget as submitted is in accordance with that budget plan.
Within general fund reserves, there is a large increase in budget
reserves due to a number of things. One, pursuant to the adopted
budget policy, all reserves for constitutional officer funds are
budgeted in the general fund. The supervisor of elections had in the
past budgeted a reserve within her fund that has, frankly, never been
accessed. Pursuant to the board policy --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because we have one good supervisor of
elections.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes indeed.
All we're saying though is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This brought to you by --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Later on when we review her budget, she may be
requesting that reserve be placed within her fund. Part of the reason
for the increase is that hundred and forty odd thousand dollars is in
the general fund this year where it was in the supervisor's fund a
year ago.
Helicopter capital recovery, there's $35,000. That's just a
sinking fund. Previously, that was budgeted in the motor pool capital
recovery fund, and, frankly, it just didn't make a whole lot of sense
to transfer that money out, and then when it came time to do the
repair, to actually have to transfer the money back from the motor
pool capital recovery fund back into the general fund to actually have
the cash to do that work. So, what we're doing is just simplifying
the paperwork and the amount of financial transactions required. This
money will just be budgeted within the general fund since the
helicopter is a general fund operation.
We've utilized a 4 percent attrition rate.
The other major increase or item of note there is the pay plan
adjustment figures on those somewhat late breaking news, and rather
than trying to effectuate all the changes that would have been
necessitated by that, we just budgeted it as one lump sum within the
general fund reserve, and that is the pay plan adjustment proposed
within the county administrator agency. It does only affect
approximately 36 percent of the county administrator's employees.
The next grouping is the general fund support of capital projects
and/or debt service. Based on projects submitted and recommended for
funding, overall decrease of 10.4 percent, about $800,000.
The final grouping on the appropriations side are the
constitutional officers. In their operating funds, the clerk increase
is 2.6 percent; the sheriff, 7.7 percent. The property appraiser is,
frankly, an allocation based on fees as well as the tax collector.
The board, pursuant to Florida law, is required to actually pay
the tax collector fees for the board agencies, the city's and the
school board, which is rather unusual, but like it or not -- frankly,
we hazard a guess every year as to where total taxes may be. That
number is subject to fluctuation. We have reduced it. We
traditionally just -- had a larger increase you'll notice in the
forecast. It's 4.671 million versus the budgeted 4.925. So we have
ratcheted that down somewhat recognizing that we have estimated on the
high side there.
Again, the supervisor of elections, a decrease of 4.9 percent, a
function of the decrease in the reserve which is now budgeted in the
general fund.
The other items in the constitutional officer section are the
board's paid items for things -- allocated insurance, electricity and
water and sewer charges for buildings which the board is required to
provide.
On Page A-2 is the summary of the general fund from the revenue
side; 76.8 million in tax revenue. A couple of things, in the middle
of the page you'll note utility franchise fee is budgeted at zero.
That's something we had proposed about two years ago. The board
decided at that point in time not to implement the fee. We discussed
it again at strategic planning. There appeared to be at least some
interest in perhaps pursuing that. As part of the wrap-up session,
we'd like to have further discussion in that regard in terms of
diversifying the revenue stream, decreasing reliance on the ad valorem
property tax, and, frankly, that fee just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is a new tax.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's a new tax.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But what we -- what we would propose to do though
is trade off a portion of the ad valorem that we are levying for the
utility franchise fee. If there is no support for that, that's fine.
We just want to have that discussion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can certainly have that discussion
Monday, but my recollection of the discussion when we had that two
years ago was not so much what happens when that starts, because it
offsets the millage, but that over time, the millage creeps back up,
and the public gets stuck with both.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, you know, my minority opinion at the
time, too, was that as we continue with growth, as long as
construction continues at the phenomenal rate it has in this county,
then we are safe, but when, and it will, you know, the growth rate
slows down, because we are trying to cause that to happen, we are
going to be needing a more diversified tax base, and -- and, you know,
I think it's shortsighted of us not to, at least, look at it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Remember, Commissioner Mac'Kie, and I
don't think you disagree with this, but our keeping the ad valorem
rate as low as we can each year, that hit when that curve, growth
curve starts to slow will be a lot easier to deal with. So, I think
it's a two-fold approach there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you -- if you get advice from financial
advisors and people who are -- have more expertise than I certainly
do, the advice that I've gotten, because I've talked to a lot of
people all over the state about this, is that we are not an unusual
county in that, you know, we have the luxury of low property tax rates
because we have high property tax values and high growth, but that
good long-term vision will require some creative diversification of
the tax base, and I hope that this board is going to be open-minded to
look at that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the important part is, this
board or, more importantly, future boards have the option to exercise
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We probably don't have the need to
exercise it yet, but when a -- as that economic scenario unfolds, that
option is readily available.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question of timing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like we are having the discussion
anyway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if you look to your left, I think
you'll see your professional staff nodding affirmatively that this is
a good -- you know, this is something we really do need to look at and
address more carefully and thoroughly, so just thought I'd point that
out.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. The next item, the interim government
services fee, at this point, we have not budgeted any revenue from
that source. Obviously, the board will be acting on that ordinance in
the -- I believe it's next Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question about that. Is there a
lawsuit filed?
I spoke to CBIA this week and heard that the tax collector had
filed a lawsuit in opposition to the interim government service fee.
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, commissioners.
Is this on?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It doesn't sound like it's on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was on.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was it.
MR. WEIGEL: I can speak up so the reporter can hear me.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Why don't you try this one?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that one is on.
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, commissioners. As I had stated
previously, the county's lawsuit for validation is in Judge Hayes'
court, scheduled for hearing this next Friday, June 26th starting at
9:00 a.m.
I have -- our chief assistant of the county attorney's office had
met with Mr. Carlton earlier this week, who indicated that he was
going to oppose the interim governmental services fee, had outside
counsel to assist him in that regard. I'm not aware at this point
that a lawsuit or something has been filed. I would suggest, without
other information, that the forum for that to occur would be a
participation within the action that we have filed with the local
county circuit court.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So instead of a different lawsuit, the
logical approach will be that he will intervene in opposition to our
validation request?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. That is the typical standard that
people with interests can very easily intervene in these, and having
intervened, they have the ability to appeal thereafter.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, and for what it's worth, it was nice
to hear, you know, from the president of the CBIA that they are
holding to their pledge that they will not join in that, so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has the county administrator spoken
with the tax office on that? MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It might be a good dialogue to have
before the next seven days are up so at least we know where we're
going.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say Mr. Carlton is doing this
individually or as a part of the entire association within the state
of tax collectors?
MR. WEIGEL: That, I do not know, and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I don't know that either.
MR. WEIGEL: -- Mr. Hanalich met with him earlier this week, and
I had been in a full day seminar one day and Florida Association of
Counties another day. So, today was my day to try to meet personally
with Mr. Carlton in that regard.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, it's good -- it's a zero for now. It's
good though.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Indeed. A year ago, we were not in that
position. We had to make changes to reduce that.
Some of the other things just of note. In the forecast column
under other sources, under I.T., that's residual cash from the I.T.
fund, 283,900 that would move to the general fund with the I.T. funds
shift to the general fund.
Community development, the transfer there is a function of the
nexus study which reflects those costs. The community development
operation that are in the general fund that are in some way related to
the building industry, and that has increased 6.4 percent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Mr. Smykowski, was it just last year
that we did that nexus or was it two years ago? I'm just checking. I
hope that it was two years ago, Mr. Cautero is telling me, and just --
I assume that it's monitored regularly to be sure that the ratio is
correct, because we were very careful a couple of years ago,
Commissioner Berry, that we kind of discovered that it looked like
general property taxes were paying for some of the development service
budget that it shouldn't have been, so I want to be really diligent
about watching that.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. I think to their credit,
they've been forward thinking on that regard as well. Within
community developments, for instance, this year, one of the changes,
three-quarters of the administration budget of Mr. Cantero's
administration budget is offset by a transfer from the community
development fund --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- recognizing that a greater proportion of his
time is, obviously, spent with the bulk of the employees in his
division are building industry related.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that diligence.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Within the transfers from the constitutional
officers, those are essentially the turn back revenues which they are
required to shift back to the board at the end of the fiscal year.
The clerk, obviously, reflects a large increase in the forecast
column, and that's a function of those derivative lawsuit settlements
that he has brought to the board previously this year. So, that's --
obviously, the board will reap some of the benefit of his efforts in
that regard.
The supervisor of elections is decreased to 150,000 from the
forecast level, and that's a function, again, of that reserve not
being in her fund. If she had another $150,000 placed in her fund
that she has traditionally not tapped or not been -- has not been
needed, that would accrue back to the board, but by virtue of the fact
that that reserve is not in her fund, the turn back revenue would be
correspondingly less.
That concludes kind of the super macro overview. Just from a
scheduling standpoint, too, we did have -- before we get into the
sheriff's budget discussion, Judge Hayes would like to, when the
courts' budget is discussed, is planning on attending and discussing
the proposed funding level for the fourth floor of the courthouse
renovation. He did actually cancel a speaking engagement. He was
scheduled to give a paper at the Florida Bar Association. So, he's
gone out of his way, and I just though I'd bring that up now. He was
hoping to have that discussion as part of the courts discussion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: If we can accommodate him, I'm sure he would
appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I don't see any reason why we
can't accommodate that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see any reason why we shouldn't.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That would move us in the summary book to Pages
A-7 and A-8, which is a summary of the proposed sheriff's budget for
FY 99.
A couple things in terms of highlights in the forecast that I
feel it's necessary to point out, the -- if you look on the revenue
side on Page A-7, the transfer from the general fund was budgeted at
46.85 million. The forecast is calling for 47.4 million.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I was reading something. Say
that again, please, for me.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The budgeted transfer, if you look under revenue,
transfer general fund --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- adopted FY 98 was 46.8 million dollars.
Forecast is 47.4 million.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: So, the forecast expenditures exceed the adopted
budget by --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're a little over budget.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- by $562,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And we have built that -- that overage into the
general fund analysis at this point. That's -- in terms of the
attrition may or may not materialize in the given year, the sheriff
indicates as part of the explanation there, that it has not
materialized fully, and as a result, they will need to seek
supplemental appropriation from the board prior to the end of this
fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought that -- didn't we anticipate
that in the budget last year, that we put money in reserves that if
attrition -- I mean, wasn't that exactly what we anticipated might
happen?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We said we'd help you fill all the
positions, and if you do, come back and tell us, and we'll give you
more money.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I remember.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, me too.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the forecast as well under the position
count within law enforcement as well, you go from 620.5 to 634.5. So,
there are 14 additional positions as well.
Under current service, a couple of issues; we touched on one the
other day when we had our MSTD unincorporated area general fund
discussion, the Marco Island service contract, the million fifty-three
one hundred is reflected as a revenue source here, and, again, Mr.
Fernandez indicated that -- I believe we have yet to receive -- still
to receive a response from Marco Island as to whether or not they plan
on appropriating that money within their own budget.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, maybe they're going to have their
own police, and they won't need this sheriff's service. It seems like
the options are awfully limited. Either they're going to pay for it
or they'll provide it some other way.
Sorry, this paid political announcement brought to you by --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within current --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You can be a little more clear on your
position, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I know. You get what you pay for.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within current service, there's also an increase
of 25.5 additional positions. You'll note the position count adopted,
it goes from 835.5 to 861 in current service.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's because of a combination of the
COPS grants and whatnot coming on line? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume that was the explanation, I think
18 on COPS and --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
In addition then, there are -- within the overall agency, there
are 18 proposed expanded positions, one of which was in the E-911
budget, but within the sheriff's budget from the general fund, though,
there are 17 positions. They are outlined on Page A-8. That would
include six road patrol deputies, four traffic enforcement deputies,
five investigators and two community service deputies.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mike, can you help me understand some
of this? If you go to Page 133 in the sheriff's budget, and it has a
graph for authorized positions, and it appears from the overall number
that there's a -- and I think you actually said an increase of 48
overall positions. An increase in existing grant positions of five,
but a net increase in law enforcement of 43 -- I'm sorry -- a net
increase overall of 43, 38 of which are law enforcement.
Are those things that have been paid for by grants previously and
are now coming due to ad valorem? I'm just trying to get a grip on
the numbers here, because what I've read in the summary is we are
looking for 17 new positions, but as I look at this graph, it looks
like there's really 48.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thirty-eight.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think if you look at the bottom --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty-eight of which are law
enforcement.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you look at the bottom of A-7 in your summary
book, I think it's kind of a little more of a capsule version there
within the three principal components of the sheriff's budget; law
enforcement, corrections and judicial, and then there's a subtotal.
There were 835.5 in the adopted FY 98 budget. Proposed current
service budget is 861. So, there are 25.5 additional positions in
current service plus the 17 proposed as expanded services.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, almost 43.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, in that same arena, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh, certainly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I went through the budget, Mike, the
sheriff indicated the amount of funds that he would be receiving or
anticipated to receive in the fiscal year 1999 is nearly five million
dollars, and he allocated a certain number of positions to that. I
think it was 82.5. Yet when we look at fund 015 in the sheriff's
office, I see $823,000 in grant funds. I'm missing four million
dollars.
I went back to the previous year. I looked at what the sheriff
said he received in grant funds, and I think it was three million and
something. The number is here. I went to last year in the budget in
015 under grants for the sheriff's office, it was three million and
something.
My question is, where are those other dollars showing up as
revenue in our budget? Obviously, they are occurring, but from a
revenue standpoint, what I feel like I'm seeing is that we are funding
a certain portion of the sheriff's budget that, as allocated to so
many positions -- as an example, fiscal year '98/'99 shows 878. Yet
the sheriff has actually 960.5 anticipated. Where's the revenue
covering that spread, and it's apparently in grants, but if the money
comes in and it goes out, it's got to show up somewhere in our budget
book, and I couldn't find it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: There are some grants that the board is not the
grantor, agency or the sign --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not the applicant.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Grantee, applicant. So, some grants actually go
directly to the sheriffs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It should show up in this book,
shouldn't it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I -- as I look at that, the discrepancy
I'm seeing is four million dollars in -- and I know you're kind of --
the sheriff is kind of appending by those that were not guaranteed,
but let's take last year, for example, under grants, and, again, this
is really kind of an education point, because I just don't understand,
you know, when we start talking about funding X number of positions,
and I think that's the totality of the sheriff's office, and then in
his budget documents, I see a higher number of positions.
If we look at fiscal year 1998, we had 3.885 million dollars in
grants, but if you look at fund 015 under grants for the sheriff's
office, it was one million two hundred thousand, one million two
hundred seven thousand. I'm sorry, it was -- I'm sorry, adopted
budget was 194,000 for '97/'98. Forecast was 1.2 million.
So, when we adopted the budget, we adopted it based on 200,000 in
grant funds going to the sheriff's office. He actually realized 1.2
million according to this forecast expenditure revenue. Yet, his
budget is showing me 3.8 million.
So --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess when we start talking about
officers on the street and that kind of stuff, I feel like we are
dealing with about 85 percent of the picture because there's some of
it, apparently, that goes directly to his department and we never see
and isn't accounted for in our budget discussions and deliberations,
and, again, it's just something that -- there's a void there for me in
understanding all of the dollars in and all the dollars out and all of
the positions it means on the road or all the positions it means in
the sheriff's office and what that means to the citizens of this
community. I'm just kind of missing that -- and actually, if the
sheriff hadn't given me the detail he did, I wouldn't be asking these
questions. So, I appreciate that, but four million bucks going into
his -- anticipated going into the sheriff's budget next year that we
don't know about. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess there's portions of his budget
over which we have authority and portions of his budget over which we
don't have authority.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Granted, but if we are being asked to
allocate 17 new positions based on need --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We ought to know --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- shouldn't we have the information on
what four million dollars is going to do to address that need, and
that's what I don't have is I -- you know, there's a breakdown of
positions in here, and it shows 50.5 positions under law enforcement
grants, and it shows a total of 82.5 positions for grants. Yet our
budget book shows 15.
So, what are these other people doing, and there is a breakdown
of where they are, but, again, if we are addressing need, if I can
solve a need with a grant instead of solving it with general fund
dollars, but I know that grant is going to end in three years, great,
but I just -- there's a balance here that I don't understand, and I'm
just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just what is the necessity there, and
if we are not knowing about some of those, then we can't truly measure
the necessity.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the sheriff will tell us, I'm sure,
that we're all -- first of all, I think we need to recognize that
crime rate went down in Collier County last year, and that's hats off
to the sheriff's department, to the officers, men and women that help
make that happen. It's a lot of factors, Not all of them the
sheriff's office controls. There weren't as many idiots doing violent
crimes last year potentially, but, obviously, the sheriff's office was
doing a good job last year.
That's great, but you've always told me, Don, that the main thing
is really calls for service, because it's a response based system, and
that's the other question I have for you in your presentation is, I
didn't see calls for service in your budget, what were they last year
versus the year before, what are they anticipated to be. So that's
something, when we talk about need and talk about putting officers on
the street, if a need is going to be justified to me, I'm -- the one
thing I'm going to look at is calls for service. In other words, how
many times is an officer needed outside of any patrol duties they can
perform so that I can look at that and say, well, yes, 17 positions
are justified or 30 positions are justified, now let's talk about how
we're going to fund them. Are we funding them by grants? Are we
funding them other ways, and there's a big void here of forty some odd
positions that we don't know how they are being funded, and we don't
see the revenue, and I'm not trying to control it. I'm just trying to
understand it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear Mr. Smykowski's
response, because you mentioned three or four different number sources
there, all of which appear to be different, it would help me if he
could explain why.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: All I can explain is that there are a portion of
grants -- when the board is the granting agency or the grantee, then
those grants are funneled through the board through fund 115. There
are a number of other grants that accrue where the sheriff is the
direct recipient and the cash is -- it does not go through the board.
There will not be an executive summary that the board sees.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, the answer to Commissioner
Hancock's question is you don't know. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the answer -- Madam Chairman, if I may,
the answer is we don't -- we have no way of knowing if the amount of
those grants that go directly to the sheriff is the four million
dollar number that you're looking for. We don't know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other part of the scenario or the
numbers you mentioned is, forecast, I think, was roughly $200,000 in
grants or 400,000, I'm sorry, came back at 1.2 which shows -- and all
credit to them, they brought in 800,000 more than what was budgeted
for the current fiscal year. If that's the case, I'm curious why we
are not seeing an overage in our forecast for the whole year and are
likely going to have a request for 600,000 additional out of reserve
if they have eight hundred extra -- $800,000 extra dollars to play
with by a grant, 800,000 more than they anticipated. Any idea there, Mike?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On the grants, the adopted budget was
approximately $195,000. What was appropriated was the -- was the
matches required, which are made from the confiscated property trust
fund, the -- typically a 20 percent match on the estimated grants to
be received.
The forecast reflects receipt of a number of grants --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Far in excess of what was budgeted,
which is great, but I'm just wondering if they've got an extra
$800,000 in revenue --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet they'll tell us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are we still projecting an overage?
I mean, is that going to be the overage, we have extra revenue that
has come through grants and you've taken advantage of that or will
there -- over and above that amount, will there also be a request for
reserve monies?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we are kind of hitting on points,
Don, and you probably had a presentation you wanted to make, but I was
just -- it's kind of a revenue and expenditure question for Mr.
Smykowski, and he's just going to have to answer.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Actually, what I prefer to do is respond to your
question, so we are going to get to that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: One of the representations that I just heard
made was that we are putting positions into the agency through grant
funding that you may not be aware of, but I want to reassure the board
that all of the grants that I have -- that we have enjoyed in Collier
County have come before the board in executive summary form. So, you
are aware before they are applied for and before we receive funding
that we are seeking funds. These will be for grant positions as well
as grant support, including maybe it's laptop computers or computers
to assist or vehicles to outfit that position, but all of those
executive summaries come before you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the two questions specifically
are, Commissioner Hancock's question about what appears to be in
excess of four million -- our mystery four million dollars there as
far as where that comes from, and then the second is the one I just
mentioned, and that's if you have gotten 800,000 more or whatever the
number is, more than anticipated in grant funds, congratulations, but
also, is that the number that accounts for the forecast higher total
year budget than what was approved for last year?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Do you want to take a stab at that?
MS. MYERS: Good morning, commissioners.
Can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Thank you.
MS. MYERS: Jean Myers, budget analyst for the sheriff's office.
Which question would you like me to address first?
Commissioner Hancock, the revenue, as the sheriff said, each
grant is brought before the Board of County Commissioners. The
problem I think that you're seeing is, as of right now, budget time,
you are only seeing the grants that we know that we have already
gotten an award for and where you're seeing in 115, which is -- you'll
see the match portion of that, as Mr. Smykowski said, the 20 percent
or 25 percent, whatever the match is, and -- that is eligible through
our confiscation trust fund, you will see that in 115 as the transfer
in or out, out of confiscated trust fund into the 115.
As the year progresses, yes, we do receive additional grants, and
in that case, some of those are for positions and some are for --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you need water or something?
MS. MYERS: I'm fine, thanks. I had a nasal -- some of those are
positions, and that is always explained in the executive summaries
that come before you.
As the sheriff said, some of those are also for technical
equipment, laptop, in car laptop computers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe --
MS. MYERS: At this point we don't know, but as you said, great
job.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand it's projected, and last year
there was 3.8 million -- and let me kind of -- where I'm trying to go
with this is that even when I added up those you know you're going to
get, those that are not pending, it was like, I think, 1.2 million
dollars, ballpark, that is revenue you know you're going to be
getting, yet that 1.2 million dollars in revenue isn't anywhere on our
budget sheets.
MS. MYERS: Right, that's not anything to do with general fund.
Those are separate. They have to be used for -- that particular
grant, it's set up in the sheriff's office books as a 115 account, and
that's why you're not seeing that here, and that was our auditor.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just feel like under grants, I ought to
see that as revenues then. I ought to know what you expect to get or
what you know you're going to get as grants and what it's going to pay
for. You know, I just -- I know there are 82 and a half grant
positions, and I know there's, hopefully, almost five million dollars
in grant money that the sheriff's office will receive.
What I don't know is that I look at the number of positions is
you have 46 certified law enforcement officers in North Naples. How
many of them are grant funded? As you go through and list your
positions, I'm looking for those that -- how many of these are grant
funded and --
MS. MYERS: You'll need to refer to page -- in the grant trust
tab in our sheriff's office book, there's another chart --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MS. MYERS: -- on Page 150, and there you will see our -- all of
the positions broken down by certified law enforcement, corrections
and civilian with our other revenue sources. There's the 82 and a
half.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I believe the commissioner's question, though,
is what about the districts and how many of those positions go to
districts or how many would be represented in the districts as grant
funded.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is part of it, yes.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't recall having it broken down that way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, just in one place seeing, you know,
that information will be helpful, but you've pointed out that it's
here, and I didn't see that, but I guess -- and Don, each year, we
kind of -- as we struggle through with what the needs of the sheriff's
office are and the needs of the community versus the fiscal situation,
I've always felt in the past that we are seeing the whole picture, and
this year, as I came across these grant funds -- and yes, it tells me
that this is what they may fund if they receive -- if they are
received, I just wonder as we look at what the needs of the sheriff's
office are and as we are making decisions that affect the general fund
on positions, if the entirety of that grant dollar amount shouldn't be
on these budget sheets in some way attached to some positions, in
particular, those that you know you're going to get, because if you
had a million calls for service last year and you had a million five
the year before, then that may have an impact if there are grants
funding certain positions and we see those, then we may not want to
also fund additional positions with general fund based on the calls
for service.
That's what I'm trying to get to, and I don't really have a real
clear picture when I look at this whole thing because of that plus or
minus four million dollars that it's kind of hard to get your hands
around. So, that's what I'm trying to get at.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Maybe it's easier to conceive of it this way.
You're coming at it from a different direction than we are.
We begin with the understanding, as you will undoubtedly see
demonstrated through the impact fees study that you have authorized,
we come at it from the understanding that we already work at a deficit
in terms of the number of positions needed to perform law enforcement
services each year, but that you will not and cannot and prudently
probably should not support the complete deficit because you couldn't
afford it. It is an accumulation of deficit that has run for 15
years. You can't make it up in one year.
We propose to you what, in essence, is stopgap measures to try to
perform the duties for the next year based on our current workloads,
and we will have discussions whether your staff agrees with this or
not, that particular position, whether we are working from deficit or
not, but that is the early report we understand.
So, when we get to you with our proposal and the general fund for
ad valorem taxation, we propose to you the number of positions that
are stopgap. We look earnestly for grant positions throughout the
year, and for those positions that we appear to be qualified for, we
apply for those positions. Then we come back before you before that
is a done deal for authorization through the board as required by the
grant -- the grantor, whether federal or state source. You become
aware of those grant positions we are asking for as is detailed on
Page 150 of our budget document, and then we go forward.
We receive the forms from you, from your staff each year to
prepare the budget, and we fill the forms out. We give you this
additional detail in addition to the forms you require, and we may not
be breaking it down exactly the way you want it. If there's
additional detail you desire, as Commissioner Constantine has
requested, then we'll provide that to you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we'll need to do that through
management and budget to say, on the form for the sheriff's office --
you know, because you do receive a high number of grants, a high
dollar amount, maybe we'll want to see the ins and outs of that on our
budget sheets when we look at your agency as a whole. So, that's
something that -- from this point forward -- again, because of the
magnitude of grant dollars that you receive in a given year, I think
it's important to see that in budget detail. So --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Hay I -- and just for the record again, this is
an official document of the Collier County Sheriff's Office. It's a
matter of public record. We have gone well beyond what your budget
staff requires us to do, and as detailed in your budget document --
now I can't recall what page that's on.
If you will look at Pages 142 through 144 of our budget document,
you will see a great deal of detail in terms of the number of dollars
expended and forecast --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I did.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- for expenditure for the grants from the year
1989 through the year 2001, and even though you don't require those
numbers, we provide them to you so you have an idea of what is
projected as well as what has been expended on behalf of Collier
County, and we will respond to budget staff at your direction for new
forms.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I've got some other questions, but
I'll defer -- do you want me to go ahead?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: To clarify this issue, maybe for wrap-up, all we
can do is take like the position count for the sheriff's fund 040 as
well as the grants, and on one piece of paper, just show the totality
of all the grant funded positions, and we can also like do some sort
of matrix that also shows by district where those positions are
apportioned.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not as concerned about by district as
I am probably the separation between -- because, you know, what the
public really wants, what they bug me about is more officers in cars
on the street. That's seems to be -- and that's probably the greatest
deterrent we can provide other than the specific gang work and
whatnot.
So, to me, road patrol is a very key separation in the budget,
but that's kind of my personal feeling.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have some questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get an answer to the one I asked
before?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Eight hundred thousand dollars?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the overall budget, just what's
forecast for the rest of this year appears to be a little bit higher,
I think 562,000 higher than what was budgeted. I notice you've got
roughly 800,000 more in grants than you anticipated.
Is that the money that will bump that total number up?
MS. MYERS: No.
When we receive grant revenue, those are specifically applied for
and have to be applied to that grant, be it if it's for a position or
for equipment. That cannot be mixed with our general operating fund
money.
What we are showing there, that $500,000 just rough estimated,
rounding, excuse me, is going to be our shortfall in operating funds,
and that is due to the reduction of the 4 percent attrition that was
taken off the budget due to your policy. We are only experiencing
about 2 percent right now.
So, as we had discussed last year and told you, we were hoping
that we were not going to have that 4 percent, and we are not seeing
that. It's only about 2 percent. Therefore, we are anticipating a
budget amendment back to you later this summer for around a half a
million dollars.
We cannot mix funds. The grant funds cannot be used to
supplement our operating funds. Those are budgeted separate, and
those dollars are specifically for that grant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That 2 percent -- we went through this
last year. We are not basing that on positions. We are basing that
on dollars spent '-
MS. MYERS: Dollars spent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on -- and not including overtime. We
are talking about just regular payroll.
MS. MYERS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a discussion item last year. So,
I wanted to make sure we were apples and apples this year.
MS. MYERS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you can help me with the
specifics of that, because I know in Golden Gate, for example, at that
substation, the current year budget is for 38 positions. They
currently have 34 of those filled, and so I'm wondering -- maybe you
can fill me in what the other substations -- I'm just more familiar
with that one, but I'm wondering what the picture is at the other
substations.
MS. MYERS: We do have some vacancies at the substations, and I
do have a worksheet if you would like to see that that we have worked
up on that of -- that is current as of our June 9th pay day.
Specifically in Golden Gate, yes, of the 36 authorized, we had 31
paychecks drawn to that particular district, five vacant, but we also
have five grant COPS deputies assigned there. So, there's a break
even, so to speak, there. We really still have a vacancy of five, yet
we've gone out and aggressively gotten those grant funds, and we do
have five there.
I think one of the -- I don't want to say -- call it a problem,
but something that we have to remember, we break this down because the
sheriff chooses to have six substations in the county. He's a
countywide service, and these positions, he may move them around at
any time. Just because he chooses to have 42 -- or we say there's
supposed to be 42 in North Naples, if there's a need that Golden Gate
or East Naples or whoever has them, our agency is an agency as a
whole.
It's the same way with the grants. When we say, well, we have
four COPS deputies in North Naples or five in Golden Gate, they are
countywide. He can move them wherever the need be.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's really the reason for my
question is that I'm not seeing the whole picture when I look at
Golden Gate and see five empty seats. I'm wondering, do we have an
overage in other places, are there vacancies in all --
MS. MYERS: That's a discretion of the sheriff to deploy his
manpower.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and I'm trying to get a picture
-- I'm asking you right now, maybe you can share with me, at the other
substations, how does that shake up so that I know, is there a
shortage everywhere or --
MS. MYERS: No. Vacancies, going through the substations, North
Naples had four; Golden Gate has five; East Naples has three; Marco
has one; Everglades, two and Immokalee has two, but the good side of
that is at North Naples where there's four vacancies, there's four
grant deputies assigned there, same with Golden Gate, and that's out.
East Naples is the same way. Marco Island, they are down a vacancy.
Everglades, they're down two, but Immokalee is up two.
So, I guess over wide county -- through all of our districts, we
are break even. Well, then would you like to -- we could add in our
STEP unit, the traffic unit. We also have a grant in that area
through our three DUI teams which also has a CSD. So, there again,
are we backed up plus three, you know, however you would like to look
at it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let me make a comment and maybe help out a
bit, I hope.
Any one day -- this is a moving picture, naturally, and as we've
discussed before, you may see some vacancies in a particular
substation, but for instance, we have seven members, seven currently
paid sheriff's deputies in the academy being certified for the road
today. We have a number, and I don't have the number off the top of
my head, but I believe it's 12 certified road patrol deputies who are
in our field training officer program who have not yet been assigned
to districts because they are not yet out of their field training
program.
So, it would be difficult, and the problem that Jean is having
right now responding to your question about how many vacancies we
have, it may give you a false picture as to which districts are
running any kind of vacancy because we do have people who are in
transition and subject to assignment to those districts, and that will
change from day to day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm trying to get a feel for --
when Jeannie says, gee, it's roughly a wash because we've got X number
of vacancies but that same number of grant positions filling in at
that area, and I'm wondering, are those grant positions expiring this
year or --
MS. MYERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm just having trouble getting my
hands around the picture.
MS. MYERS: Yes, we have 18 of the -- our original COPS that had
the original COPS grant, that was three years ago that it were all
approved by the board. We have 18 of those, you know, call it
expiring that have ended -- the three year grant period has ended.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what I would prefer to see,
and I appreciate the amount you guys do with grants and how much you
assist the taxpayer in taking advantage of those, but what I would
prefer to see if we have to make a choice between road patrol deputies
and certain things -- and some of that COPS project -- I was just
looking through the list that's on Page 139 of 1997 COPS projects, and
organized outreach Everglades cookbook sales project, conducted safe
shopper, two East Naples deputies were deployed to prevent
shoplifting, bicycle safety seminars, all of which are nice programs
-- I mean, there's a whole list there, handicap parking project,
7-Eleven work. I'm not sure what brush with the law is. Is that kind
of like Letterman's brush with greatness. Brush with the law
operations, I'm just looking at these, and I'm thinking, I don't know
if these are essential. They are nice, but if we end up -- if these
are -- have 18 grant programs expiring and we are going to put ad
valorem tax dollars, I would be hopeful that we put that ad valorem
tax dollar into deputies on the road just because I know how much the
existing deputies are running from call to call to call as opposed to
doing cookbook projects.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me explain. Community oriented policing
deputies, of course, now has become something of a faddish name.
Before they -- before they were community oriented policing deputies,
they were mobile enforcement group deputies in the Collier County
Sheriff's office from about 1988 through 1989.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The COPS is better than MEG.
SHERIFF HUNTER: These are deputy sheriffs who wear a uniform,
weapons, drive marked units. They also probably ride bicycles for
bicycle patrol. They walk beat patrol just like New York City. They
are a full charge law enforcement officer.
They also from time to time become involved in community and
neighborhood projects in order to improve those neighborhoods, Naples
Manor, Everglades City, Copeland area, Lee Tidewater Cypress. The
sale of the cookbooks that you see down here was a cooperative venture
on the part of law enforcement officers working with the neighborhood,
I believe it was at Lee Tidewater Cypress, to raise funds for a
community park to keep the kids off the street and out of crack
cocaine. I believe that is essential as part of the role of the
sheriff through our prevention efforts, and the use of law enforcement
officers for that purpose is undoubtedly envisioned by the
constitution of the state.
So, I would suggest that these grants and the grant funded
positions that we have within the agency are absolutely critical,
perform the full range of responsibilities that a sheriff is required
by law to do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things you had expressed
some frustration with, both with me personally and publicly, was last
year when the board cut some of your requests, still gave an
overwhelming increase I might add, but cut some of your requests, that
we didn't outline some specific concern. So, that's all I'm trying to
do here is -- I'm not suggesting any of these things are bad, but as
we prioritize what the most important things are and what the most
important safety things are, I'm just throwing out some ideas that --
maybe some of the items on here aren't as high a priority as some of
the other challenges your deputies face.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Now, I believe, and I may be misinterpreting
your suggestions and what you're intimating, but I believe if I polled
the room, it might be intimated that the suggestion is that many of
the prevention projects that COPS deputies are involved in are not as
important, but I'm saying -- I'm suggesting that they are important,
and it is the broken windows theory that we're working off of now,
that if you are able to take care of the details within a neighborhood
or within a community, things such as litter and the lack of play
facilities or the lack of paved roads or the broken windows themselves
that occur from abandoned businesses and residences, that if you take
care of those things, that people may very well buy back into,
psychologically buy back into their neighborhood and actually assist
law enforcement and other service providers, such as the board runs
code enforcement, animal control, they may actually psychologically
buy back into that whole governmental activity and assist with the,
not only the preservation of the neighborhood, but the improvement of
the neighborhood, and I think those are critical things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cite Bayshore as an example of that, it's
been a phenomenal change.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Bayshore is a COPS project area along with
Naples Manor, and we've had dramatic improvements there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, to be clear, I'm not
suggesting that they are not good projects. I'm just trying to get a
feel -- in the prioritization of things, I assume responding to
domestic violence or those things are a higher priority than cleaning
up litter or selling cookbooks or doing those things. That's all. I'm
not saying it's not a good --
SHERIFF HUNTER: And I would respectfully disagree, but I
understand your position.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
MS. MYERS: Commissioner Constantine, can I just throw in a
tidbit that we have worked up on your substation staffing question?
Since Sheriff Hunter took the office of sheriff, we have -- he has
actually increased what you would call the substation staffing, the
road patrol positions by 95 and an increase of 3 percent since 1989,
and we have that worked up for you if you would like to see that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I shift gears here for a little bit?
I'd like to ask about the Marco million, how we are going to
treat that in our budget? What we are going to do? Can you update us
on the progress that you've made in discussions with the City of
Naples or, sorry, City of Marco?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problems with the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Things are fine with the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we just don't give them anything, so
case closed.
MS. MYERS: Commissioner Hancock, you had said on Monday that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's me over here. I'm the one that's
talking.
MS. MYERS: -- you were going to get an answer to a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hello, over here. I'm the one that asked
the question.
MS. MYERS: Correct.
In relation to that, I believe on Monday, Commissioner Hancock
had made the comment of -- that Mr. Weigel was going to answer some
question in relation to this that was going to be the grand opening to
this discussion. So, I didn't know if you had the answer to that,
because we didn't actually hear the question on Monday, just that you
were going to have an answer to this phenomenal question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wasn't on my E-mail this morning. I'll
have to ask Mr. Weigel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that ample five days I gave you, and
that was based on a discussion I had with the sheriff about, you know,
his constitutional, you know, or statutory requirements, how to serve
those in all communities and whatnot and from that, Don, I took our
conversation, phrased it into a question for the county attorney so he
can give us advice on how to address that issue in your budget. MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, county attorney.
I've had questions from several sectors in regard to the City of
Marco and the sheriff's services and the funding of those services,
and in large part, the questions have come from the framework of the
arrangements with the City of Naples and the issues of dual taxation
that were discussed and settled amicably following a lawsuit in 1979
-- settled in 1980, but I think the answer is actually found
elsewhere, because the City of Naples had dual taxation questions with
the county, and we don't have a dual taxation question with the City
of Marco, and I think that the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And David, the reason we don't is because
they are not taxing themselves for a police department; is that the
reason why we don't have a dual taxation issue?
MR. WEIGEL: That essentially is correct. The City of Naples had
a police department in 1979, and the City of Marco does not in 1998,
ostensibly one in 1999, but there is a requirement for service to be
required, and Sheriff Hunter and the staff would certainly never lose
sight of the fact they are the constitutional law enforcement agency
for the county.
I think the answer, though, is actually simpler than the
questions we posed, and I think that the answer is found on Page 34 of
the City of Marco charter which provides in pertinent part, Collier
County is authorized to continue to provide all municipal service
taxing district, HSTD, and/or municipal service taxing unit, HSTU,
services budgeted to be provided as of the date this charter is
approved unless the City Council of Marco Island votes to terminate
any or all such services.
Now, there is more there on Page 34 of the charter, but I think
the essence of what I just read and what I didn't read is this, and
that is, the county sheriff's services have been provided and funded
through the -- to the area of Marco through the unincorporated area
HSTD. Unless the City of Marco indicates officially through its city
council otherwise, that shall continue as the status quo, and I think
that's the answer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, the answer is we just continue to
budget that amount for the sheriff's operation within the HSTU? MR. WEIGEL: It appears to be, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Didn't they -- didn't they ask us --
what's the effect of the dissolution of those -- their -- why isn't
the city council's action requesting us to take them out of the HSTU
the action that is their official request that we not provide the
service anymore?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the previous request that we had from the City
of Marco ratified in their resolution were for four specific HSTUs,
and those were the Marco Island beachfront renourishment, the island
wide beach renourishment, the beautification and the street lighting,
I think it was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask the question of Mr.
Weigel is, as Sheriff Hunter and I discussed, he, obviously, has
patrol responsibilities and response responsibilities countywide. He
has to, but the argument I was hearing, you know, through the
grapevine from Marco was that, you know, one, we don't -- we shouldn't
be paying unincorporated general fund because we are a city now, and
two, the sheriff has to provide us service by law anyway, so we
shouldn't pay anything additional for it.
What failed in that leap of logic was that the unincorporated
general fund was created because of the inherent relationship between
the county and the city and what the city was providing for itself.
The reason that MSTD exists is because the city was providing its own
police service. So, to me what that says to the folks on Marco, and
as I understand Mr. Weigel, he's verifying this, is you either pay the
MSTD or you provide your own law enforcement, period.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, we can assess them a million dollars
through the MSTD? I don't think that's the answer to the question,
Commissioner --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They have been removed from the unincorporated
area. The property value reflects the elimination of Marco from the
unincorporated area general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so the action of their incorporation
was the action by which they notified us that they want to be removed
from.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no.
MR. WEIGEL: I would respectfully disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just grasping at straws here, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe I'm not following you
then, Mr. Weigel, because it sounds to me like they are getting a free
ride.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're taken out of the tax picture,
but they're still given the service, and that just doesn't seem
appropriate at all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because we are not getting the revenue; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what they're saying.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is having your cake and eat it too
from that standpoint, and it's just -- it's not right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could offer something that might help the
logic here, in the discussion that I had with the sheriff on Tuesday,
I used this as a way to iljustrate the fairness question.
We've always looked at the comparison with the City of Naples as
the benchmark for what is appropriate and how is it appropriate to
fund, but since there isn't the parallel in that Marco Island doesn't
have their own police department, maybe Naples is not the right
example to use here.
What I used instead was, let's take Golden Gate City. Last year
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are not a city.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- unincorporated, okay, last year, Golden Gate
City paid for their police protection from the sheriff's department
through the MSTU millage as did Marco Island. Now that Marco Island
has incorporated, they're expecting to continue that same level of
service. However, by virtue of their incorporation, they are no
longer included within the MSTU, and therefore, the mechanism by which
they paid for it and Golden Gate City paid for it last year is no
longer available. Yet, they expect that service to continue to be
provided. Golden Gate City this next year will pay that half mill.,
and now Marco is saying that they don't want to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- yet they expect that same level of service.
So, we need to find another way, another mechanism to allow them
to pay the equivalent of that half mill. millage, and the way we've
got it structured here in the budget is a direct payment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have an idea about how to do that, and
-- because we can't force them to budget a direct payment, but what we
can do is say that as a county, we have adopted a level of service
that the county general fund provides law enforcement services -- the
level at which we provide law enforcement service within an
incorporated area. We have the City of Naples to compare that with.
It think it's something like about 25 percent of the general, what's
provided for the county -- the unincorporated county. I think that
they are entitled to that 25 percent of service by virtue of their
payment in the un -- in the general fund just like the City of Naples
gets that percentage of coverage from the sheriff by virtue of their
payment to the unincorporated -- I'm sorry -- to the general fund.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They are not, however, entitled to a
hundred percent service at no charge.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely not, and so what they -- so
what we have to ask the sheriff to do is to create -- to identify for
us between now and September what -- if my 25 percent is the right
number, what is the number, the percentage of service that's provided
within the city limits, and that is what you get unless you pay more.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, what do you get -- what do
you get for the 25 percent that you pay into the unincorporated fund?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These are all the questions that I was
going to ask the sheriff during my time. It seems to have been taken
over by someone else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody feels very strongly about this.
It doesn't matter though. All that you really care about is that
the information gets out for all of us, right; not who says it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good; me too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, unless you're talking about a
joint meeting, and then it makes all the difference in the world.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's assume --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- for the moment that, as you've heard, we
are not going to assess through the unincorporated area a general
fund, and let's assume that -- one of the scenarios could be that the
City of Marco council decides that they are not going to fund the
million dollars, what then is your level of service? Surely, you've
thought about that. What do you intend to provide for them?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I intend to provide the same level of service
countywide to all areas of the county as required by the constitution.
So, I must provide services to Marco regardless of whether they make a
direct payment, and I think that's the reason -- well, I shouldn't
comment on the legal issues. You have legal counsel here.
I would provide a base level service, as Commissioner Mac'Kie
refers to the 25 percent, it's 25 to 28 percent of available patrol
tour available for --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, hypothetically, 25 percent of what you
are now providing?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No, we would like to have 25 percent
availability or 28 percent availability. It's a number I referred to
before with the impact fee study. Twenty-eight percent availability
is what I'd like to see countywide, and that's what I would suggest to
you I would provide to Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How would --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a problem with that. Go ahead. I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How would -- how would that differ from
what you provide today on Marco Island?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Do we have an availability figure for Marco?
It's fairly high.
I don't have an official number this morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does it approach 100 percent?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, no, it wouldn't be 100 percent, but it
would be closer to 100 percent than 28 percent most likely.
Let's say this, if you compared the districts, the patrolled
districts of the Collier County Sheriff's Office and their
availability to maintain patrol functions over businesses and
residences, you'll see some variation there, especially in district
three, district eight, which is Immokalee, we see that availability is
quite low. Whereas in district six, Marco and Everglades City,
district seven, the availability for patrol is quite high because they
have fewer calls for service and fewer part in one crimes. So, it
varies, but I'd like to adopt a figure across the board for base level
service.
So, the answer, again, to the question is, I would provide a base
level of service to Marco Island to make certain that I've complied
with the constitutional requirements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just like you do in the City of Naples?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Just as we do in the City of Naples.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But you know -- excuse me. Go ahead, John.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it would be fair to say that the level
of service without some sort of transfer of payment would be severely
or drastically reduced from what it is today or somewhat reduced?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would say that it would be reduced from what
it is today with no transfer of payment, with no available staffing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And obviously, the City of Marco has
the option of contracting with you to make sure that any stepped up
level of service they would like, they can come to you and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the follow-up to all of this
discussion, I think, is probably -- I think if you polled the board
right this minute, you will see that I don't think the board is going
to fund that million dollars through the general fund to supplant the
money that would otherwise have come from Marco.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make that two just for polling
purposes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that five.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Make that five.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question I have on that -- I'm sorry,
but it sounds to me like Marco is getting a deal that no one else is
getting, and let me try and walk you through that.
If the people in North Naples are going to get 25 to 28 percent
patrol because that's the base level of service, and if every time
they have a need for a deputy, they pick up a phone and call 911 or
call the sheriff's office, somebody responds, how does that differ
from what the people on Marco Island would get and pay nothing?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm not suggesting Marco pays nothing,
Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point though is, when we try and
quantify 25 or 28 percent, does that mean that once they get to a
certain level of calls, you stop responding to them? SHERIFF HUNTER: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I don't -- what I don't understand is
we haven't quantified how that level of service changes --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't understand what 28 percent gets you,
and that was the question I was trying to clarify, that if somebody
gets 25 or 28 percent, what do I see as the general public?
We can talk about numbers. We can talk about 33 percent. You
can talk about 70 percent. Personally, if I'm John Q. Public sitting
out there, that doesn't mean squat to me, okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's talk about --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What I want to know is, what does this
quantify -- in other words, tell me what I'm going to see different,
what will the people on Marco see different or what am I going to see
since I'm paying, what am I going to see different than what they are
going to see?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I've got to just supplement that by
saying that -- that the answer has to be, go to the City of Naples and
see how often you see a sheriff's car, and that's how often you're
going to see them on Marco. It has to be.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, it's not -- well.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know, because --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's start with a point of departure and let's
make it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It has to be. It's not fair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, start from the beginning, please.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- a clarification of 28 percent availability
factor, if you will, and I have to take you back a little bit, because
I want you to understand how Marco came to be where it is.
In the '80s, in the 1980s, extensive work was done and extensive
study was done. It is available to you. It was done by the Collier
County Sheriff's Office. We inquired to the National Sheriffs'
Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
Statewide Trooper Associations in Michigan, Florida and others to try
to define what amount -- first of all, is there a standard for patrol
services for visibility, because if there's one common denominator in
all law enforcement agencies, it's that you get complaints from the
public that they have not seen a patrol officer or a patrol vehicle in
their neighborhoods in X number of days or ever.
Is there a standard that can be adopted by a law enforcement
agency for visibility and visibility is patrol availability, meaning
the more time that I have on my shift when I'm working as a patrol
deputy that is not currently being devoted to responding to a call, I
can work looking after businesses and residences and driving my
vehicle through neighborhoods and industrial areas trying to prevent
crime.
In the 1980s, the commission adopted both directly and
indirectly, depending which year we look at, during the budget
proposal process, but the budget as proposed was based upon a 50
percent availability, meaning 50 percent of a patrol tour would be
available to each individual deputy of the agency for suppression
patrols, visibility. That was under Aubrey Rogers.
You can also look at it another way. There's a 50 percent
probability that a patrol deputy is going to be busy when another call
comes in, but 50 percent availability was what we adopted throughout
the '80s all the way -- we get to the very end of the 1980s and we see
that we begin falling off of that availability.
The only area that currently preserves a high availability in
Collier County in our patrolled districts would be Marco Island and as
I said, to some extent, Everglades City, but they have a very large
area to cover in Everglades City, the Everglades City patrol area, so
we see that -- although their availability might be high, their
visibility is probably low because they have a very large area to
cover.
Marco Island continues to enjoy high availability because we
consciously continue to do it that way in Marco Island. We already
had staffing there. It did not make sense to take an area with a low
crime rate and begin removing staff and find that suddenly the crime
rate is up and now all you've done is diluted the impact in that area.
So we try to preserve that. It's something of a model for us along
with Pelican Bay, because that's become an issue over the years. We
try to preserve it as a model even though these discussions each year
before this board and others prior have consistently been that our
availability is falling off and we are unable to preserve the same
levels of patrol that we've enjoyed in years past.
So, what we've done -- Mr. Fernandez and I have had discussions
pertaining to the impact fee study, and one of the issues I believe
that this board will have to decide is what level of service are you
intending to have from your law enforcement agency? Will it be at 20
percent of a patrol tour available for patrol purposes or will it be
at 50 percent of a patrol tour available for patrol services or
something in between?
We did discover through the studies, by the way, and I should
final -- complete that circle. We did discover that no one has a
standard in the United States that we were able to identify. There is
no such thing as a standard patrol. It all varies. So, therefore, we
can't say that Marco Island shouldn't have 42 percent or whatever they
currently enjoy compared to North Naples, which only has 17 percent,
perhaps, or whatever the number shakes out as.
As Jeanne Myers related to you before, the way I prefer to
conceive of it is simply that the Collier County Sheriff's Office, by
action of the Board of County Commissioners, has approximately 912
people that they can assign to problems that occur throughout Collier
County from time to time using utility groups such as our SWAT teams,
our marine patrol services. We can take them off the water and
require them to drive a marked vehicle. Bailiffs, when they are not
attending court, they are required to get in a vehicle and patrol. We
have services available. We try to redeploy them into the districts
as necessary in order to keep our availability up as high as possible,
but let's not fall off of a good thing, a model area and then suddenly
see it go the way others have gone.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, let me ask the question in a
different way that might get really to the heart of the matter or
bottom line oriented.
If the million dollars is not forthcoming, will there be a
reduction in staffing on Marco Island?
SHERIFF HUNTER: And I would have to say probably -- I haven't
addressed that issue, no.
We have a substation located there. It's your facility. That,
as I've said many times before, district six, the Marco substation as
we call it, serves an area that's much larger than Marco. It serves
Isle of Capri, Port Au Prince, Goodland area, portions of U.S. 41. It
serves as backup to district three, especially in the Naples Manor
area. So, I would suggest to you that I'm probably not going to
reduce actual staffing at that location, but the amount of time
devoted to actually patrolling Marco Island might have to be adjusted.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you -- could you operate that
district out of the East Naples substation and not use the one on
Marco? Would you -- would that be a consideration?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Substations are just a point of contact for
people in the public. We can operate without substations
theoretically, but that doesn't seem to be the way the constituents
wish to have it. In fact, I'm asked to provide additional
substations, but we can -- the answer to your question is, we can
operate out of headquarters if necessary.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the 900 --
SHERIFF HUNTER: If headquarters were large enough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the 912 people you have available, how
many of those are assigned to the City of Naples?
SHERIFF HUNTER: The City of Naples is incorporated in the
district three patrol area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand, the East Naples district.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- so the answer would be, Jeanne, how many
people assigned to East Naples at this time, allocated slots?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's district three. How many --
MS. MYERS: Fifty-one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry?
MS MYERS: Fifty-one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty-one are assigned to the East Naples
substation, district three, and how many of those 51 spend time and
what percentage of their time do they spend in the City of Naples city
limits?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ballpark.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ballpark, just closest you can get.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I can't answer the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, they would know, and you know,
maybe that's a question we've got to get answered between now and the
final budget hearing because the lieutenant or whoever is in charge of
that substation would be able to tell you how much time they spend
driving around inside the city limits and responding to calls inside
the city limits, and whatever that is -- or that has to at least be
the benchmark for what Marco, an incorporated city is going to get.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Respectfully, I've got to say is it can't
be the benchmark because the City of Naples provides it's own police
force. You have an entirely different situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there is -- why would the City of
Marco ever have a police force there? Why would they ever decide?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because they want it. Why would the City
of Naples; the same reason, because they want it. They want to do it
themselves; no other reason.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or maybe because Marco wants to get it for
free.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the answer to your question,
John, is the City has a police force, and that's, I think,
Commissioner Mac'Kie's point is that City of Naples is providing their
own law enforcement. Marco should too, whether that's police force or
contracting with the sheriff's, it doesn't matter which title you give
them, but -- or which group, but they need to provide that themselves.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or pay --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or pay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the equivalent in MSTD general fund.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is
that just simply at the moment, you can't compare the two because they
are not the same.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but it's a relevant question. I
really want the answer to the question between now and final budget to
be able to have some benchmark, although you're right that it's not
apples and -- you know, it is apples and oranges, but it is still
relevant information.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I can answer your question this morning in
this way, that if you conceive of law enforcement in Collier County as
it's supposed to be conceived of throughout the State of Florida by
the constitution, as it's already been related, the sheriffs are the
chief law enforcement officers for the county responsible for the
entire county; meaning patrols must go on, investigations must occur,
and, in fact, taking investigation as an example, the sheriff at any
time may take over an investigation occurring in the City of Naples,
for instance, if the sheriff is convinced that the investigation is
not progressing properly. The sheriff has the authority to do that.
The sheriff has origination rights, if you will, rights of first
refusal on all investigations.
If you conceive of the City of Naples in this fashion and we can
get to the discussion of Marco, Collier County Sheriff's Office for 75
years has provided law enforcement services to the city areas. We
were there when they created their city police department. We are
there today. We try to provide a base level of service to them
because we do recognize that they have a full fledged police
department and a good one with investigations and patrol and beach
patrol and marine patrol. They have all of those features. They
still lack some features, but they have all of the basic foundation
responsibilities of a law enforcement agency.
Those are additive to the base level of service provided by the
Collier County Sheriff's Office. They don't supplant. They don't
remove my authority or my responsibilities to provide services to the
City of Naples. They are, in fact, duplication in a very large way to
the services provided by the Collier County Sheriff's Office --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don, let me --
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- but I am required to be there. They are not
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the point --
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- except by charter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if what you are providing to the City
of Naples under the constitution of the State of Florida you are
providing the services you are required to provide, whatever that is,
provide that to Marco. I mean, either you are or you're not complying
with the Florida constitution in the City of Naples. I'm confident
that you are, and, therefore, I want you to give that same level of
service to the City of Marco.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And that's what I've assured the board we're
going to try to do. We'll try to provide the same level of service to
Marco that we provide to the City of Naples. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's fine.
SHERIFF HUNTER: However, once again, we are treading on thin ice
because if we remove elements of patrol from Marco, we would imagine
logically that there may be an impact, an adverse impact to the crime
situation on Marco, and that should be communicated to its council.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, isn't that their consideration?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That should be their consideration.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me try to summarize this,
because I think it's also the sheriff's consideration -- obviously,
your main concern is law enforcement and whether a check comes from
the BCC or from Marco Island City Council, you still want to make the
streets as safe as you can here, there and throughout the county, so I
don't want to put too much of the burden on the sheriff with that, but
what I do expect is that the taxpayers of East Naples and Golden Gate
and Immokalee and North Naples shouldn't have to pay extra for law
enforcement on Marco Island because they chose to incorporate.
Now what I'm looking for before we put the budget to bed is our
county attorney to help us determine how we can do that, and I think
the sheriff just wants to make sure he provides whatever law
enforcement is necessary down there to make sure things are safe, and
so I think we're all talking the same language here. I don't think
he's too worried about which place that comes from, and he just wants
to make sure he does his job, but I'm expecting our county attorney to
tell us how to correct that situation so the taxpayers in all the rest
of the county don't foot the bill for the people in Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all of that assumes that the City
Council of Marco is not going to do the right thing, and, perhaps,
they still will. The right thing is for them to pay for, through a
contract, the services that they would like to have, and we've
quantified that as a million fifty-three thousand dollars. If the
citizens of Marco will let their city council know that they are not
freeloading off of the rest of the county, then the city council will
pay that and we won't have this issue, and our county attorney won't
have that challenge.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But in an effort to be safe rather
than sorry --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I hope our county attorney will
research that in depth and be prepared to provide some options to us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, thank you.
Pam, when we are talking about patrol time, I think that's
important. However, there's a distinctive difference between the City
of Marco -- the City of Naples and Marco. When I pick up a phone
within the city limits and dial 911, who do I get, Don? I get the
City of Naples. It doesn't go to you unless they communicate with
you, correct?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So for every call within the city limits,
the sheriff's office doesn't even know about it unless they are
monitoring that call or are notified.
So, if we use level of patrol as the base, we are ignoring the
fact that every call for service within the City of Naples is fielded
solely by the City of Naples Police Department unless -- and we all
understand, Don, when it hits the fan, we are the guys that have the
extensive units, the backup, the SWAT, the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody is there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your department is the net. When the City
of Naples Police Department is not large enough to handle the issue,
you're there. We all understand that. We also understand you do
patrol the City of Naples, and no one is trying to say you aren't, but
I think if we focus solely on the percentage of patrols within the
city, we are failing to recognize that part of what they tax
themselves for is their own 911, is their own response for calls. That
is what this million five or million six from Marco is. It's not just
patrol.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the fact that there is a difference
here, that when they pick up the phone and call 911, our sheriff
doesn't have a choice. He has to respond, and because the City of
Naples pays for their own initial response and their own 911, there is
no reason people of the City of Marco should not pay like every other
county resident for that same service.
So either in my book they're going to pay the MSTD equivalency
for law enforcement or they're going to provide their own law
enforcement detail, however they want to do it, because it's just not
right. So, I don't want to focus on patrol because I think we're
missing a huge part of the picture there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, piece of the picture.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, even if we adopt 25 percent
countywide, that's great. I think, you know, give us a benchmark of
something to operate on, but what we don't have the option of doing is
when they call 911 saying, I'm sorry, you've used your quota. SHERIFF HUNTER: No, we can't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't, and that call is going to come
to you regardless of what they decide to do, whether to pay their fair
share or not.
So, when we look at this 1.5 million, it's not to put officers in
cars on Marco Island. It is also to respond to every single 911 or
non-emergency call for the sheriff's office that they have to perform
on Marco. So, if we're going to use a benchmark, maybe calls for
service within the City of Naples versus calls for service within
Marco Island is a more accurate benchmark if we are going to have a
stable base of patrol, but they're also paying for and what I'm paying
for in North Naples and what you're paying for in Golden Gate is when
I dial 911, you're there, and you respond, and the City doesn't --
they tax themselves for that. They are not paying for that within the
city, so --
SHERIFF HUNTER: May I add one point of clarification? I agree
with everything you've said, and it's a very good way of viewing this,
and the reason we've been talking about patrol is because that's what
the court case said in 1979. They only wanted to talk about patrol.
They didn't want to talk about all the other services, bailiff
services, service of civil process, warrants, all the other things
that an area enjoys, if you will, from the sheriff's office.
The one thing that I want to build upon that you mentioned,
Commissioner Hancock, is that this response to calls for service on
Marco, when they pick the phone up, they dial 911, the sheriff's
office responds, when I say 25 percent availability, I mean 25 percent
of a patrol tour is available above and beyond what is required to
respond to the calls for service.
So what we do each year and what you'll see in the impact fee
study and what you see each year as we propose the budget to you is we
know we had X number of calls for service last year and for the last
five years. We project that into the next year using the best
statistical methods available, and we try to predict how many calls
for services are going to come into a particular area, including
Marco.
So we say we need X number of deputies just to respond to those
calls for service. We want to add now some deputies to provide for
the patrol availability, and if we ensure that we have a benchmark of
25 percent availability of patrol tour, we are also ensuring that we
have the calls for service covered for Marco.
So, again, that would be a base level of service. The City of
Naples, I assure you, enjoys a base level of service. They get
warrant service, civil process, marine patrol, K-9, vice and narcotics
investigations in the City of Naples. All sorts of services are
provided to the City of Naples that we haven't even begun to discuss
this morning, still morning, so I want to assure you that the City of
Naples has a level of service that they can rely upon from the
sheriff's office, including patrol services.
Harco will, presuming an adoption of a benchmark, enjoy a certain
level of service, and I would strongly encourage the City of Marco to
consider payment of fees in order to keep those services high.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, as a follow-up to that, let's
assume we decide that it's 1.5 million dollars to maintain that level
of service, and the City of Marco says, no, we are not going to pay
it, we now have to sue them; is that right?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now we are getting to the bottom line.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that what we would be attempting to do by
lawsuit as one mechanism is to enforce what the law requires, and in
looking at all the laws -- we've got the statutes, but we've also got
the City of Marco charter, and I want to make it clear that when I
talked about it providing for the status quo of HSTD services to
continue unless the city council says otherwise, that that didn't also
seem to infer the services continue without the appropriate pro rata
share of payment for that service, but it would appear that, you know,
if the legal -- they tried to enforce this in court or otherwise, if
negotiations broke down, that they look for an application of the
charter.
Now, in chatting a little bit with Mr. Fernandez and Mr.
Smykowski about the particularities of this HSTU that the sheriff's
services are in, it's not a pure sheriff's HSTU as you know even
better than I, but it has other services, too; code enforcement and
others.
It's my understanding that code enforcement is something that the
City of Marco wants to take upon itself in the future. I do not know
that they've specifically addressed it, however, in terms of their
charter, Page 34, stating at a point certain that they no longer want
those services. We've always assumed that at the end of this fiscal
year, they would significantly initiate and carry on services of that
sort and others.
Yes, the lawsuit ability is there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how we develop what that figure is or
should be is going to be critical to the success of that, because I
have no intention on backing down on what's a fair number, period. So
how we justify that number is what's going to be, I assume, key to
being successful should we be forced to that point by the City of
Marco.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, absolutely, and I don't lose sight of the fact
for a moment that your charge to me is to provide a response that
doesn't give the legal initiative for other areas or citizens of the
county to have a legitimate lawsuit against us for the unfair
application of service through nonpayment.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We seemed to have gotten ourselves
into a discussion on the City of Marco. I wonder if there would be
any objection if I got back to some of the specifics in the sheriff's
budget.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. We've had enough of Marco for
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've had enough of Marco.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To give our court reporter a break, it's
almost eleven o'clock, let's take a break until just a few minutes
after 11:00, please.
(Small break was held).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I won't use the term if we can all find our
places. That sounds like we are back in elementary school.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We are doing rudimentary math, just a lot
of zeros.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are we waiting on?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What are we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
I had some specific questions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a nice cup of cookies you have
there, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not coffee, folks, and it's not water.
It's a cup of crackers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Animal crackers, not just any
crackers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What did your mother tell you, Tim, if you
didn't bring enough for everybody --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. When he says he's hungry
enough to eat a horse, there's probably one in here. Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had some specific questions for the
sheriff on his budget.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff Hunter, on the -- our
helicopter, we've had -- we have a fleet now of a flight base, but on
the helicopter, do you have any idea what the cost per flight hour is
when we figure in future overhaul costs and all those things?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm sure we do.
Do we have that this morning?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You mean you don't keep that in your head
at all times? Come on.
MS. MYERS: Commissioner Constantine, can you give me a little
bit more detail on maintenance -- including maintenance or pilot and
flight time? I can certainly get that for you for wrap-up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, usually just to fly an aircraft,
there's a cost associated per hour, which is inclusive of all those
things.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Including the mechanic time?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, your maintenance, what's
anticipated as -- because of flight time, you have to have -- you're
required to have overhauls at certain -- after a certain number of
hours. Obviously, you've got to have a body in there doing the
flight.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope so.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I see you out there with a remote
control, we'll know we're in trouble.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A little concerned about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then do you have any idea how many
flight hours we have flown or are projected to fly in this fiscal
year, '98?
MS. MYERS: As far as projected, I can get that information for
you, as well, and as far as this year's activity, I would like to
refer you to Page 64 of our budget book is the aviation page. They've
logged over 390 flight hours and provided assistance in 766 cases in
1997.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that fairly consistent for this
year or do you think there will be an increase, the year we're in
right now?
MS. MYERS: I can't answer that. I'm not a pilot. I would
assume --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can someone answer for me if that's
going to be an increase, give me an idea?
MS. MYERS: Sure, we can get back to you on Monday with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I'm asking that in particular, and
I've got a number of questions, but why I'm asking that one in
particular is I remember when we had the debate over whether to add
the helicopter or not, that we were told -- in the discussion over how
expensive overhauls are and those things, we were told the helicopter
would really be used in emergency type situations, lost child, drug
situations like described here, someone on the loose, you didn't want
to endanger people with a high speed chase, a lot easier to keep a
view from the air on someone, and just the flight hours here and what
I assume are projected for fiscal '98 seem to be far in excess of what
was described to us at the time we went ahead to get the vehicle, and
there's just a cost associated with that, and that's what I'm trying
to pinpoint and not having much luck. We will by Monday, I guess, but
try to pinpoint that cost per flight hour and what that tallies up to.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. We will get that number for you, but my
recollection of the discussion five years ago, six years ago, whatever
it was --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I actually have the minutes back there
somewhere. I neglected to bring them out today.
SHERIFF HUNTER: The actual discussion was yes, we would use the
helicopter for pursuits, because ground pursuits were not feasible in
most cases, that we would use the helicopter for missing people,
children, the mentally infirm, et cetera, but also I told the board at
that time that we would not use it for routine patrols, but that we
would use it for patrols, typically on Friday and Saturday nights when
we are having difficulties with car theft, car burglaries, vandalism,
gang activity and burglaries in certain areas that we could describe.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, that would answer my question as
to why you're flying over my house every weekend. It's that car theft
thing --
SHERIFF HUNTER: It's the car theft.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that you're trying to track down.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to guess gangs, but --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We can only afford to lose your car three times.
We won't let it happen a fourth.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the limit.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's it. But no, routine -- the perimeter I
put on it was no routine patrol. We're not going to have it up every
night. We try to limit it to need.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And really that's -- you've answered
part of that, and that was going to be my question, I do hear it
almost every weekend. I will hear it somewhere in the Golden Gate
area, and I didn't know if that's considered routine patrol or if
there were specific things going on out there, but that just seemed
over and above what we had talked about years ago, and I wanted to
make sure that was consistent with whatever direction you were saying.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's consistent with policy and our agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you help me with, separate topic,
DRILL academy, which we get accolades for and wonderful attention for
and have had some good success stories, but I'm wondering how the
recidivism rate -- I got the word out this time -- compares to
alternatives for young men, because -- and I don't know the answer to
this, but it appears in the past year or 18 months there have been an
usually high number of articles in the newspaper referring to
graduates who have gotten in trouble again, and I don't know if that's
just when I see them it grabs my attention or if the numbers may not
bear out what that appears to be.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Do you have a page on that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need to remind you that it's in the
paper.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's why I'm asking the
questions.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'll respond by --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: God bless the newspapers.
SHERIFF HUNTER: This information is dated by about a month now,
but we've had about 120 graduates. The stated recidivism rate, which
is the outcome measure used for programs in the State of Florida for
adult and juvenile offenders who have been incarcerated, the
recidivism rate, which is a measure of being re-arrested and
re-convicted after having gone through one of these programs, for the
State of Florida would be about 70 percent, meaning it's a 70 percent
fail rate for programs in the State of Florida for juvenile and
adults, especially juvenile, offenders who have gone through a boot
camp type program and then been re-arrested.
For Collier County, the number is reversed. We have about a 30
percent re-arrest, re-conviction rate as measured -- as recidivism for
the DRILL academy, and that is the reason that the State of Florida
has adopted the DRILL academy as the model under which they will
construct additional boot camp facilities in the State of Florida, and
it is the reason why they required Leon County, which is at
Tallahassee, the headquarters for the Department of Juvenile Justice,
the reason that they required Leon County to adopt the DRILL academy
as -- and they call it a DRILL academy at Leon County now.
So, we are having a very good result. What you see in the
newspapers reported as returns to the DRILL academy, those are the
tune-ups that we require of any DRILL candidate who is in the after
care program who has violated some condition of their after care. It
could be as simple as I didn't go to work today and I didn't call
anybody to tell them that I wasn't coming in. We are going back. It
could be as significant as they had a confrontation with a teacher
while in school, and we don't permit that, so you're going back. Those
are tune-ups. Those are not -- that's not recidivism.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we joke about the Daily, but I --
and I don't think they've had anything inaccurate in there. I'm just
-- the perception, I think, is gosh, what's going on here, and I
wanted to make sure -- I had a sneaking feeling that we were doing
better than perhaps the perception is in some of those -- from some of
those articles, and so I appreciate the numbers.
We talked a little bit about grant programs, and on Page 137, it
gets into some of the specifics, and it says in 1989, the fiscal year
we are talking about, the sheriff's office hopes to fund 22 grant
programs with 82.5 positions, almost five million dollars annually is
what we are talking about, and it appears those will go for a period
of two or three years. On the following page, it talks about 27 road
patrol positions over several years, and then it talks about the
period '97 to 2000.
Just trying to look ahead, if 2000 is the year where a number of
those come due, and it appears an awful lot come due this year, too,
but between this year when we see 38 or -- I may have that number
wrong, but a substantial number and then what appears will be several
more next year, do we have a plan on how to absorb those and do you
differentiate -- are there any of those grant programs which are
non-essential, which are good, but they're not a necessity?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, to answer the last question first --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I teed that one up for you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah, thank you. Non-essential, the easiest way
to respond to that question is, federal and state grantor agencies
will not fund you unless they are essential by their definition. You
cannot receive a grant unless the State of Florida or --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is their definition?
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- the federal government believes that what you
have applied for is essential to the provision of services as you've
described them in the application.
So, I guess the answer to that question would be, without going
through each individual position here, I would say that, yes, they are
essential to the functions of the sheriff in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just pick -- I don't want to go
through all of them either, but let me pick a couple at random. I
think there are four more civilian positions this year that are
anticipated to be funded through grants. That's just what I jotted
down from the comments earlier.
Can you tell me what those are, what type of things those are?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I hope we can.
MS. MYERS: Are you referring to Page 150 or if you would like to
turn to Page 150, that might help. Is this on?
One of those in particular is -- which I believe you did approve
the budget for on Tuesday was the additional position for the E-911
system. That is an increase this year. A civilian position in the
gang area --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doing what type of thing?
MS. MYERS: Secretarial, clerical, data input, analysis, a lot of
the report generation requirements of the grant and also in the show
cap area, again, clerical support, data analysis.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess the first part of my
question before was really the more important part, and that is, do we
have a plan on how we phase these in so there isn't a big financial
debt when we have, this year thirty some odd and next year it looks
like maybe more than that, suddenly come on line for the ad valorem
taxpayer to pick up?
SHERIFF HUNTER: There is a plan, certainly, and it is -- it's a
process, and it evolves. It begins where we apply for the grant. It
begins to involve you when we come before you with the executive
summary to ask that you support the application and indicate to the
grantor that you too agree that these positions are necessary, and
then I suppose embedded -- implicit in the executive summary as is
indicated in the one line fiscal impact is that at some future point,
these positions undoubtedly will not be funded by grant funds any
longer, and we will have to re-evaluate those positions at that time
for inclusion in the regular general operating account to fund those
positions. That's the plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it's that last part that I'm
most interested in. Is there a specific way other than just bingo,
presto, this year there's 38 new positions the ad valorem taxpayer is
paying for over and above the others you're requesting and next year,
it's whatever the number happens to be or we just are told, well, it's
been on the books three years; hopefully you planned for it?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That is the implicit understanding at the time
that we apply for it, that you understand -- we understand -- it
depends on the way you look at this, I suppose. It's all in the
manner in which you frame it. You're saying to us, monies are not
available. We certify that to the federal government, the stated
government and to the state government that monies are not available
from local sources to fund these positions. We indicate that they are
necessary and critical by way of the language in the grant. The grant
is given, and then at some future point, because all grants are seed
money theoretically, although we've had luck with extensive longevity
in some of these grants, three to five years instead of one year, but
at some future point, then the local unit of government that has
certified the need will assume the cost after it has been demonstrated
that those positions are necessary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The road patrol positions that you're
requesting -- correct me if I'm wrong -- 17 new this year, new
positions this year?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Seventeen?
MS. MYERS: Uh-huh. They are not all road patrol.
SHERIFF HUNTER: They're not all road patrol. There's five
investigators and two community service deputies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four traffic.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Maybe 10 road patrol, 17 total.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That makes a mix of a total of 17. I
guess I was looking at the -- and I appreciate Jeanne getting this for
me, but the road patrol staffing and the vacancies, and I realize this
is not an annual vacancy but as of last week, but we have in the
various districts a total of 17 vacancies, and I need you to help me
why -- and I know you said, I think you have seven folks in process
right now to fill some of those, but it seems to me, perhaps, we ought
to fill those positions -- again, I refer to Golden Gate substation
only because I'm more familiar with that one. I don't know the
situation with the others as well, but there has been for a majority
of this fiscal year, there's been a vacancy of five people. Earlier
in the year, I think it was three or four, but there's been vacancies
there throughout the year, and Iwm wondering if it wouldnwt make more
sense to fill those positions that are funded and -- before we start
requesting even additional positions, and this is hearkening back to
two years ago when we did the whole pay plan adjustment to make sure
we didnwt have those vacancies. We had that discussion about, gosh,
wewve got to fill the vacancies we have before we can even add new
positions, and it appears that we still are consistently having some
vacancies throughout, and what can we do to fill those before we go
and request even more.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, first of all, let me assure you that --
and respectfully, again, I disagree with your perception of whatws
happening. Let my try to clarify my earlier statements in the matter
of record.
We have seven in the academy Iwm told, roughly, in the law
enforcement academy. We have -- my recollection is we have about 12
deputy sheriffs who have gone through the academy, passed the state
exams and are in the field training officer element of training prior
to being released to the road. That makes approximately 19 deputy
sheriffs who are law enforcement placed or posted that will ultimately
be teassigned to districts.
We will carry those vacancies in the districts. We will reflect
them to you because thatws the truth. Thatws the honest way of
reporting the district situation today, although itws fluid, and those
numbers change on a regular basis. I said before, daily basis, but a
regular basis, every two weeks or so. For instance, Iwm having two
retirements that we will celebrate next week of deputy sheriffs. We
just celebrated two a week ago. We are moving. Itws a moving target,
and we are trying to keep it all staffed up. Thatws my
responsibility.
It does not, however, mean that because we didnwt predict that
Deputy Sheriff Joe Smith is going to retire this year, that I
shouldnwt request that additional position that we need because we
know that the calls for service is going to increase by the end of the
year because our numbers say so, because every other year that we
predicted this, theywve increased just as we said they were going to.
So, I canwt ignore the fact that we need additional people even
though we may not be able to predict whows retiring or whows leaving
for emergency needs due to family situations up north or whatever the
matter may be.
We do have people in process. Iwm assured by human resources
that we have people who are stacked behind one another in the
application process. We may have five people as applicants for one
position, and they have been offered tentative offers to come on, but
wewll take the first one first, and they go through the polygraph and
the drug screen, and if they donwt make it, then we go to the second
in that tier, third, fourth, fifth.
We have a number of people in process, but I canwt -- I canwt
tell you today we have all positions filled, and I canwt say that we
have every position and every substation filled because they are in
process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize itws a fluid situation and
those numbers will vary throughout the year, but, again, my reference
point just being the substation nearest to me, and thatws the one I
happen to work with most regularly, but throughout the year they have
been shorthanded. I donwt think therews any point during fiscal w98
where all 36 of those authorized positions were filled and -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Thatls not unusual.
The academy alone is five months. The FTO program is
approximately three months. So for eight months you won't see five
people sitting at the Golden Gate substation assigned to that
substation because they are in process. It's the same thing that
Marco Island is going to find is a difficulty for them. It takes a
long time to get a person through what the state requires and then
what you need to do in order to make sure that they understand local
policy procedure, case law, because different judges in the county
will handle different types of cases differently. Traffic signals
will be handled differently in this county versus another county,
violations of those codes.
So, you have to train a law enforcement officer before they
arrive on the street, otherwise you have more lawsuits, which I try to
avoid, which permits me to be here so I can talk to you today.
So that -- I think that's the difficulty. You may see that the
vacancies exist in Golden Gate, and we recognize that, so what I'm
required to do is take utility units like our STEP group, our vice and
narcotics group, bailiffs and other elements of the agency, SWAT team,
move them around and keep -- make sure that we are maintaining our
current levels of service in all of the districts that currently have
a vacancy factor while we wait for those deputies to come to us out of
training.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When they are going through that eight
month process, are they collecting a check? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, they are.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, it still is costing money --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Most of the time they are.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- I guess my point in asking
that is, for the -- since we are already paying them, once they are on
the street for the same amount of money, aren't we then getting
essential manpower if that was vacant for a period of time, for five
months or eight months, suddenly it's filled, but there's no
additional cost because you've been paying them for that five months
or eight months anyway? Shouldn't we take advantage of those when
they are filled in before we add the 17 additionals?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's see. If you're paying the people from the
beginning of the academy through the end of the academy, it's the same
cost whether they are serving in a capacity on the street or whether
they are going through the academy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: It's roughly the same. It's not exactly the
same, because we actually don't pay them the same salary until they
reach probationary status, but I can't ignore then when I come before
you each year that calls for service dictate that we have additional
-- in addition to those people in the process of becoming law
enforcement, that we also need some additional for next year, because
we have to look out 18 months -- this isn't just a year process. This
is 18, 20 months -- to be able to have adequate staff at the end of
that period.
So, if I were to come to you and say we don't need the 17 this
year, what we are going to do is defer until next year, those 17 -- in
fact, we have been doing that, and what the impact fee study is going
to show you is that we may have a significant deficit because we
haven't had the funding necessary to keep pace with the numbers
necessary.
So, we are already at deficit. I wouldn't suggest to you that
because we haven't gotten everybody through a state mandated process
in a quicker period of time that we shouldn't add additional people
next year to represent workload any more so than the school board
would say that knowing we are going to have 5,000 more school
children, we shouldn't build a school until we actually have them
on-site, because it takes longer than that to build a school building.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reference point you use is calls
for service, and did we have any luck getting the numbers of what
percentage of calls were up, requests for service were up this past
year or what's projected for '98?
Commissioner Hancock had mentioned that this morning. I don't
think we received an answer on that.
MR. MYERS: I can get you a schedule for that on Monday on
however far back you want to go.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm really more interested in just what
were the calls for service last year, total number, and what were
calls for -- okay, yeah, give me a three year trend to see where we
are going, if you would, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea, balipark, on
that, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I believe we have something in here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I couldn't find it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me when you add positions, you
know what your projected increase in calls for service are before you
add the positions, before you determine how many you need.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are you projecting for an
increase in calls for service for next year? SHERIFF HUNTER: Do you have that page?
MS. MYERS: No, the projection isn't in there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But isn't this the number you're justifying
your request for an increase on?
MS. MYERS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I said, isn't this the number that you're
basing your request for an increase on?
MS. MYERS: No, we actually use the 499.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually use what, I'm sorry?
MS. MYERS: The projection, it's used from a regression analysis
for '99 to do our '99 manpower.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Translation into English, please.
MS. MYERS: We don't base '99's budget or manpower on '97's calls
for service.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You base it on '-
MS. MYERS: '99's projected.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, there's -- so if you compared '97 to
'99's projected -- sorry, John.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was my -- that was my question,
though. That projected number is what you're basing your request for
an increase in manpower on?
MS. MYERS: Correct.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you don't have it?
MS. MYERS: Yes. I'd like --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, that's what you're basing your
whole increase on.
MS. MYERS: I'm looking for it. I'm sorry, yes. That's what we
used to get the 17 and other things in the agency, right. The calls
for service is only used for the road patrol manpower, not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's the bulk of your request.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Without getting bogged down in this, will you be
looking for that number, the 1999 projection? MS. MYERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus community service deputies.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And we'll get that to you as soon as we find
it.
MS. MYERS: I'll get a whole schedule.
SHERIFF HUNTER: There's a very important point to be made,
however. When you use a five year or greater trend, which is
considered to be necessary in order to get the smoothing of the line
for regression analysis, let's make sure that we don't land on a
particular year within the agency and say -- let's say it was 1997 and
you had 220,000 calls for service, and the next year you had 210,000
calls for service, a slight dip, and then the next year it's up to
270,000. For the five year trend, which is what you must have in
order for it to be statistically valid, the regression analysis,
because of the way it correlates inside the formulas, will take into
consideration any dips, and it smooths it out, and it gives you the
projection into the next year's, and we've been fairly accurate, as I
said before, in terms of up to -- coming within just a couple of
hundred in the number of calls for service predicting, what will
happen in the next year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But you don't have that number with you
today?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't have those figures with you?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I don't have that answer at the moment.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Crystal's got them. Crystal's got them.
She's shaking her head yes -- now no.
MS. MYERS: I can tell you off the top of my head that it's about
3 percent. The regression analysis that he's referring to, it shows
about between a three and a three and a half percent increase in the
calls for service.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Above two seventy?
MS. MYERS: Right. The two seventy that's in the budget book is
the '97 actual. So then you've got '98, '99.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Now we are in 1998, and we are projecting into
1999.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're projecting a three and a half percent
increase about.
Crystal is agreeing with that, yes. Off mike, she is agreeing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jeanne, when you put that schedule
together, could you also put together what has been anticipated each
year, because it's very helpful what the sheriff just said, if your
projections are traditionally very, very close with what the real
number came out to be, I think --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Proposed and actual.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, proposed and actual. I just
think that makes it easier as we look at the outlying years, too. MS. MYERS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of questions on
capital -- and that point we just went through is perhaps one of the
most important here, and if that's at 3 percent, I think that's a
telling number.
A couple of the items under capital items, fleet management
facility, can you tell me what you have in mind there? I see 1.2
million dollars is what you've estimated for a cost. Do you have a
location for that? Are we going to share our property north of the
landfill for that? What are we looking at doing? I know we've --
that's probably been three or four years you've been trying to
finalize what you want to do with that. I know things were tight. You
ended up putting a new lease in a new location, and where are we now?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, the last discussion that we participated
in was 1994, I participated in. In that year, the board direction was
that a site would be at the landfill, that we would be co-located. I
had no objection to that as long as we had some separation in terms of
being able to secure vehicles and make certain that we didn't lose
shotguns and radios and whatnot through vandalism or whatever.
My direction still is that we would co-locate with you. I have
no objection to that, but we don't have a site --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, that 1.2 million is strictly
structural? We are still looking to using the county land. That 1.2
million is strictly structural, no land or --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me what goes into that?
That's a big number for a big garage, and I know -- I know ours has
hydraulics and everything is in there, but '-
MS. MYERS: The 1.2 million is an estimate to purchase or build a
facility for the sheriff's office, to like is it at the landfill, is
it at a new location? It does not include any of the land -- a land
purchase if it would be adjacent to the landfill or including the
landfill.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I believe that the commissioner is asking how
many lifts would that include, how many --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just how do we get to that 1.2
million number?
MS. MYERS: That's just to move our current facility --
SHERIFF HUNTER: What would be the 1.2 million?
MS. MYERS: -- and hopefully to increase it by one bay with one
lift.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We currently have how many bays?
MS. MYERS: We have three.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Three -- three bays with the lifts. We have
another couple of bays for electrical and radio.
So, depending upon how you want to split the facility out --
you're certainly invited to come and look at the facility, but when we
say bays, that might be a little bit more eloquent and formal term
than what we really have. These are sort of informally demarcated
areas. You know, we can squeeze this many vehicles into this area,
and that would constitute the garage.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a balipark idea how many
square feet that is you're looking to build?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, it also includes office space, because we
can't house people in headquarters. So, we've moved them out to where
we used to store tires, we now have people in offices. So, it
wouldn't give you a whole lot of -- it wouldn't be a great example to
use, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're now storing people there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the new facility will be how many
square feet?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioner, that 1.2 million was requested by
the sheriff as a 301 project. From the county administrator's review
though, that was not recommended for funding, just so you're clear on
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would not recommend that either
right now.
Jeanne, can you help me with a couple small dollar items here,
the X-ray machines, what you have in there are just dying?
MS. MYERS: Yes, they are on their last legs. They are 13 years
old, and the repair parts are getting very hard to find, and they're
irreparable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it just -- I know you have a fairly
regular use of the dental. Is the full body -- how often do you use
the full body X-ray machine? I'm just wondering if -- maybe it's not
practical to move a prisoner over to Building H, but I'm wondering, is
that a twice a year thing, is that a once a week thing? How often is
the full body X-ray used?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Full body X-ray under medical contractor.
MS. MYERS: I'll have to check with our -- yeah, with our health
provider -- yeah, our contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering -- I mean, if
that's only a once a year, twice a year kind of activity or a small
number, is it completely impractical if it's that seldom to use what
they have at Building H in lieu of a whole new -- I wouldn't suggest
that for the dental, because I'm sure you use that regularly, and it
just probably wouldn't be practical to try to walk people across the
parking lot over there.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't have the answer. We'd have to look at
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the number was that small, does
that -- is that practical? I mean, if the number is a half a dozen a
year or less, is that --
SHERIFF HUNTER: It depends on the inmate, Commissioner. I
wouldn't move Mr. Coons (phonetic) across the lot and hope that we had
enough security over him to avoid a $50 X-ray or a $150 X-ray. I have
to attach four or five members of the agency to him for an hour to get
a full body X-ray, which is free except you've just expended four
people for an hour, no, I wouldn't adopt that necessarily.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
Communications equipment, replacement radios, what's the expected
life on each of these radios? They've only been in service two years,
I think at this point for the GE stuff, for the Erickson (phonetic)
stuff.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Perhaps you have an individual who oversees that
project. Perhaps he might respond to those questions. It has to do
with battery life and coding, the failure to properly water resist the
radio; a number of different things attributed to the failures.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This afternoon we'll see Mr. Daly as part of
support services. If you'd like to address that question, we can
certainly have him --
MS. MYERS: We'll also be back this afternoon, Commissioner
Constantine, for this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we maybe have those numbers that
Commissioner Norris and I had asked for by this afternoon instead of
by Monday?
MS. MYERS: We'll do our best.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- I mean, it baffles me when the
explanation the sheriff has given is that that's really a primary
figure, and I heard Crystal say it, too, that's where they extrapolate
that 17 positions from, that that information would be very hard to
find. I can't imagine that it would be that tough to track down if
that's what the expansions are based on.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We'll have that number.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you done?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned in your budget detail that
you're finding community service deputies are to be very popular
because they can actually handle driver exchange of information in
minor accidents and whatnot. You don't always have to use a road
patrol deputy in that kind of a traditional role.
Do you feel that you've maximized the use of community service
deputies in your budget request? You're asking for two.
The fact that these -- these individuals are responding to what
five years ago only a marked unit could respond to, do you feel like
you've kind of expanded that as much as you can with this request?
I'm just wondering -- in other words, can I get two community
service deputies for one road patrol officer based on the types of
calls you're receiving that they can respond to? Was that analysis
done?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, yes. We are trying to define what types
of calls they can respond to, how many would be required in order to
respond to those calls which would relieve the road patrol, and that
is the type of analysis we do.
What we are trying to do though is expand the role of the CSD,
the community service deputy, to incorporate additional types of tasks
and responsibility beyond what they are currently doing, and if need
be, to get state legislation to support that expanded role.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Calls for services have already been asked
for. I'm interested in that information.
You -- in your budget you have -- in expanded positions, you have
road patrol deputies and traffic enforcement deputies. Can you help
me understand the difference? Are they new positions? Do you hire
any differently?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No, the hiring process is the same for all
deputies.
What we are trying to do is be very specific for you because we
know you like detail; not you personally, Commissioner Hancock --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- but for the board.
A traffic enforcement deputy is a full fledged deputy sheriff.
They make arrests, investigate all crimes, but we have detailed a
group of them, that we originally acquired through a grant to handle
traffic enforcement issues only essentially. Their primary role is to
handle traffic enforcement. We've tried to put them in the
neighborhoods with the smart trailers, the monitoring trailers. We
put them out on certain roadways, Golden Gate Boulevard, Golden Gate
Parkway, Pine Ridge Road. They are the ones who are running the
illegal running of traffic lights, those projects. That's the special
group.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there --
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's a flexible group.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is there a higher cost in hiring a
traffic enforcement deputy due to the radar equipment and whatnot than
there is a road patrol deputy?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Slightly; radar, video in the vehicles.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably talking 10 or 20 grand max. or
less than that?
SHERIFF HUNTER: It should be less than that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Again, I'm not familiar with the
equipment, but okay.
We've talked about the grant issue.
If the crime rate dropped last year, and, again, congratulations
to you and your department, why are five new investigators being
requested?
SHERIFF HUNTER: The investigators -- well, first of all, the
crime rate, again, if you look at the long view, and you use a
regression model to try to project your needs -- which we've always
used, well, since I've been here in 1979, I shouldn't say always.
The idea is to try to predict how many cases are going to be
worked by your investigators, how much time is required by type of
case -- again, you're going to get into this with the impact fee
study. We tried to discriminate very specifically what types of cases
are coming in, known offender homicides, unknown offender homicides,
known offender burglaries, unknown offender burglaries and break them
down into those categories, because each one of those types of cases
require additional -- and different types of time involvement by an
investigator. Depending upon which type of crimes you're seeing
coming into your group, you may or may not have additional need of
investigators.
When you start from the position that we have, which is that we
are running deficits in the number of investigators we need, we are
running deficits in the number of road patrol officers we need in
order to provide available -- availability, five additional
investigators would not be the number that we would select necessarily
to present to you as our need. We are saying five will get us along
next year, and hopefully, we can supplement that with grants.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Were you spending a lot of overtime on
investigators last year?
SHERIFF HUNTER: What's a lot?
What's our number, do we know?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your total overtime -- you went 500,000
over it -- 500 and some odd thousand over in overtime last year. What
share of that was investigations, what share of it was road patrol,
you know?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, we had -- okay. Well, I guess anecdotally
speaking while Jeanne is looking for a number, if she has it, we had
an unusual year for homicides last year, as you know, in the 20s
instead of 11, which was our average. When that happens, a number of
things go into effect. First of all, most of those were major scenes,
the Hardis killing, the Martinas killings, multiple victims at the
same scene. In one case, using those two examples, Hardis, a known
suspect; Martinas, unknown because at the time we didn't know whether
it was a murder suicide or whether it was an intruder that committed
the crime.
Large numbers of crime scene tests are used on large scenes in
order to collect all the information, all the evidence at that scene.
You have numerous investigators assigned to a large scene because we
try to get into the house and out as quickly as possible so it can be
turned over to the rightful owners as quickly as possible. We have to
participate -- well, we don't participate in. We attend the medical
examiner's examination, the autopsy. We take evidence from that
location. We have to put together the prosecution reports, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera.
So, suddenly -- you can't release the scene until you're finished
with the scene. There's a demand there. Your time doesn't end
because a shift ends. It extends to whatever amount of time is
required to take care of that scene.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
SHERIFF HUNTER: It could be days before that scene is released
back to the rightful owner.
If it's an archaeological dig site, such as we have from time to
time when we discover a bone that is suspected of being a human bone,
that could last for weeks.
We will try to get you the number split out by investigators, by
certain types of investigations if you want to see that or --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm looking for is what is the quid
pro quo? I mean, did we have enough overtime last year in the
investigations that, you know, that's going to, you know, be reduced
SHERIFF HUNTER: Offset.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or offset by these five additional
investigators? I'm looking for the balance there, and yes, I want to
see your regression analysis --
SHERIFF HUNTER: To answer your question, no, because of the
qualities of the work that I just spoke of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- you can't fit the number of overtime hours to
the number of people you need trying to get an advantage. Rather than
paying the time and a half overtime, let's hire a full-time
investigator now, and we won't have to pay time and a half, and we'll
get some advantage, perhaps.
Due to the -- due to the nuances involved with investigations,
including vice and narcotics investigations where you have
prostitutes, perhaps, coming in from another county, and you have
people on-site setting up a view room, a surveillance room as well as
the target rooming and you're waiting, many times for a number of
hours. You have to set up beforehand. You wait for them to arrive.
The deal goes. You make the arrest. You go to jail. You book them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying to continue them?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Those nuances don't permit you to say, I need X
number of deputies to work X number of shifts next year, and that will
get me over the overtime hump. That's not the way, unfortunately, the
work is constructed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you're saying because of the
continuing effort required on an investigator's part once they start
an investigation, that additional investigators really don't alter
that?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's correct to a certain extent. If you add
additional investigators to a Cracker Barrel investigation, you may
have an impact in terms of shortening the investigation up, but it
does not mean that you don't have to work the weekend, because
normally you get the weekends off. When you have fugitives running
around the country, you are on that investigation for the duration of
the investigation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On your expanded positions, now if you go
through and you do the gross math of 1.3 million divided by 17, it
comes out to, you know, $80,000 per position. I call that gross math
because it's not specific to the positions.
My question is that when we look at that, obviously, we have
salaries and benefits in those dollars, what else is in there? Are we
factoring in equipment or does that show up in capital? Are we
factoring in vests, gun belts, you know, the whole -- is the whole
ball game -- in other words, is this the package that for 1.3 million
dollars, those six road patrol deputies and four traffic enforcement
deputies have everything they need to start their first day of work on
completion of their FTO program?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'll take a stab at it first. It's much
as you've described. It is the vest, uniforms, five uniform shirts,
five uniform trousers, fuel for the vehicle, oil for the vehicle,
insurance for the vehicle, light bar for the vehicle, shotgun for the
vehicle, radio for the vehicle, training, sheriff's salary. Everything
that we can predict and understand will happen with that position we
try to plug into for your understanding of what a position costs the
agency.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I've in the past used the general
number of 70,000 for a new position. You hire a new deputy, it's plus
or minus $70,000. That may fluctuate year to year. I think for
Pelican Bay, the number was $65,000 when you did their analysis. I
don't know what the number is, but that's what I've used as I
understand it, but the second year, a lot of that capital and up front
investment goes away.
So, maybe seventy or sixty-five or whatever that number is the
first year, but the second year, you're really back to salary and
minimal replacement cost at that point or amortization of equipment
such as cars and radios and what not. When I look at expanding
positions and we start basing percent change this year versus last
year, it almost seems to me, and I'll kind of ask -- direct this at
Mr. Smykowski, that when we look at the cost of adding personnel,
there are two costs. There's an up front cost or initial year cost,
and there's a recurring cost, and I would like to know the difference
in those areas because of -- it's unique in the sheriff's office.
When we hire a park ranger, you know --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we still have that sign posted
outside?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a big sign outside that says turn
your phone off, but whatever.
That recurring cost issue is something that as we look from year
to year at how many people we add, it's nice to see what the budget
implication is this year, but what does it mean next year. If these
17 people, 1.3 million this year, what does it mean next year?
So, it would be helpful to have that number as a recurring cost
issue. So --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioner Hancock, of the million three
twenty-three four hundred that's proposed in law enforcement, there is
-- $403,300 of that is capital outlay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, we can surmise --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm assuming the majority of that is a
non-recurring capital, which would be vehicles, light bars, shotguns,
et cetera.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, we can surmise 900 to 1,000 recurring
costs?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Roughly, then whatever your policy is for the
next year for wage adjustments would have to be added into that, any
changes in state retirement or health benefits or et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. We can give you estimates, once again, but we
can't give you a firm figure that we can be held to.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is sometimes when we look
at the cost of living increase across the board for personnel costs,
we look at the lump sum, and that lump sum from the previous year
budget included capital outlay. So, it's a distinction that I think
we need to be able to make year to year, not taking issue with your
budget on this. I'm just saying it's a distinction that I want to be
clear on year to year.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand -- you mentioned that you had
-- you partially answered one of my questions. You mentioned that you
had candidates queue that have met a certain point in the
qualification process to become deputies. However, we all know all of
those salaries don't start on October 1, and we have this discussion
every year about new rehire -- or new hires. I think it's pretty easy
to say if your full fiscal year cost of your new positions is 1.323
million dollars, there's going to be a delay in the purchase of a
vehicle. There's going to be a delay in the purchase of several
things in addition to salaries.
So I think -- I think there's a reasonable phase in approach to
that that we are not going to -- your department is not going to incur
100 percent of 365 days of salary and benefits and whatnot for that
individual. It's going to be somewhat less than that.
Do your numbers per person factor that phase in at all or are you
just saying I need to have the money in case I have --
SHERIFF HUNTER: It's a double-edged sword. When we phase them
in for you on our first proposal --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It hits the next year.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- you say that's false. There's no savings
here because next year it's going to be a full year's cost. When we
don't phase it in and we start it at October 1 -- and 17 is a
legitimate number to start October 1. That's not difficult to do,
because we can purchase the vehicles at the end of the fiscal year. We
can contract for those understanding that we've already obligated the
funds. That wouldn't be difficult to do.
I'm going to take the five out of road patrol, so there's
replacement of 17 additional road patrol officers that we would need
on October 1. We certainly could phase those positions in as long as
we have them at the end of the fiscal year. We put the full cost in
for your advantage. It's a higher number. It's a higher percentage
increase for us, but we put that in because we understood that that's
what the board wished to see, a full year's cost. We will talk about
phasing them in along with wage adjustments and your policy pertaining
to how wage adjustments should be phased in or not phased. Do we go
October 1 or do we phase them in over a period of the year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it also --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We could discuss that with you, and we could --
there could be some savings there for phase in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I guess I'll ask the board on that,
because I would like to ask your department to look at what a
reasonable phase in for those positions is so that you don't
jeopardize hiring the positions, but, you know, that could drop a
percentage point probably off the projected increase.
I happen to think, let's only allocate the money we have to spend
this year, and if that means next year's number is a more disparity
going to current service, I can live with that, because I usually
don't question your current service. I mean, you're telling me this
is what it's going to take me to pay the people I have now for next
year.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question usually is the expanded
service. So, when we do the expansion, I personally would like to
only allocate the dollars necessary to accomplish that expansion and
not do it October 1 to October 1 unless it's physically going to
happen. That's my personal feeling. Is there consensus on that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question on the process here
for this morning. Are we going to make suggestions for modifications
to the request or are we just going to look at it today, ask our
questions and catch it on wrap-up or what are we going to do?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I would hope, particularly for
the sheriff's benefit, that we can set something before we go today as
a specific number, so you don't come back again Monday or -- I
understand you may not be able to come back Monday, so for his benefit
as much as for ours and for the public, perhaps, we can try to come to
some number that we agree on today.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm sorry to interrupt. I guess we are not back
to Commissioner Hancock again.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's the entirety of the questions
that I had for today.
SHERIFF HUNTER: You were absolutely right, and I wasn't trying
to be argumentative with you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
SHERIFF HUNTER: There's an issue embedded in your question. One,
if they were youth relations deputies, for instance, obviously, the
school year begins in August, and we would need those youth relations
deputies actually prior to that October 1 start date. So, we would
need to plan that probably in the previous year if we are really being
prudent.
So, there's some considerations there that throw wrenches into
the works, if you will. Those community service deputies would be
used for school crossings, and I would like to see them available to
staff those school crossings so that we don't have to use road patrol
officers. So, October 1 would be a start date for the community
service deputies, but we probably could phase in some of the other
positions. If we could do something like that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just need help from you on which of them
do you expect to be phased in and what that savings -- what savings
would be realized from that?
MS. MYERS: Commissioner Hancock, we've already taken a look at
that and came to the conclusion, just like you are, we could save
about approximately $172,000, and that would be a three month phase
in. The next law enforcement academy that would be starting in our
next fiscal year is in January of 1999. So, if we know that we are to
have these individuals on board by then, we could then -- that three
month period from October to January 1, we could phase that in, as I
said, about $172,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to ask that that be done and,
again, Sheriff, if there's anything else that can be phased in, will
you take a look at that between now and the next time we talk? Maybe
you've already done that, but just take another look at it because I'm
wondering if there isn't some more.
Those are the questions I had. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we about ready to try to bring this
into --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask Mr. Smykowski a question to
help do that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The number we read here is 7.9 percent
or seven point whatever it is, that does not include, best I can tell,
the reserves that go as part of this and, obviously, the larger the
increase, the larger the reserve that goes with that under the 5
percent ratio. So, I'm wondering, when you include that reserves,
what's the total percentage of increase we are looking at here?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is no reserve. We budgeted the reserve in
the general fund. We did not -- the sheriff had in his submittal
reflected a reserve per the budget policy. We have reflected both the
reserve for the -- requested by the supervisor of elections as well as
the sheriff as part of the general fund reserve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But he is asking you to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But can you mathematically tell me
what that equates to, because there's a percentage here, but then the
percent you don't see as part of this statistic is a reserve fund, is
a required increase by a light percentage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, by an eight -- the 7.8 percent
increase in his budget, there is a commensurate increase in reserves
that we would hold.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what is that increase?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Overall, that's like just over four and a quarter
million, going from the fifty-four nine fifty-two to the fifty-nine
two, and that's 4.2 million, 5 percent of that, $214,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, there was one more thing that
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other question then, what is the
62 million dollar and some change number that has appeared?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The 62 million dollar figure is the fifty-nine
you see here plus a reserve, and it did not make the adjustment for
the 4 percent attrition. So, that would have been the fully grossed
up number inclusive of a reserve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In real life, I think that's --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And what we have done is the reserves in the
general fund, we have reflected per the budget policy a 4 percent
reduction per attrition. In addition, the reduction in the state
retirement system rates impacted their budget, and we have already
made that adjustment in his requests.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where I'm trying to get
with this is the bottom line is what's the expense to the taxpayer,
and that's closer to the 62 million dollar because those are real
dollars, than it is to the fifty-nine.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, we have reduced the request by the attrition,
which was a million nine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have taken that out.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we did the retirement reduction, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, we did -- this includes the 4 percent
attrition rate, this budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because I do want to point out, and
Jeanne, I heard what you said, but, you know, some folks at GNCA did
some work also, and they came up with 96 percent of your salary costs
were spent, but I think where we get the 2 percent attrition, looking
at salaries, is some of the overtime overruns.
MS. MYERS: That's correct. I did mistake that earlier. I'm
sorry.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So, basically you had 4 percent
attrition in salary, but you had an increase in overtime, so the
result is 2 percent.
MS. MYERS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you did experience 4 percent attrition
in base salaries.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I'm sorry, you
sounded like you were going in a direction, but I had to have a clear
understanding of those numbers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not suggesting a specific direction,
but I'm just saying I think it's time that we try to wrap this up for
the day.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I already know there's 172,000
we can take out by just the discussion we had, and there might be some
more. So, there's 172,000 I can hang my hat on. Is there anything
else anybody came up with during this discussion that we feel is
appropriate?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think some of the numbers that
we should see this afternoon will be helpful with that as the flight
hours and the cost per flight hour really adds up. It's an expensive
proposition to put any aircraft in the sky, and I have some concerns
there. I think when we get into those 48, again, whatever that number
is, I may be mistaken, but those 48 new positions that are hitting the
ad valorem taxpayer, I think there has to be some idea of what is
truly essential and what is not, and the sheriff and I just disagree,
and I don't know how the board feels, but picking up litter to me
isn't necessarily essential. It's a nice thing and a good thing, and
I think certainly adds to the community feel, but I don't know that I
see that as the same level of necessity as the investigations for the
murders you just talked about, and that's where I try to go with each
one of these questions is trying to draw a level of priority and what
was a necessity and what's not.
I mean, we can go back and put a dollar figure on each one of
those, but my point with each one of those is some of those are not
necessarily necessary. Some of them I've heard criticism, like the
DRILL academy, I've heard criticism from a newspaper. I think we've
done very well there. I think the sheriff's done a great job there,
and I want to make sure we were clear on those numbers. I
respectfully disagree to those folks who had criticized that program.
So, I try to bring each one of those to a point. That's where I
was going with that, John.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought just on that particular point
about the community policing, picking up trash is one way of
describing it, but that -- our community has a higher expectation. The
whole quality of life, you know, phrase that we hear about so often, I
think that that is essential in this community. I think it's probably
not in Miami. It's probably not in some places, but in this
community, we don't want to -- I don't want to be cutting that. I can
see tremendous benefits from that in my district at Bayshore and just
wouldn't want to do anything to diminish that. I think that is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you're being parochial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'm saying -- what I'm saying is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding, Pam.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know you were, but from my experience
with it, I've had some firsthand experience with how significant the
impact is on the community, and I would expect Commissioner Norris
could tell the same story in Naples Manor, and good grief, Golden
Gate. I mean, look what has happened out there.
So, I don't want to do anything to diminish that in particular.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I certainly can see the
improvement. I'm questioning whether the most appropriate body to be
leading a trash picking effort is a trained officer or, you know, one
of our road crews or parks employee or a combination --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Pardon me. That's the second time I've heard
that. Deputy sheriffs do not pick up litter and garbage on the
roadways except when they donate time under the adopt a road program
of the Board of County Commissioners, and that's voluntary time.
Community oriented policing is not litter pickup. It is
organizing neighborhoods and communities to do those things for
themselves, to teach them to fish in the old analogy. It is not the
deputy sheriff going out to pick up litter.
So, I may have confused you at some earlier point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, and again --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We use inmates every weekend to pick up litter
as well to enhance the adopt a road program of the Board of County
Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly appreciate that, and I
don't want to get hung up on that one point either, but my point
being, as we went through that COPS list, there were some things that
just may or may not be the best expenditure of their time and effort
to maybe other parts of the county who can fulfill some of those
roles.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't agree to that at all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you didn't agree to that, but I
didn't agree with your analogy that that was -- I didn't agree with
your analogy that that was every bit as important as investigating a
murder either, so -- I mean, we just disagree on that and right now
we're deciding what that --
SHERIFF HUNTER: It could be on the same plane. We might prevent
a murder, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Picking up trash will prevent a
murder.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not what they do.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's your analogy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I just -- I don't think you can
put those on the same plane, and we disagree, that's fine, but I'm
trying to make a decision based on my thoughts right now, and I'm
sharing those with you, and if we disagree, that's fine, but --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have some specific recommendations
for us this morning or --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, looking at --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, your 174 or whatever
it was, that was --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One hundred seventy-two thousand, Jeanne?
MS. MYERS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was phasing in?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's phasing in in part. Again --
again, the folks at GNCA do a real neat job with this stuff, and they
produced a number that would turn -- through phasing that changes your
7.8 increase to a 6.6. So instead of, you know, four million two
eighty-one, it's three million six twenty-five. I think that's a
great target. Tell me, can we get there? That's what I'm asking.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds like a reasonable target to me
as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to see if we could make
that target a little lower in that going back to my earlier comments
on -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is something funny here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I was surprised that -- just giggling
over that you're going to make the target a little lower. That is
funny to me, yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you wanted to know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's very professional.
Seventeen --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you can tell because I laughed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Seventeen vacancies currently
and 17 new positions being requested, it just seems like we ought to
fill those vacancies we have again before we start trying to create
additional ones. I know we are anticipating future needs and future
years, but we couldn't even produce the numbers, and Jeanne wasn't
sure if we'd have them this afternoon or not, and I'm wondering, you
know, how important those priorities are if we don't even know what
they are, but it seems to me we ought to take our time to fill those
positions that are vacant and have been vacant throughout the year
before we request even more and --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Once again, this year -- we seem to have a
failure to communicate. I thought I had already testified to the
board twice this morning that those positions are filled. They are in
progress. Part of it is at the academy. Part of it is in the field
training officer program. So, I wouldn't want you to make a decision
based on whether those 17 vacancies in patrol have been filled.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand they are filled. They
are not on the street fulfilling the requirements, though, and my
point being, if we need more service on the street, let's get them on
the street before we ask for even more.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's a neat trick, and we try to do that. We
try to hire certified Florida law enforcement officers, but you can
imagine there's something of a demand for them. A great deal of
effort and money goes into certifying those deputies and those police
officers. It's very difficult to hire them with existing
certifications. So, you ultimately have to spend the money.
To freeze positions -- well, we've already had this discussion,
so do what you will.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm looking for -- on the transition, I'm
looking for a target. You said one hundred seventy-two. I'm looking
for about 650,000. So, that's the disparity on the phasing in. It
doesn't reduce any of the positions, but that's what I'm looking for.
I need to know hard and fast rules why you can't do that, if you can
help me with that, sheriff. I don't have to have them right now. I'm
just telling you that's kind of a target.
MS. MYERS: Can you tell us what the 650,000 is based on? We
were at one hundred seventy-two to phase in positions. So, is there
something that we've discussed specific that you would like to reduce?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you talked about staging of academy,
okay?
MS. MYERS: January --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have five investigators queued in
the application process? Do you have five qualified investigators
queued, ready to be hired October 17
SHERIFF HUNTER: They're on lists, yes. They are on a list for
promotion, waiting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, but that creates five new openings
for road patrol, because everyone kind of moves up through the system.
So, when I hear about queuing, there's -- you can only get people
ready to go to the academy so fast.
My question is, the five new investigators are going to create
five road patrol openings because you're going to promote from within.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct, as I said before.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, we have ten new road officers, one --
some traffic, some road patrol. We now, in essence, have five more
that we're going to have to hire. So, we're up to 15 vacancies.
Your internal promotion process where people will move up to fill
an investigator's spot that eventually works down and opens up a road
patrol slot isn't going to occur specifically on October 1st, is it?
SHERIFF HUNTER: It already occurred. They are on a list
awaiting their transfer now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are all the lieutenants, all the
sergeants for lieutenants on lists, and all the corporals for
sergeants on lists?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, that's the progression in the agency. Yes,
we do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you're going to have, in essence, 15
road patrol positions to fill due to new positions and five
investigators, am I at least correct in that? Would you agree with
that?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We're saying that we have that many slots at the
academy that could actually accomplish that, yes.
MS. MYERS: Commissioner Hancock, if I could maybe give you some
analysis on that 172,000. I am phasing in those five investigators,
every -- all of those 17 positions except the two CSDs, because those
are typically positions that we can fill by October 1. So all -- what
I did is added up the personal services for the rest of those 15
positions, which includes the investigators, and I reduced it by the
three month phase in, and that came up with the $172,000.
So, that does include the investigators being phased in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask the board if we could --
rather than have an exact number right now, we were told the calls for
service are our big basis for how we get to the point and the growth
we have in the sheriff's request. We don't have those numbers. We
don't have the benefit of that, and that may help this afternoon, may
help support what you're requesting for. It's just probably a better
place for us to make a decision if we have those numbers in front of
us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask what your second academy is
after January?
MS. MYERS: Typically, it probably would not be until July.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What are our current total number of law
enforcement personnel?
MS. MYERS: Page 135 of your budget book.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five sixteen.
MS. MYERS: The slice there, the pie, if you will, 516 total
certified law enforcement officers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's the figure I was looking for.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anything further? Any other questions?
What are you looking for?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just the information we requested
before, the calls for service over the past several years, both
projected and what really happened and then what we project for this
year and what you project for next year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting we save that for wrap-up
on Monday or --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or maybe we can address that when we
return from lunch if they can provide those numbers to us so we can
close this out and let the sheriff go do what he needs to do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions for the sheriff?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Jeanne has a question.
MS. MYERS: Yeah, just a clarification, Commissioner Constantine.
We have the flight hours cost -- some of the items that you're wanting
-- the calls for service schedule. Did we still need the square feet
of our fleet maintenance garage?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, because that was not recommended.
MS. MYERS: Okay, and the use of the full body X-ray machine, and
do I have everything?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and that one, if you don't get
that this afternoon, I don't really care, as long as we have it at
wrap-up, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you were going to show us the
regression analysis of the calls, service calls. MS. MYERS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the regression analysis of -- there's
one more. There's another regression analysis --
MS. MYERS: Well, it's all related to that calls for service.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: You wanted information for overtime based on
investigators versus road patrol.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You kind of answered that. That was more
or less answered for me.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On calls for service, and then there was also
projected and actual, a comparison of how close we've been.
MS. MYERS: Right, that's all part of that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If nothing --
SHERIFF HUNTER: What time?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pardon me?
MS. MYERS: What time?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It will probably be 1:30.
Okay, we'll stand recessed until 1:30.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the afternoon session of the
second day of our infamous budget hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll wait until the Greater Naples
Citizens' Association finishes their meeting and then we'll have our
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are we interrupting your meeting?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like it when I'm not the only one who
gets smacked around here. It's evened out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean the only one smacked by a fellow
board member.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We all get smacked. It's just a question
by whom.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: By whom. Who is the smacker and the
smackee.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We didn't think you were all here yet.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's been questioned, Fay, at various
times. We're all physically here. But that's all right. We will move
on.
Mr. Smykowski, where are we at this point?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Fernandez has some speakers, and I'm assuming
the sheriff's staff has some answers to the questions posed earlier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It might make sense for the questioner to
be here before --
SHERIFF HUNTER: The answers are only partially prepared. We are
waiting for someone to arrive with the other numbers that have been
requested for calls of service.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Why don't we go ahead -- excuse
me, Sheriff. Why don't we go ahead and we'll have the speakers while
we're waiting for those numbers, if that's all right with you. We'll
go ahead and have the -- some public speakers while we're waiting and
that'll buy us a little time here, so --
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker is Mr. Eric Watler and then
Janet Vasey.
MR. WATLER: Eric Watler. I'm representing myself on this
occasion. I listened to the conversation this morning about the Marco
Island issue with the sheriff and the million and five, or whatever
the correct number is. And I then looked at the summary sheet that
showed that the sheriff's budget is around forty percent of the ad
valorem, which is a pretty substantial amount. So I'd like to be sure
that in your discussions, negotiations, whatever you want to call
them, with the people who appear to have a high ego content in Marco
Island, that, when you discuss with them the way it should be, that
you're reacting to them in a very firm, very positive manner that
ensures it's done -- it's distributed in a fair way and I don't, as a
taxpayer, have to subsidize what some guy on Marco Island doesn't want
to pay. A parochial view, but that's the way I feel about it. Thank
you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Janet Vasey?
MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey for GNCA. Actually, Eric was speaking
also for a GNCA position on the Marco Island. We discussed that at
our last board meeting and agreed that we felt like Marco Island
should be paying its fair share. We weren't sure of the legalities of
the issues, but just looking at the cost and what they paid in the
past and what kind of service they got in the past and what they would
be getting in the future, we felt like they should pay too.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Let me just say that they
haven't refused to pay it just yet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: True.
MS. VASEY: No. And we -- we were aware that it was an issue and
it had been highlighted as a possible item of contention and so we
were -- as far as the sheriff's budget goes, we've spent a good bit of
time looking over it and we felt that it was fairly well costed. We
didn't have a whole lot of issues with the costing of the people and
what was in it. We were particularly interested in the four percent
attrition rate, and we looked very closely at that, and found that, as
Commissioner Hancock mentioned, it was a four percent in actual salary
that that attrition was experienced. Where they were over was on the
overtime and that, that made it in the total personnel services --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. VASEY: -- it was two percent, but in actual hiring of people
there was that four percent lag. And we feel pretty strongly that we
don't want a separate reserve for that. That this would probably be
experienced in the future too, based on hiring up from, I think
they're at 893 now against a space of 912, going up to 960. So that,
that hiring lag would be experienced.
On the issue of the phasing in, I have to admit that I made a
mistake. When we first figured out the phasing in, we had included
all costs instead of just the personnel costs, and it did have the
equipment and the vehicles and all that, so that was an error. That
was too high.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for being human.
MS. VASEY: It happens all the time.
So we have -- the phasing in could be anything that you wanted it
to be as far as phasing. You might want to think that, in the four
percent attrition that you've already calculated and that they
experienced this year, they already -- they phased in last year and
still had four percent, so phasing in this year, you might want to
just kind of think of that too. That four percent in the phasing, it
may already be kind of wrapped in together. So we would just bring
that out as something to think about.
Another area, talking about the legitimacy of costing the things,
they did not put in here a hundred thousand dollars for fuel, and I
don't know if, Sheriff, if you'd like to come in and ask for that for
fuel increases, as the county did. I think that that was, we thought,
a good move that they went in asking for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Vasey? If I may say, actually my
note is, the sheriff's budget didn't have it in it. It's something
that I think we need to look at on Monday in more detail, is that
hundred thousand dollar increase in the fuel that was assessed on this
past Monday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In our wonderful budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In our wonderful --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, in our wonderful budget, because why
are we seeing it and not the sheriff, you know, so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In particular, the prices are lower
this year than last.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would like to see that in wrap-up, if
the board doesn't mind.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Likewise.
MS. VASEY: One is right and one is wrong, or maybe it's
somewhere in between. But if it is going to be higher then perhaps
the sheriff needs, in all fairness, the sheriff might need to consider
that too. I believe he has more vehicles.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or we need to buy fuel from the sheriff.
MS. VASEY: And the only other thing that I would mention is, the
budget, this budget was prepared using the guidance that was in the
budget guidance document which called for a three percent COLA on the
first of October and a one percent merit adjustment on the member's
anniversary date. Now, this is a change from the current plan and the
current procedure that the sheriff uses. All their pay adjustments
are made on their anniversary date. It came up last year, and they
did not move to the one October date because there was not sufficient
funding. This is in the budget again now. I guess that's an item of
flexibility in our mind, whether that happens or not. So we just
wanted to bring that up. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question?
MS. VASEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you put a dollar value on the items
that you have flagged for further question? I mean the 172 that was
the phase-in of staffing is the right phase-in number, was the right
question, questioned number there, the 500 is not the right number
because that's where the vehicle mistake was. MS. VASEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I talked to Don about that during the
lunch break, and I don't know that -- and Jan, correct me if I'm wrong
-- I don't know that we can do that just now. But I think the sheriff
may have information for us that gets us closer to that number because
there -- there are some things that I'm unable to consider, as was
Janet, based on the budget numbers alone. So I think the sheriff will
have those numbers for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I appreciate that. I just wondered,
Janet, if you do have the dollar number.
MS. VASEY: Well, if you phased it in over six months, you might
be talking, you know -- I mean, you phase it in over a whole year,
which is like an average of six months on board -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. VASEY: It would probably be somewhere around 350 for
personnel costs. But there again, you do have to be careful with that
four percent that you've already cut out. As far as the -- let's see.
That's the phase-in, attrition.
The pay, changing the pay date to 1 October is about 500,000, at
least it was last year, that -- it's probably something like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASEY: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a question for the sheriff, or for
Jeannie, maybe, either one, in regard to the overtime. Was part of
the overtime problem with the Drill, the people, personnel out at the
Drill --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was that part of the overtime?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And I have to ask you one other
question. Can you tell me what the costs are on the DARE program
specifically?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Specifically.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can pull that out. I don't have it
right here today. I don't have it right here today. We can pull that
out by project and get it for you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably going to need one of them on the
microphone to --
SHERIFF HUNTER: You want more than just the T-shirts. You want
the actual youth relations deputy and -- because they share --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. I know. I know the youth relations
deputies, for the most part, are in the schools but there's a period
of their time when they're pulled out and doing this particular
program. Are -- is this charged separately? In other words, part of
their duty's charged to one function and some -- and charged -- the
other part charged when they're doing this to some other area?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No. We're not charging it out separately. The
DARE or junior deputies or youth relations deputies in the elementary
schools.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: The DARE deputies are actually elementary school
assigned youth relations deputies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. So they're there.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Part of their time goes to DARE program, the
remainder is to regular youth relations deputy function.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I would be inclined then, as long as
-- well, which I knew -- they're there anyway, so I'm not going to --
I wouldn't particularly charge the youth relations deputy with that,
but I'd like to know what the general cost of that program is.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we can punt it to the school board?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I don't think -- I don't think they
are going to be excited about picking that cost up either, but --
well.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that something you are looking for for
future budget discussions or to wrap into this budget year?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We do have a tentative number.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Tentative's good.
SHERIFF HUNTER: It would be about $25,000 for the supplies and
whatnot, the T-shirts, the notebooks.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Coffee mugs.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah, but we sell most of those.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know where this --
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's to help raise funds --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is a $25.00 coffee mug --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that you will see on Miss Mac'Kie's gift
disclosure form.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gift disclosure. From this lobbyist.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway. That's all. That's fine. You
answered my question.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The only -- the couple I had
remaining were -- and, you know, Don and I talked about this briefly,
excuse me, the sheriff and I talked about this briefly afterwards was,
what is that number, you know, from 172, we know it's not going to be
650, but, you know, what is that number when we look at, at the
phasing in of positions, what number have you come to as a department
that you feel is appropriate that we could make that as a way of
budget reduction but still get those positions filled in the fiscal
year?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't understand why we're saying
that the capital costs are not phased in as well, because you don't
buy the equipment hoping some day you're going to fill the position.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you purchased a radio anywhere during
the year, the cost is the same, whether it's on October 1 or whether
it's on February 1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you were leasing it, it would be
relevant, but if you're buying it, you're spending the whole price, no
matter when you start using it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that your question, John, because --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it depends -- yes. If it's going to
overlap budget years, then it is pertinent.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If they are all -- if capital costs are all
in one budget year, obviously it's not.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: But if it's going to overlap budget years,
it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there are associated operational costs
because, and they're smaller than the capital, per se, but say fuel,
or oil for the vehicles, or, you know, bullets for the guns. I mean,
you know, you can break it down as far as you want. But you're right,
there is a phase-in of certain capital costs that are part of those
numbers. So I understand your point.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These red ones are really dangerous.
SHERIFF HUNTER: One of the considerations on the phase-in, the
reason that we talked about specific months for phasing in deputy
sheriffs is because the academies -- we don't control the academies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: So the academies are offered three times a
year, roughly October, January and June. Sometimes we can request and
receive a special academy, if we have enough applicants.
When we talk about phasing in positions, we have to talk about
when the academies are available and whether we have enough slots
provided, allocated to the sheriff's office to put that number of
candidates. Right now we know that there would be academies in
January and June, as well as October, of this next fiscal year. So
then it's just a matter of selecting either January or June, if you're
going to phase positions in, and, then depending upon -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I see.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- how many are phased in at what month --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not a '-
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- that will determine the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- regular, it's two shots, basically, not
a once a month.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Two shots. Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there's tiering there because -- let
me ask you this. Have you ever put fifteen slots in a single academy?
Have you ever --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. In fact --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have done it?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I think we've had as many as eighteen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's say you pick -- let's say you
did all -- and I keep coming back to the number of fifteen because I'm
talking about the five potential vacancies in road patrol due to, to
promotions to the investigator positions, so, when I say fifteen, I'm
talking about the ten new ones plus five vacancies will be created
from internal promotions. So we're really dealing with fifteen
vacants, the fifteen slots outside of grant programs for the academy
this year. Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be an understanding, if you did
fifteen -- and Commissioner Norris, you hit on this -- you did fifteen
that came out in or that went to the academy in January and the
academy is, I think you said, is three months, or -- it was eight
months, five months and then three months with an FTO? SHERIFF HUNTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they're going to come out in September.
They'll be actually in their own marked unit, riding by themselves,
sometime around September or October. So those would have to have all
of their equipment in this fiscal year. But if they went to the June
academy, capital costs for, for cars and whatnot would actually fall
into the next year because they aren't needed until they're done with
their FTO program. Is that a fair --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Janet was only partly wrong.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Under that scenario, correct, unless we hired
Florida certified deputy sheriffs who are ready to serve that day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we don't know what that mix is going
to be?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No. And I can't predict that. That would --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, there is a scenario of blending
as well. I mean, you could have half of them in January and half of
them in June and the capital costs which stretch over two budget
years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the fall.
SHERIFF HUNTER: October, January and June as well as a scenario.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, what would you propose as a
phase-in that you think your agency could meet without any real
hiccups and without any real problems?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Could you give me just a moment?
These are rough figures. But, to answer the specific question,
we'll shoot for the June academy, which would make it six months into
the fiscal year -- well, a little over six months, actually. We'll
shoot for the June academy and, according to the quick numbers, and
adding in some, let's just say some vehicles, we would feel
comfortable with a number of about 370.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reducing it by 370,000?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Reducing by 370. That would be 345,000,
roughly, for positions. And then --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could spend an hour determining whether
it's 390 or 350 or 370, but I think that gets us -- I think that gets
me --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're in the balipark.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- anyway, on that issue where I figured
we were going to end up in the end anyway. And if you're comfortable
that you can accomplish that within the agency, then I appreciate
that. I would like to suggest that we, from that perspective, say
okay, take 370 out of the budget, and understand that'll be the
scenario, those individuals attending the academy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd support that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. On the existing positions, that was
really the only issue I had remaining, outside of looking at -- the
number of -- the calls, the calls for service.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any further questions for the sheriff?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we get our information on calls
for service?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We have a couple of example years we were able
to reconstruct immediately, but we're waiting for the remainder.
Apparently they just arrived, but here's a couple of examples.
What were the other questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The x-ray machine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Helicopter.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Helicopter. $55.88 per operating hour, $55.00
and -- what did I just say -- $55.88 per operating hour.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That sounds low to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wow.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sounds real low.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to
raise it, but, you know, it -- well, you don't have amortization for
replacement in that, do you?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No. We're using surplus helicopters.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: So we're not, we're not -- we didn't sink any
costs into the depreciation at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That includes engine overhaul,
everything that you're planning for?
MS. HEYERS: Correct. We have our own mechanic on board and so
he's using those parts for those maintenance hourly checkups, that's
what they're called, and we've got the surplus parts, so that's not
costing us anything.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how many flight hours are we
projecting for '98?
MS. HEYERS: I did not -- I did not get that. Our chief pilot is
supposed to be here and he's not arrived.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It said in your literature that you had 300
hours last year, last fiscal year.
SHERIFF HUNTER: 380, I think. A little over 380, or something
like that.
MS. MYERS: He was asking for a projected number.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Folks and landmark estates -- practice out
somewhere else, but I just thought I'd mention that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you cut out Saturday night flights over
Commissioner Constantine's house how much would that save? SHERIFF HUNTER: That would slightly reduce that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Actually, I was going to ask that you step
them up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep an eye on me.
MS. MYERS: I believe the answer to the other question regarding
the full body x-ray machine, our staff came up -- last year, last
calendar year, 1997, January through December, the average was
forty-three incidents per month. And year-to-date this year is
running 37 and a half incidents, and that's January through Hay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think you'd better replace the machine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: By the time you take deputies and take them
off somewhere with a prisoner and all that kind of thing, I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was twice a month.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just don't think that's a good plan to be
moving people like that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in that situation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We do need to look at the number as well. See,
we have, any time there's an incident and an inmate demands service
and it's an emergency or it's classified an emergency, then they
receive the service.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. Well, when Tim sprains his
ankle in the morning playing basketball, I'm sending him over your way
to get it checked out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you'd have to report that on a gift
form.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why it's covered in his budget.
If I have to be an inmate to get x-rayed, I think I'll pass.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You wouldn't look good in orange anyway.
SHERIFF HUNTER: What else; what other questions?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The regression analysis for the calls.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what we are waiting for.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what we're waiting for?
MS. MYERS: Yes. I have a couple of -- a couple of years'
examples. For example, in 1996 we were projecting and using a calls
for service of 255,300. The actual came in at 270,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What year was that?
MS. MYERS: 1996.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. MYERS: 1997 we were using 271,700 and it was 270,600. And
also in 1997 we did have a procedure adjustment in counting some of
those calls.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A refinement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has our percentage of time available for
patrol from '96 to say what's projected for '99, has that gone up?
SHERIFF HUNTER: What -- has the time -- we've become more
available or less available?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Yes.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We are trying to remain the same.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because again, when we're looking at two
or three years, we look at number of calls and obviously type of call
has to do something with the officers involved and how much time each
one takes, but, as those numbers have not gone up dramatically, but
yet we have taken the opportunity to add officers each of those years,
it would be my hope that results in more patrol time as opposed to a
steady line, and that was the purpose of the question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do we define -- what is a call?
That's not just 911 stuff. That's also --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. Okay. Calls for service -- and I'll
take a number of different characteristics. One would be a person
calls us from their house or business or they are down by the beach,
whatever, crime call, typically, or at least that's the way it comes
in. Sometimes we get a call, it's supposed to be a crime in progress
or suspicious person. We get there and it's really -- there's nothing
there, it could be a barking dog, there's no dog barking when we
arrive, but it still gets -- it still is counted as a call for service
because we send someone, they arrive -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- the person's gone on arrival of the deputy
and whatnot. It can be a crime call, nuisance call, county ordinance
call, but they have to be something that we would normally send a
deputy sheriff to. It can't just be, "I want some directions to 1-75.
Send me a deputy sheriff." We say, "No, we're not sending you a
deputy. We'll give you directions to 1-75, we'll instruct you over
the phone, certainly, and give you some ....
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I take it you've had that request more
than once?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about medical, non-vehicular medical;
do your officers ever respond to a heart attack?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We respond to a lot of medical calls, drownings,
or potential drownings. We respond to medical conditions where a
person is down. We're CPR First Responder trained, so we are there.
We deliver intervention services.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You roll up, there's EMS, there's the fire
department there, your officer generally leaves the scene?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We will leave, unless we're needed there. If we
are needed to hold a bottle, a syringe, for a syringe, delivery of
fluid, delivery of fluids, or crowd control, vehicle control, traffic
control. If we aren't needed, we release. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Other questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we get those numbers for '98, '99?
MS. MYERS: Yes. Our 1998 projected, based on the regression
analysis, 282,939 calls; 1999, 294,163.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say the '99 again, please.
MS. MYERS: 294,163.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I hear you right, from '96 to '97
there was not a significant increase, it was fairly constant?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead.
MS. MYERS: That's correct. And that was due to that procedure,
our policy modification in 1997.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The actual, the projected was 255,300 in
'96. That went to projected 271,700 in '97. So projected to
projected, apples to apples, it was the same sort of percentage of
increase.
MS. MYERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're all but guaranteeing you're not
that far off on these things?
I phrased that improperly, but you're saying that you have a case
history here of being real close on that?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, you saw that the one year was off maybe
15,000, but we -- as I said we've had years where we come within a
couple of hundred or a thousand, and those were the years I'm
referring to. And typically we'll come very close. Remember, this
information or the original program where we're using the count in our
computer-aided dispatch system, we received in 1981, and we were using
that from Peoria, Illinois, and we began to refine what was being
counted as calls for service as time went on, so that, right now we're
pretty comfortable with it, but it's always subject to refinement
later again. And you'll see an adjustment to the number if that
happens.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was projected for -- you said
there were -- you're currently projecting 282 through the rest of this
year. Is that on -- right on the button or is that close to what you
had thought a year ago at this time, would be the '98 year?
MS. MYERS: To date, yes, we're pretty much on target.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None for me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appreciate your working with us on that
phase-in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's no other questions, thank you.
Any proposals that anyone wants to make?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think, for the sheriff's benefit, I
don't have any outstanding issues with his budget at this point for
wrap-up, and I think we need to let him know whether those exist or
not at this point, because you may not be here, so, from my
standpoint, I do not have any outstanding issues that haven't been
addressed here today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have none that he can control. I'm
still waiting, you know, of course, for the answer from the Marco City
Council.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that -- that appears, from my
standpoint, to be the only other outstanding thing that we have to
deal with there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other commissioners' thoughts or
concerns?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we've discussed it in detail.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we want to set a number so that he
can have a peaceful weekend or do you want to wait until Monday?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought we did on that -- the number --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 370,000, Don, was that the correct number?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To reduce his budget request by $370,000
on the basis of the information for phasing in new candidates into,
into their academy?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Assuming that we get the payment from
Marco that we hope to get.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. If that doesn't happen --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's a different matter, you know, I
mean --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We won't get the payment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What percent of an increase does that
equate to?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski, your handy calculator.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A reduction of the 300 some thousand -- 370
some thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- before lunch I still wasn't
comfortable with it, but there was a suggestion of 6.6 percent. This
sounds like it's going to be more like 7.5 or 7.6, and I'm just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's based on having gotten real
figures about the phase-in.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's 7.1 percent, and the difference, again,
was the operating and the capital outlay that was initially included
that should not have been.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You got more than halfway there, which I,
based on the information I received, I'm content with, personally.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it appears I'm in the minority.
I'd prefer we do a little bit better than that. Obviously, we've got
three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I did mention to the sheriff also
that, you know, we're going to be looking at the grant issues
throughout the year, too. We need to have a better grasp as a board
on those, and that's just a communication -- a communication issue,
so, you know, that's something we'll have to work on throughout the
year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I did want to ask one final question before
we go, and that is, did we ever get a hard number on how many
personnel we're carrying in the '99 fiscal year that were previously
grant people?
MS. MYERS: No. But I can answer that. Twenty-one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hmm?
MS. MYERS: Twenty-one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And is, does that reflect most of the
increase between the '98 fiscal and the '99 current service? MS. MYERS: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the same number you had for
us, Mr. Smykowski?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you sure that's not twenty-five,
twenty-one law enforcement and four civilian? MS. MYERS: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a number twenty-five, twenty-one law
enforcement, eighteen cops, three something else and then four
civilian.
MS. MYERS: Well, the three are cops, they were called cops to
fight domestic violence.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MS. MYERS: They're actually investigators. I'm calling them
cops because that's what the grant was called.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MS. MYERS: So, take that as you may.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just had a total number of twenty-five.
Maybe I -- maybe that's wrong, but --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The twenty-five comes from, if you look on Page
87 in your summary book, the adopted, again, for FY 98 was 835.5.
Current service increases to 861, that is a 25.5 difference.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the twenty-five number is correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe so, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said twenty-one and I just --
MS. MYERS: Yes. I was taking Commissioner Norris' question as,
what was the grant number, not the total number. You were asking
specifically for grant positions, not --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was asking how much have been converted
from grant people.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So you're saying twenty-one was
related to grants, so there are at least four -- four people that were
not grant related.
MS. MYERS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And these are the people that, over the
years, when we have accepted the grants, the ones that we've always --
we said we don't want to carry once the grants run out; are those the
same people that we're talking about now?
MS. MYERS: No.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's '-
MS. MYERS: That we don't want to carry -- I think the
explanation was, you were going to look at that funding when they are
having to be absorbed when the grant runs out. I don't think it was
that we were not going to fund them. I thought we had that
discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think if our intent is not to keep them,
we don't accept the grant in the first place.
SHERIFF HUNTER: In fact, if I could use, by way of example
again, some of the grants, as we pointed out before, are for mandatory
programs that the state does not fund, such as victim services. They
want us to provide victim services at the time of an event, but they
don't fund it. So, fortunately, the state did offer some grants. We
received those grants. We hired victim advocates under those grants.
The grants lapse and we have to decide whether we want those victim
advocates still to continue. It's really a moot issue in the sense
that, other than, where do we get the funding from, the state mandate
has not been withdrawn. So we must continue to go forward with victim
advocacy.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess another way to ask the question
would be, are any of these personnel that, upon agreeing to accept the
grant by the county commission and simultaneously saying that we would
not accept the grant if we had to convert these to ad valorem
supported people later, are any of these people identified under that
scenario?
MS. MYERS: I would have to answer that no, the way I'm
understanding your question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, where are those people now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because every time -- I can tell you that
every time that -- since I have been on the board, that we've seen a
grant come in, we've asked that question and, and made some statement
to the effect that, if we are going to have to carry these people on
ad valorem later, we don't want to take the grant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we've been told no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And so are any of those people now coming
back to be carried on the ad valorem rolls that were previously paid
for through grant money?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, they are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if the answer is no --
MS. MYERS: No. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That answer is yes.
MS. MYERS: He clarified the question. Yes. The eighteen are
coming on to ad valorem tax.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eighteen of --
MS. MYERS: All that have been approved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eighteen of the twenty-five and a half
slots?
MS. MYERS: Plus the three -- now you're wanting to call them --
I'm calling them cops, but, different cops. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But they're because of the grant.
MS. MYERS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So 21.57
MS. MYERS: Twenty-one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, okay. Well, the next time -- I can
tell you, then, then the next time a grant comes up I'm not going to
support it because this is what I didn't want to happen.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that in -- just since I've been
on the board, which will be coming up two years in November, but that
was a question when grants have come down and have come before us
before. I understand some of these grants, if it was a three-year
grant, most of those cops grants were for a three-year period of time.
And now that period of time is gone and now they are being picked up.
And I think, when I called over and talked to you the other day or --
no, I'm sorry. I talked to Jane -- Joyce Heron (phonetic) after we
had had the meeting with the fellow from Washington, DC, who is an
overseer of this particular grant program. And it was like it was very
well understood, from his perspective, that, you know, when those
grants came in to the counties, that you had three years to get ready
and understand that you're going to be picking them up. And --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or getting rid of them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I mean, it was basically, you know,
you're -- this is what's going to happen and commissions need to be
prepared that they are going to pick up that particular part of it.
But when I talked to Joyce about it and she said, "Well, yes, it's
budgeted," well, I'm sure it is. If I were in your situation,
obviously I would include it in the budget, but, from the perspective
of a commissioner, one of our ongoing questions has always been, what
happens when the grant runs out, because now you have people in place
and you either say so long or they're going to have to go into some
other kind of a funding mechanism. Well, in this case, now they're
being picked up, or you're asking us to pick them up in the ad valorem
tax. My concern was that that wasn't really clear in this budget,
that, of those positions, it wasn't really indicated that these were
from a grant --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From a grant.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- position and now we have to pick those up.
It's just -- it's just a clarification standpoint, Sheriff, that, that
everybody really needed to know that these came about in the first
place because of grant dollars, and now the grant has extinguished and
now it's up to the taxpayers in Collier County to carry those
positions. The debate is not whether they're needed or not, but the
debate is, from a Board of County Commissioners' standpoint, do you
wish to continue to fund these positions through ad valorem taxation?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Oh, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And then the definition of what is current, what
is expanded, et cetera, et cetera, because they're being carried on
payroll and they look like everyone else.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They do. Except their initial funding was
not the same funding --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that a lot of the other positions in your
department were.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? My suggestion is, for future
budgets, that we adopt, at the beginning of the process, as we often
do, the budget policy, in this case adopt a budget policy language
that would identify these positions clearly as expansion positions and
require the discussion to describe the programs associated so that the
board can make a conscious decision on whether to continue these and
consider them as expansion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, they are technically probably not
expanded positions but they're, they're -- as far as the ad valorem
general fund is concerned, they are expanded positions.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right, they are.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's the point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, my past experience when we accepted
grant funds, immediately it was known that that position was being
funded by a grant, and when you were hired from a grant position or
for a grant position, when the grant goes away, so do you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Potentially. That's your experience.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's -- you know, that's -- and the people
are hired with that knowledge that, you know, when this grant dries
up, it's sayonara, and, you know, then you've got to think of, do you
really need those positions -- but it's -- but that's the problem I
have with the grants. They get you into it and you get used to having
that person or those persons in positions to obviously fill the needs
you have, or you wouldn't have done it in the first place, and then
all of a sudden, boom, the money is gone, and guess what, folks, you
got it.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I agree. And we, we do run into a situation
with certain types of grants, research grants -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- things of that nature that have an end point.
But many of the grantors now insist that you make representation to
them at the time of application that you will, in fact, absorb these
positions at some future point so the seed money is not misspent. If
it's things like the COPS grant where you have these community
oriented policing deputies that are being hired, ours, twenty-seven, I
believe, somewhere in there, twenty-seven cops, deputies, part of a
hundred thousand police officers to be put on the street nationwide,
we felt fortunate to get them, but the federal government isn't going
to permit you to say, "Well, we're going to hire them for three years
and then we're going to dismiss them." That wasn't the intent of the
program, and you do lock yourself in on the front end to a certain
extent. We'll try to keep you better informed --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. We just need to know.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- with a re-definition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine hit on this
earlier today and that is that, if we had a matrix that showed -- and
you did a great job financially with the matrix on the, on the grants
this time -- but those eighty-two and a half positions that'll be
funded under grant, if we know when they hit the general fund and what
they do as a group, because this requires the combining of two things
you have in your budget, which is the one graph that shows where they
are and a graph that shows what years they are funded. Combine those
two in a single thing that says, "These guys are .... let's say it's
something that we think is not a real vital service, well, those --
those positions that we're, we're now funding with general fund, what
are they doing, what is their job, what are those eighteen people
doing? And then we can determine whether that is appropriate for the
general fund to take over or not. So I think it would just be a
combining of those two pieces of information to give us that detail so
we --
MS. MYERS: That shouldn't be a problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So I think we can get there so you
can make the evaluation, whether it's important or not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm going -- I'm going to maybe
disagree a little bit with you here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not here -- I don't think my job as a
county commissioner is to sit here and tell the sheriff what you feel
are the important parts of your department. Okay. I may disagree
with your dollars, that kind of thing, but I'm not going to sit here
and tell you that you should have this guy in this position over here
and you don't need these positions over here. I believe that, you
know, if we have a disagreement on dollars, then it's up to you to
make that determination where you think you can best sacrifice those
dollars. I don't believe that -- and maybe the rest of the
commissioners will disagree with my perspective on this -- but I don't
believe it's my position to tell you where to take the money out of.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, I agree with you
wholeheartedly, but last year we were criticized by the sheriff for
not offering specific cuts when we didn't give a hundred percent of
what was offered, so I just feel like, no matter which side of that
angle we get on, we take criticism, either --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm just going to tell him my point of
view, and now, Don, it's up to you to do what you want to do, but,
you're probably not going to please all five of us up here but, you
know, my perspective, if I say I don't like X numbers of dollars, then
it's up to you for you to determine where you think the place is for
you to cut that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the sixth year that I've said that,
just so that you know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay. All right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You might be surprised to have all
five agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think you would.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're done with this budget.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are we finished? I think we're finished.
Unless you have something further to say, I don't think we've got
any more questions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, well, just getting back to that grant
-- grant ending issue, are we just -- is everybody through, are we
going to let this go on like it is?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In this budget year, I am.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not my preference but I'm in a
minority.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I did want to console you, Commissioner
Constantine. Some of the COPS deputy activities, for instance, go to
midnight basketball, and I know that is near and dear to your heart.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Woo.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, wow.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, now, let me take back what I said about
SHERIFF HUNTER: Just as an example. That's not litter pickup,
but it is a prevention strategy. And whether it works or not will be
determined in the long run.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do they have to let him win?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We let him win sometimes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're not crazy.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Actually, we -- we're falling down because we're
supposed to be on the court with him and I think we didn't fill the
team yet. Far too intimidating.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, please, let's move on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's time to end this conversation. You-all
are great. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I might bring a shovel and steam cleaner
for the carpet.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll move on to Page A-6 in your summary book.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the second item of our day?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's move on to the second morning
agenda.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Indeed. That's the summary of the board agency,
the commission office itself, the county attorney and the other
general administration --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, can I just, to
kind of psychologically move us -- feel like we've done more than one
item on this long list, are there specific questions the board has on
the property appraiser or supervisor or clerk, because I had none?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I was going to say, we could
probably check those off and save them making a trip up here, whenever
that's going to be scheduled.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we let them know that right now?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That way we've scratched off four of
these items instead of one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's great.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The budget staff will contact them to let them
know.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Get out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go ahead. We've already approved you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Get out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I saw him in the hall.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Carry on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you can certainly tell who hasn't had
to go through the budget process, really, huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. There is an item in the
clerk's where he had --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Commissioner.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM THE AUDIENCE: I didn't come up for the
budget hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM THE AUDIENCE: I just came up to see my
wife, believe me.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the good news is, unless you want to
see your wife again, you don't have to come back.
Just on the clerk, I do have a couple of questions, one involving
a lawsuit windfall of 1.3 million dollars and a commensurate reduction
that doesn't seem to be in their budget. So I do have a couple of
questions on the clerk's.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So rescind that cancellation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everybody but the clerk.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unscratch that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everybody but the clerk.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'll instruct the clerk to join us later on then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a big deal, but just a couple
questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. That's fine.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. 86 is a summary of the board, the board
departments. On a percentage basis, net increase in overall
appropriations within the board office.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next, please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next.
MS. FILSON: May I make one comment please?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I need to put on the record that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you identify yourself for the record?
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. Sue Filson from the board office.
I just need to put on the record that the BCC travel budget
includes travel dues, registration and everything out of your
respective object codes for when I process the bill purchase orders.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we use that budget for Leadership
Florida?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only if you're still a commissioner.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I did.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They just have no class.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent presentation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we're having a hell of a good
time.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. On Pages A-15 and A-16 there's a summary
of the management offices, net budget appropriations decrease, 1.9
percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. Where are we?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page A-15 and 16.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A-15. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we've already gone through the county
attorney. We figure that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- eight percent reduction was pretty
good?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Eight percent reduction.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice presentation, Mr. Weigel, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have questions on this.
The half a person, the assistant to the county administrator,
what's going on there?
MR. FERNANDEZ: One of the assistant to the county administrator
positions was partially funded by HR and partially funded by the
county administrator's office. What I suggested is that we put the
funding where the function is, and it doesn't change the number of
FTEs working in the office, it just changes the funding. The actual
half FTE is being realized by HR. They will -- they will take a half
position and turn it into a full position.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, they were -- it was
looking like there was less staff in your office --
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- than there really was, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- previously than there really was and now
you're doing it in a more straightforward way?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. The two assistants to the county
administrator have essentially performed work out of Mr. Fernandez's
office. The budget only reflected one and a half.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One and a half. So now you're just picking
up -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: And Mr. Fernandez's recommendation is just to
show the full cost where the function is actually being performed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other 213, provide funding for
half analyst?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's just another half of a budget analyst
position. We currently have 5.5 professional positions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me be a little more clear on my --
what's the necessity for the extra half?
MS. SMYKOWSKI: Growing workload, the number of hours it takes to
provide this, the information that we do today. We'd also like to get
more involved in performing management analysis functions. That's
something the county administrator was interested in seeing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As do I.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next page.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That brings us to A-19 and A-20, the support
services division. Overall the increase in appropriations is 27.2
percent. That is inclusive, though, of the information technology
department at a million dollars moving to the general fund. Previously
that was an internal service fund. That is a large component of the
increase, as well as -- and, frankly, it's just a shift in cost that
previously was not included in the general fund.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of specific questions.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last item on the page, capital
outlay for notebook computer and support equipment for new system here
in the chambers, why is that not picked up by the cable fees the same
way the other equipment in here has been, or is it just a
pass-through?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is not reflected as a pass-through, although
it probably could be, if you'd like to see that funding --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's only $27,000, but that's $27,000
more tax dollars that we could cut.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm with you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To provide two radios for existing
employees, did we just not budget for that in our original plan for
the 800 megahertz system?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two guys that were out of touch for
the last two years or -- hello. It's kind of odd.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I looked at this one, Leo. It's better.
Well, whatever.
MR. OCHS: It took me a long time to get up here and say, yes,
that's correct. We hadn't had -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Leo Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Leo Ochs, Support Services Administrator.
We hadn't had our full complement of maintenance personnel
equipped with 800 megahertz radios and we've been phasing that in over
the last couple of fiscal years, and this'll get us to the point where
all of our field people have radios to communicate with.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a -- and this is a performance
question as much as money -- the public information, $2,000 to change
the on-hold recording quarterly. In my recollection we had virtually
the same system at the business I worked at prior to being on the
board. And we actually did it monthly instead of quarterly, and it
was almost no difference in fee. And, I wonder, just from a public
service standpoint, if we could look and see if we can do that for the
same cost, it might be worth updating twelve times instead of four.
MR. OCHS: Certainly. I think that's a good --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? This is something I requested. I
thought that the, the information should be more current on there than
it is, and this is the cost. We'll try to get that cost number down,
but I really think it's important to keep that message current.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Either that or not have a message, because
it's kind of, well, silly the way it is now.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, you mentioned the IT
department has got this million dollars that we didn't have before?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, it's just shifting. It will be included in
the general fund in FY 99.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It was previously an internal service fund.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we're going to see a corresponding
decrease to take care of this, this is really just a -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Accounting.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- an accounting difference, right?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Keep going.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He cut that piece out of Hancock's
district there, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Emergency services division is on A-23 and A-24.
The administration budget for 126,000 is based on the two positions
and the cost per the recent reorganization approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question, Mike, I don't know
if everybody wants to go through all these items or just hit on the
questions. My only question was on the Isles of Capri unit. And, as
it says, consistent with the growth management plan, maybe
Commissioner Norris can refresh my memory there. I just didn't recall
it. It's my recollection that's failing, I'm sure, but I wondered if
someone --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's a response time driven issue in the urban
area when response times in the urban area fall below or get beyond
six minutes, Leo, correct?
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Beyond six minutes then, that is the prescribed
__
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is something we talked about as a
board before, is perhaps the, the need for one in that area because
it's kind of isolated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we had wanted the response time to be
the response --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a long haul from anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was trying to get a feel for how
many people that unit serves and how that compared to our other units
stationed around, and it's a health and safety issue. I don't really
want to make too big of a deal of it because it's not a top priority,
but --
MR. OCHS: Again, Leo Ochs, for the record. In your
comprehensive plan, commissioner, for fiscal year '98/'99 calls for
two units. One is for a deficit from last year that -- the board did
not approve, that would be your Golden Gate Estates unit that is being
proposed again for the coming fiscal year, and the second one is a
growth unit down in that Isles of Capri area. It would also be our
back-up unit onto Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay with it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And there was great concern about that
particular unit due to the road construction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought you were going to ask why were
they spending a hundred dollars more on Isles of Capri than in the
Gate, huh?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry to attack you, Leo.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Smykowski, we have had a request if we
could venture off of this for just a moment, is this going to mess
things up if we go to the clerk, since he is here; could we --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- hold off on this.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we can kind of detail here just for a
minute.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Page number?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the number?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page -- excuse me -- is A, as in apple, 11 and
12.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 11 and 12.
while we get to 11 and 12.
MR. BROCK: No problem.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
MR. BROCK: Good evening.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope not.
Hold on just a moment, Mr. Clerk,
Wewre there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It only seems that way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's only afternoon, it just seems like that.
MR. BROCK: I was concerned that it may be good evening.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So were we.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dwight, the reason I asked to look at a
couple of things here was not so much that the overall budget gives me
any great concern, but some folks that had done some work on the
budget had some questions, and I wanted to go ahead and ask you
about them and --
MR. BROCK: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- get the answers, if I may.
One of them was involving a court case that brought 1.3 million
dollars back to your agency. And, in looking through it, they didn't
see a commensurate reduction in another area to reflect that. And
that was a question I thought was worth exploring.
MR. BROCK: Yeah. I think it was closer to 1.6 million dollars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even better.
MR. BROCK: The money that we received in those settlements was
received this year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BROCK: And, at the end of the year, those funds will come
back to the Board of County Commissioners in a general fund transfer
from the Clerk.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that factored into our turn-back for
the Clerk's Office?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Yes.
MR. BROCK: There is one issue though that creates some concern
for me with the anticipation of the turn-back this year, and that
relates to an imposition by the Florida legislature on the clerks of
the State of Florida --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. It's a mess.
MR. BROCK: -- to go to a computer system designed by the State
of Florida. My staff has looked at that with great interest. The
computer system, from my staff's point of view that they are requiring
us to go to is inferior to the system that we have in place today. My
staff and I have assured the State of the Florida, Department of
Revenue and everybody else that we could that, if there is something
that we can't give them that they need, we will make it given to them.
Last year the bill was before the Senate, and I was able to lobby
enough to get an exemption. It sneaked up on me this year, so they
removed the exemption. We have not costed out exactly how much it is
going to cost for us to put this particular system in place. Lee
County has given us some information that they have costed out and
it's 1.87 million dollars. Now, there is no funding provided in the
legislation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: An unfunded mandate?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dwight, if you were --
MR. BROCK: Well, I am exploring that particular issue and
exploring it with the State of Florida. They have indicated to me
that there may be some federal money that would pay two-thirds of that
cost, but that that would be and we expend now, they rebate later.
This requirement is effective October 1 of this year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the penalty if you were not to
comply by October 1 of this year?
MR. BROCK: It constitutes, by statute, misfeasance of office for
which I could be removed from office. They specifically put that in
the statute.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are you sure that's a bad thing,
Dwight?
MR. BROCK: You know, I feel bad about having to stand up here
and say this, but, I mean, in my impression, this is something that is
being pushed down the clerks of this state's throat by our own
association because they're the ones that have set up the system. I
have fought it. I have done everything I could to try to avoid
something that appeared just absolutely stupid to me, but I've not
been successful. So, I think you got a letter from me the other day
advising you of that, and, you know, I don't know how to deal with it.
I mean, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of, there's a
constitutional requirement that they not pass down unfunded mandates.
Now, is there some way that this is in fact an unfunded mandate? I
don't have the answer to that yet.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Dwight, what I don't understand, you
obviously have a system that's above and beyond what they're
mandating. I mean, it has some capabilities -- that's a better way to
state it. It has some capabilities that this particular system does
not have.
MR. BROCK: That's correct. To give you an example, to give the
public an example, we have a cashiering system that is uniform
throughout the clerk's agency, which is integrated with every function
in the clerk's office. You pay a bill, that system cashiering station
promulgates all of the other computer systems in my office, including
the financial system. This one does not have that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Unless you want to purchase it separately?
MR. BROCK: Unless I want to purchase it or, more appropriately
stated, unless I want to build it myself. The child support system
that we have in place today also has the capability of the
noncustodial parent, or anybody else that knows the case number, to
call into the system over a common telephone and retrieve data from
that case file directly into our computer system over the telephone.
This system does not have that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a legal avenue you can pursue
considering the last comment you just said about state --
constitutional issue of state mandates?
MR. BROCK: It is my understanding that Tuesday, Wednesday --
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week there is going to be some
explanation, presentation at the clerk's conference with regard to
this, and I'll be more than happy to come back and give you an update
on what I have learned.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please do.
MR. BROCK: Whenever I get back.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For what it's worth, Dwight, I took your
letter and forwarded it to Senator Dudley to ask for an explanation.
We'll see what we get when we get it back.
MR. BROCK: I mean, last year I got them include language in the
bill that the Department of Revenue could exempt out clerks. We
actually went to the Department of Revenue -- I mean, I actually got
Larry Fuchs (phonetic), who is secretary of the Department of Revenue,
to come down and talk to me about it, and we got a written exemption.
But they did a number on me this year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It just -- it just totally makes no sense to
me. When I read this letter, I thought, you know -- it would be
different if you didn't have a system that was, was functioning, but
you have something that functions far better than what they're even
proposing and then they want you to get involved with their system.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pay a couple million dollars to have less
service.
MR. BROCK: To downgrade.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To downgrade. Somehow this doesn't make any
sense to me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only government.
MR. BROCK: I mean, if someone could explain to me what the
deficiency in my system is, and I have asked them over and over and
over to identify it, I will either go to your system and shut up or I
will correct the problem that is there. Nobody can tell me that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couple of questions. On Detail Page A-25,
this statement says, the budget reflects -- this budget reflects the
Circuit Court, civil, felony, probate, juvenile and the SAVE program,
and they are funded a hundred percent by fee revenue. Is that the
$403,000 item that you show in fee collections; is that roughly the
equivalent of what funds those programs or does it fund those and then
some more, because when you look at the budget, you see 1.5 for
current service and total appropriations but you only see 403,000 in
fee collections.
MR. BROCK: From those departments?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. BROCK: The funding of my departments does not match.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BROCK: The statutory scheme for the funding in the Clerk's
Office does not match department by department, never will, even
assuming that we are fortunate enough to get Article 5 passed, you're
never going to see a department by department matching funds in the
funding scheme.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So when you say that those
departments are funded a hundred percent by fee revenue, how -- how
can we make that statement if we're not really sure?
MR. BROCK: The fourth floor here, the Official Records section
__
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. BROCK: -- is the, by far, the fee generator for the Clerk of
the Circuit Court, which is used in the statutory scheme of things to
fund other departments.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You have an additional person on
Page A-31 in Recording.
MR. BROCK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Recording is funded, as I understand it,
by --
MR. BROCK: Fees.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By fees. So this person, when they are
being added, you're anticipating an increase in fees to cover that?
MR. BROCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there would be no effect to the
general fund in that position.
MR. BROCK: That's right. The total effect to the general fund
this year through my budget is 2.4 -- 2.56 percent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I understand that. I just wanted
to make sure that I and some other individuals who had done some work
on this got answers to those questions. MR. BROCK: Right. No problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's what I had. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Any other questions for the
clerk? Nothing.
Thank you very much.
MR. BROCK: Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That moves us to A-27 and A-28, Public Services
Division.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here's where we can do some real cutting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Big cuts here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can think of a couple, actually.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's a kidder, Harla. Calm down.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Get this library out of here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Net increase in total appropriations of 7.5 point
percent, inclusive of the expanded services. Things of note, in Parks
and Recreation, again, the Marco Island where the neighborhood, the
smaller parks have been deleted to the tune of $308,000, so service
within those parks would terminate on October 1st in the upcoming
fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have three specific questions in the
highlight page. One does have to do with the library. The reference
librarian with expertise in genealogy research, maybe you could help
me. How many inquiries a year -- how much work -- that just seems
like an awful specialized thing to warrant a position and I'm
wondering, not that you may not need more help, but is that the area
in which we specifically would outline as a highest priority?
MR. JONES: John Jones, Public Library. The position is for a
general reference librarian with a specialty in genealogy, just as we
have a general reference librarian who has a specialty in business.
Total reference has doubled in the past four years. We're not
handling in the headquarters a hundred thousand --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm fine. You've answered my question
because I just --
MR. JONES: 4,000 genealogy inquiries last year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I had read this, it appeared almost
as though it was, that was the sole purpose.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What they'd be doing full time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. JONES: It's just their field of specialty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't know we offered help on that.
MR. JONES: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So make that 4,000 and one. I'll be in on
Monday.
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I don't want to know what my
genealogy is, come to think of it. Never mind. Never mind.
MR. JONES: For a small fee I could arrange it where it would be
pleasing for you.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Make it better than it seems?
MR. JONES: I can be had, Madam Chairman.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Headline.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under Parks and Recreation -- thanks,
John -- I had a question on the very first item there, a supervisor to
implement programming and oversee. How is that currently done, Marla?
MS. RAMSEY: Are you talking about the fitness center?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The $90,000 item.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. My name is Marla Ramsey, Parks and
Recreation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is it currently done and then how
would that change?
MS. RAMSEY: Right now what we have is one supervisor here at the
Naples and one in Immokalee. Both of them don't necessarily have a
fitness background, one's an aquatic person. So the supervisor that
I'm anticipating to bring in to help with that will have a fitness
background. They can help with the marketing aspect as well as
training of the existing staff, especially in Immokalee where we're
having a difficult finding certified staff to fill that area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do a little tree for me here.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's supervising whom, then? If we
have a supervisor here and a supervisor in Immokalee and, now adding
another supervisor, who are they all supervising; who is that extra
person supervising?
MS. RAMSEY: The one that I'm proposing in this budget is just
going to supervise the fitness staff, so kind of separated out. Right
now '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then, and I'm not being wise
here, they will then supervise the two supervisors?
MS. RAMSEY: No. Actually, what we have in there is, I believe
they are program leader 2 positions, and so what I'm looking at is a
supervisor to go over the program leader 2 with a specialist in
fitness. Right now we have the aquatic person over the fitness
center.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus two part-time attendants for
babysitting?
MS. RAMSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My favorite part of this was the last line
about the program will produce a net profit within three years, and
obviously that's something that will be flagged and watched, but
that's what we've been trying to encourage Parks and Rec. to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Marla may have left the Y, but she's
building a new one --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good girl.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at the Golden Gate Fitness Center, and
it's location -- you know, my first reaction is, if there are others
in the community that provide this service, we don't need to do it as
government, but the truth is, the Y is rather limited, it's demand on
services there are great and all I've heard about from the fitness
center at Golden Gate is people can't believe what a deal they get for
their money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What a wonderful deal it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, when you say that this program will
produce a net profit within three years, talking about that, that one
area, as long as you keep doing that with these types of expansions,
and I think we are providing a good service at a good deal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I really don't have a problem
with the expenditure. I just couldn't figure it out on my own and I
appreciate your help.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. No problem.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then the only other problem I had
was the three part-time program leader positions at the three parks.
MS. RAMSEY: The one that's for --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 35,400.
MR. FERNANDEZ: 35,4, fourth from the bottom.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you. Right now, especially at Max Hasse
Community Park, we have no staff person at that particular location,
and in the evenings when we're extremely busy, we're actually having
some problems with behavior of the neighborhood kids. And my thought
here is, if I put a program leader 1 person in these locations where
we don't have a community center I can build a little rapport with the
kids, kind of program for them and yet help with compliance in those
areas.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Harla, I didn't see any bark park here.
MS. RAMSEY: No. That's a capital.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hang on. Still coming.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Wrap-up. Wrap-up.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's on the flag list.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It better be on the flag list.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anything else on Parks and Rec.?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than, I just have a ton of
compliments I would pass to you, Harla. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're to be congratulated, as is Tom,
but I really appreciate the work you've done. We've had a lot of
compliments, a lot of new, exciting things happening in Parks and it
makes it easier to look at a budget and know how the money is going to
be dealt with in the end. So thank you.
MS. RAMSEY: And thank you for your support.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next, please.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. That moves us to A-31 and A-32, as the
community development items included to the general fund, overall
appropriations increased two and a half percent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two specific questions. One, the
artificial wreath, haven't we traditionally gotten a grant for the
artificial wreath, and it appears this one is out of general? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or is this to leverage a grant?
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources
Director.
Yes. Traditionally we have, with the exception of last -- or
actually this fiscal year we were out of the money. So we were ranked
eighteenth out of -- the money was sixteen, so we did not make that.
Now, this -- for next year we did get the ranking, but we were
basically last on the list. So what we're recommending is, is to put
some county dollars into it to make our position more competitive for
the future.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you recall, on Monday we set a few
items aside and just -- we wanted to be able to prioritize things, and
this seems like one of those wonderful ideas, however if we end up at
the end of our process short on money, it's not a big dollar item but
it's still $15,000 and it doesn't seem like a necessity. I wonder if
we might set that aside for our wrap-up and review it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least to hear what the necessity is if
there is one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was the impetus of this, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Again, our -- we're losing being competitive for
getting the $25,000 grant, so we want to try to match -- have the
county match some funds to make us more competitive to continue to
receive that grant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are other counties doing matching and
we're not and that's --
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. Sarasota uses a $25,000 match from
their estuary program. Lee County uses $25,000 from the voter
registration fees. Broward County has about $110,000 in their
program.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't a -- this isn't intended as a
slant but an observation and that is that most of the mangrove systems
in the county are in Collier County, and when we look at one of the
biggest problem we have for loss of mangroves, it was way back when
Port Royal and Aqualane Shores was developed, that used to all be
mangroves. When I look at artificial reefs as trying to create
habitats and hatchery areas and whatnot, I wonder if the city
shouldn't be participating in that because --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They destroyed so many of them?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, you can't point to City
Council and say, "You guys destroyed it," I mean -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John can.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, he can. But I'm just saying that it
seems to me something like that ought to be a joint project, because
if you look at the number of residences on the water that boat, that
fish, that whatever, the City of Naples has a very, very high number
of those, so, yeah, I want to flag it, but I think it's something that
maybe in the future, as we consider them, we need to do it in joint
project with the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It might be -- it might be good just to
have the City come and tell us what they are doing in this area
because they're doing a lot -- the artificial -- I wish I knew what
they were called. But Charles Duray, you guys may be familiar with it
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- through Naples Aquarium is doing those
artificial reefs that go on each -- all the frontage of the seawalls
provide habitats. So there's a whole lot of activity going on in the
city about it, but I'm sure we could get a report.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It just seems like a joint project to me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, now, as I understand it, Commissioner
Constantine, you want to flag this 15,000 for an artificial reef?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll agree with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, okay, but you're going to hear from
the Grouper Rights lobby, I'm sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My other question is on the Housing
and Urban Improvement item on here. Greg, specifically, what is this?
It requested from grant administration revenues to leverage state and
federal. Is this money itself to match up as some percentage against
those?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes. We've had several grant requests, like the
qualified target industry grants that went for certified diabetic and
went for Allen Systems Group where we have to provide a twenty percent
match.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. HIHALIC: This is allowing state grant administration funds
to do that.
(Laughter.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question on a related subject. Do we have
any news in Marco about the HUD money?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you identify yourself as well?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes. I'm Greg Hihalic, Director of Housing and
Urban Improvement.
Yes. My understanding is that they do wish to participate in
that, but the under -- the process is going to take a while to do
that, so it's going to be a while before we see any money. Probably --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're back on board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a good thing.
MR. HIHALIC: -- fifteen months, but they are back participate --
wanting to participate with us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. Because I've been slamming them all
day, I thought I would be sure and say something nice.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Greg.
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That moves us to A-35 and A-36, which is the
Public Works Supported Fund Operation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The very first item, a hundred
thousand dollars requiring the county to act. Who is requiring us;
this is a federally mandated item?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it EPA or --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: NDDES.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what's the penalty if we don't?
MR. ILSCHNER: Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator, Collier
County.
And, excuse me, Commissioner, I need to have you restate the
question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very first item on here, $100,000 EPA
MR. ILSCHNER: EPA. That's EPA -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for a federally mandated national
pollution discharge elimination system, or, as Mike would call it,
NDDES.
MR. ILSCHNER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who is requiring us to do this, why,
what's the penalty if we don't do it?
MR. ILSCHNER: The Environmental Protection Agency, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency is requiring -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your friend, Carol.
MR. ILSCHNER: -- is requiring this program. Lee County just
finished their extensive effort in preparing for the program as well.
This cost that we have been -- put in this program is the first year
cost based on their experience in getting started in the program. And
what is the penalty? I think the maximum penalty that they can invoke
for failure to follow a directlye is $25,000 per day for each day
being a separate occurrence.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's blow it off until Tuesday then.
That's a hundred thousand dollar item. The --
What exactly is this? I mean, I read the thing here, stormwater
discharge permits. What is the overall goal? When I see it's a
national program, I'm just wondering how little old Naples, Florida,
impacts all of that. It seems like we're on a -- the end of the --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What effect do we have on Los Angeles?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The end of the fight down here.
MR. ILSCHNER: The program was initially established to address
pollutants entering the streams and waters of the nation. And they
first identified major metropolitan areas. The smaller metropolitan
areas are the areas that have been phased in in the latter years of
this particular program.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Ilschner, am I right, this, this, I
think, is the program -- I think it's very relevant to the HUD 200,000
population discussion, if I'm right. I had heard about this. That --
now that the big cities have been forced to do this by HUD, now it's
towns with 200,000 population or more --
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct. It's at 200.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the feds say we have 200,000 for this
purpose but they're not sure we have 200,000 for the other purpose. I
thing we ought to, you know, bring that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we hold off on this until they
decide how many people we actually have here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's something to be said for that.
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. John Boldt is certainly more conversant in
this program than I am and I have called for him to come over, If
you'd like to have more information on this towards the end of the
session, he could provide that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would ask, is Mr. Weigel back there
somewhere?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a lawyer in the house?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, we joke, but that's a serious
item. If one federal agency --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is not recognizing us and that's
costing us a million and a half dollars, and this --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And another one --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is recognizing that and it costs us
a hundred thousand, it seems like that might be something we'd be able
to pursue.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's at least flag that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the very least to save the hundred
thousand, the best case, to get that 1.5.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's flag it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's flag it for wrap-up and ask that you
and Mr. Boldt talk to Mr. Weigel, if at all possible, before that on
Monday to find out just that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I may be wrong, but I think the number is
200,000, that once we reach --
MR. ILSCHNER: It's a 200,000 population trigger. This is a
preliminary work that we need to do to prepare for that initiation,
and we're approaching that threshold.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may have to do it next year instead of
this year.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we may be able to stave it off a year,
in all likelihood, but let's find out if we can. I like that idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I do too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Better in our pocket than theirs. Let our
taxpayers keep it than they have it earlier.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for clarifying that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Our pocket meant we the community,
not we, government. I think you had a question -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm all set.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The $113,300 item for the additional two
person crew, I understand that, but the new retention ponds you cite,
one is Golden Gate Parkway at Grey Oaks, please tell me that's a
temporary project until Grey Oaks develops.
MR. ILSCHNER: I'm going to have to apologize. Mr. Boldt was
asked to appear here to address these questions for you. He is on his
way. I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll just come back to that then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The reason is, the reason I ask is,
I don't mind appropriating the money for, you know, special treatment
of vegetative growth, but that one is sorely underserved on the
vegetative growth side. That is one of the biggest eyesores along the
roadway that we have in Collier County, and we're responsible for it.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's the Logan Boulevard?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. This is Golden Gate Parkway --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is Grey Oaks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at Grey Oaks. It's that retention one
kind of across from Bear's Paw.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's got a nice, pretty chain link fence
with big red and white signs on it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Real pretty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just -- with cattails in it. I mean,
it's just awful.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. I'm familiar with that one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Horrible.
MR. ILSCHNER: I'm familiar with that one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's kind of an embarrassment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't like cattails?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, I love cattails.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's ugly. It's the chain link fence.
It's very ugly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it just doesn't -- you know, they've
tried to seed it and grass doesn't grow on it, I mean, it's just a
nuisance. What I'm asking is, I don't mind appropriating the funds to
make that look better, but if that's a temporary site, as I thought it
was '-
MR. ILSCHNER: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because when Grey Oaks develops that
piece, they -- I think we're going to be using their water management
system there, just like we did at Pelican Marsh and for some other
things. I don't want to go dumping money into something, into
something too temporary on an annual basis. So there's -- MR. ILSCHNER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to flag that and get a better
discussion on it on Monday, if I could. MR. ILSCHNER: I understand.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
MR. ILSCHNER: We can certainly do that for you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. Certainly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we're through with this Public Works
one, maybe we should jump ahead to Judge Hayes' item. He's here for
an item, and we could get his item done and let him go back and keep
sending people to jail.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you telling the judge what he should be
doing?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you doing criminal these days, Judge?
I don't think so. I think he would be divorcing people or something.
Civil, okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The county administrator was trying to get
in on something.
Bob, did you have --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I was just going to suggest that we pass
Public Works until we have everybody here that we need to answer your
questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That's fine. Good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Maybe we won't need to go to
wrap-up on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. Thank you. If you don't
mind, Mr. Ilschner?
MR. ILSCHNER: I don't mind at all. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please let me sit down.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What page do we go to, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-42 is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A-427
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- the Court's agencies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Middlebrook and Judge Hayes and the one
and only --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Rotary.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Mr. Rotary.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Net decrease on Page A-42 for the related
agencies of 6.4 percent. As I indicated earlier in my opening
remarks, the state attorney, that's primarily a function of decrease
in replacement capital items. Circuit, that one item listed as
court-operated, it's circuit and county court judges. There's a net
decrease there of 9/10ths of a percent. Public defender also has a
slight decrease.
Page A-43 reflects the Court Administration budget, 681. As
you'll recall, the board established a separate fund this year for
Court Administration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yes. We do recall.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, on Amendment 7.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Total appropriations requested from the general
fund increase 3.9 percent, that is inclusive of an expanded position,
one additional probation officer, based on caseload.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're probably going to want to talk
about capital too, aren't ya?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
the administration side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I don't have -- I don't have a problem on
He either.
That looks good to me.
Like to see the state fund that?
Yes, on Amendment 7.
Please vote yes on Amendment 7.
It's money in your pocket. Okay.
Okay.
HR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe Judge Hayes is here to talk about the
funding related to the fourth floor of the courthouse. There is, at
the back of the general fund detail, or in your summary book, excuse
me, is the requested 301 budgets, one of which is funding for the
fourth floor courthouse renovations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Page number, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A-168.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's in detail?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry. A-166, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In summary or detail?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's not --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Detail.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not in the summary page.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. It should be at the very end. It should
be on a salmon-colored page, back side of a salmon-colored page.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not orange, salmon.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you know, Mr. Smykowski is more
sophisticated --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A-1 -- I'm sorry. One more time.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A-166.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're to 164.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got a 164.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have 166.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no salmon-colored page.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Orange. He neither.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No orange.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I ain't got no orange.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ain't got no orange?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What tab are we under?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A. Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In the general fund.
MR. FERNANDEZ: General fund, A-1 --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: General. Ours ends on 164.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's in the very back of the general fund
section.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's in summary, folks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Summary.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Here it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's back here by the salmon page.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It runs from A-41 to A-165.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it does.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just models of efficiency, aren't we,
Judge Hayes?
JUDGE HAYES: No. We do the same thing.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. The -- let me kind of frame this issue
here. The, the requested amount for the full outfitting of the fourth
floor is requested at $2,907,000. The budget, as recommended, is a
1,131 -- 131,000. It's my understanding that Mr. Camp has done some
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pick up the gold wall fixtures, did
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That would be gold lame'.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Gold lame'.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like Commissioner Constantine's
fairly sure he won't be in front of you any time soon, Judge.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. He doesn't do traffic.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Camp has sharpened his pencil on that initial
request and, if you would like, it's approximately 2.5 million dollars
as opposed to the 2.9. The recommended level is not for a complete
outfitting of that floor in FY 99. It's funding a component of that
project, and I'll turn it over to Judge Hayes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we just ask --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what $400,000 cut you had in mind? I
mean, did I understand you right, they are asking for 2.9, you're
suggesting 2.5?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Mr. Camp is here. He, I think, will --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless you guys want to address that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. I think there is a need to clarify.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Judge Hayes submitted a, a number of options for
renovation that included a range of costs. The number that's in your
budget is the lowest of those, hoping that we could at least get the
project going this year. Judge Hayes has indicated the importance of
this item, that's the reason he's asked to address you today. The
difference between the 2.9 figure and the 2.5 figure is a result of
discussions that Skip Camp has had with Judge Hayes in trying to look
at alternatives to that most expensive option that accomplishes the
most, accommodates the most and, in fact, the judge has compromised
his original position on that and is willing to allow Public Defender
to occupy a portion of that space for a temporary period of time,
things like that have been worked out. But the number that is in the
budget document before you does not reflect that 2.9 figure. Please
understand that. Judge Hayes is here to talk to you about moving from
the number that we do have to the now 2.5 figure that represents that
highest cost option.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the 1.1 number we have here
then?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That's the minimum recommended.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Would you identify yourself?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Sorry. Mark Middlebrook, Senior Deputy Court
Administrator, Twentieth Judicial Circuit.
The 1.1 is the minimum improvement, which I believe was for two
courtrooms and three judicial chambers as recommended by the most
recent study that was presented to the board on space. That does not
address our needs as we stand today, at the minimum. It does assist
us, but it doesn't address our needs.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mark, one of the questions I had when
you and I spoke about this is the cost per square foot just seemed
higher than a lot of the other things we do in your building and this
building and other buildings, and we were trying to pinpoint the
reason for that, what the difference was.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I believe Skip's going to be able to answer
that for you a little bit more appropriately than I can.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, Facilities Management
Director.
Commissioner, one of the worst things you can do as a staff
member is come back to the board and ask for more money, so what
happens is, we have a lot of contingencies in these projects. To
begin with, it's a specialty type facility. It means that the
courtroom, for instance, actually becomes a jail cell. If there's a
disruption, a judge can push a button and all kinds of electronics
happen. So there's a lot of specialty items. But let me just read
you a couple of line items that we've put in there. One is, we have
twenty percent in there, which is $291,000, for overtime. It has to
be done at night. That's a, that's a substantial number that you're
not used to hearing. We have a contingency of $150,000 on this size
of a project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're saying this is because the work has
to be done at night is the overtime because --
MR. CAMP: After hours. It can't disrupt the court proceedings.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You don't stop --
MR. CAMP: And some of these are kind of unique to this
operation. Also, furnishings, $240,000, by the time you buy the
church pews, if you will, and those kind of specialty items. There is
a very -- a high cost to this project, but I will also tell you that
the contingency is high. We expect to bring this budget -- this
project in under budget, like we always do. We're real proud of that.
But it -- I have a real problem with the amount of money that's in the
budget right now. We will not do what we've been trying to
accomplish, and that is to -- everybody has given a little. The
judges, I think, have given a lot. Where we have a compromise, the
compromise is going to cost around 2.4. The amount that's in the
budget now will not do what everybody has tried to compromise on, and
is to try to get -- all your constitutional officers need some sort of
relief. The proposal to put the public defender and some mediation
and some of the courtrooms on that floor will help give a lot of
people some relief instead of just one particular one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we were to do the 2.4 million, when
would we need to do more and how much more?
MR. CAMP: That would be addressed in your space plan, which
we'll have to you at the end of the summer. But this will give them
the relief, probably for the next year or two. It'll certainly give
your public defender some relief and also the Clerk of the Court.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can I ask -- Commissioner, are you finished?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You had some contingencies in there, Skip.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which amounted to roughly how much? Just, I
MR. CAMP: The, the contingency -- general contingencies,
$150,000, the furnishings are 240,000, overtime allowance, which is
twenty percent, is 391,000. So big ticket items.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're 7, $800,0007
MR. CAMP: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you're telling me that this is basically
good for maybe a couple of years?
MR. CAMP: This is in concert with your space plan --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
MR. CAMP: Eventually they will have to redo some of the portions
and put those people in the annex.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That's my concern, is, if we turn
around in two years and have to go through this whole exercise again,
are we going to again allocate more dollars for contingency to be able
to do this?
MR. CAMP: Actually, in two years from now when you, when you
build a courthouse annex --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. CAMP: -- only the people that are in general offices will
actually move over. The courtrooms that you're going to build right
away, I think there are three of them, they will remain there. So you
won't be duplicating a lot of items. We'll just move the public
defender eventually into, into the annex. Eventually you're going to
want your courthouse to have courtrooms and judicial suites only, and
your annex will have all those peripheral items, like public defender,
state attorney, those kind of support, the clerks, those kind of
support functions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But when -- now, what's the timetable again
on that?
MR. CAMP: Well, we won't have that to you until later this
summer, but it could be as early as -- probably minimum of three years
by the time you build a courthouse annex.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I just don't want to get into a
situation where we do something piecemeal --
MR. CAMP: No, this is in concert --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and then you turn around in two or three
years and you either undo or re-do what you've just done.
MR. CAMP: Actually, everything will be phased, but you're not
going to duplicate a lot of things, and this is really, again, in
concert with your overall master plan and gives a number of people
some immediate relief.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Ha'am, if I may?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Middlebrook?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: What we are giving up from the 2.9 million is
the fourth courtroom that we are seeking. The --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that the electronic courtroom?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, it's, it's going to become the electronic
courtroom.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: And we are giving that up to allow the space
for the Public Defender to move over to the courthouse to the fourth
floor and will take up 5,000 square feet of that courtroom. Judge --
and Judge Hayes is going to expound on this, but, in essence, that was
the difference between 2.9 to 2.5, roughly. Additionally, we believe
that this will take care of our needs for several years. But, in
concert to this is the building of the courthouse annex for the State
Attorney, the Public Defender and the Clerk of Courts, which, it is
our understanding, will go adjacent to the courthouse. Our needs are
going to be met with that fourth courtroom being built when the Public
Defender moves in two or three years, as we are being told that is the
plan for that annex.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the big question.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Right, you know. We have to be sure we're
sticking to the two or three years, or we are doing what you're
worried we're doing.
JUDGE HAYES: If I could just -- this is Judge Hayes,
representing the Courts here. I mean, our original plan and request
was to, to have the whole fourth floor created for courtrooms, but we
also became aware of and were trying to work with Skip and really all
the other constitutional officers to realize that they had needs as
well as we do and try to cooperate. And I think, if anything,
hopefully, our, our rapport with all the other officers has been that
we have tried to accommodate everybody else's concerns as well as our
own. And -- and so the theory was that, if we had the three
courtrooms that the proposal, your architects originally proposed, the
three courtrooms and the judicial suites that go with those, that
would probably get us into -- we would not -- we would fill those and
not be requesting an additional courtroom for somewhere from three to
five years. Interestingly, just in this legislative session we've
actually had more time bought for us, against our will, because, as
you may know, we were funded by the legislature for a new judicial
position, and we had told you previously that we were pretty positive
that that was going to be filled by Judge Ellis coming back to Naples.
I mean, she still lives here and commutes to Punta Gorda, and we
finally got approval from our Chief Judge about seven days before that
bill was killed in the legislature and so that was much to our dismay,
but also, especially to Judge Ellis' dismay because, at this point,
we're still -- the bill was -- the position was funded, it just was
never created. And there are a lot of reasons I have been told why,
and that may be why we think that it'll be in your best interest to
have Article 7 passed. But, as a result of watching what we saw just
happen where we have to rely on the legislature, I think we would
prefer to take our chances always with the county commissioner other
than the legislature. That's another day, another issue.
But the point is is that we understood that the State Attorney's
Office needed more space. The Public Defender needed more space.
There really was no place to put them except if we could absorb them.
We discussed this with the county administrator and with Skip and we
said, "Yes, we could do that on a short term basis," not because you
ultimately couldn't order us to do it, we could always be forced to do
that. What we anticipated in reality though is that, in a period of
three years to five years, for sure, we're all going to be crunching
on top of each other. If we absorb the Public Defender and no other
condition is created to move them out, not only will the Clerk's
office grow but we'll be growing, the Public Defender's office will be
growing and we just didn't want to be at each other's throats at some
future date. But, as a realistic means of accommodation, I've talked
to Tom Osteen of the Public Defender's Office and agreed that, if the
proposal was we take in essence half of that courtroom, fourth floor,
and create its three courts and the additional requisite judicial
suites that go with it, and then they took 5,000 gross of the
approximately 7,000 gross that's left, and 2,000 goes to the mediation
department, which would have to be moved because we also agreed, in
order to work with Clerk of the Courts, that we would move our
Domestic Violence unit from the sixth floor so he could have some more
space, but we would have to move them some place, and so we would move
them, in essence, to the fifth floor, which would cause somebody else
to move to the fourth floor. And we had to -- we had to actually work
this out so that we can't have Domestic Violence right next door to
the Public Defender's office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be bad. We can't do that.
JUDGE HAYES: Because that probably would not work. So we had to
consider moving the Mediation Department next to the Public Defender's
office and moving the Domestic Violence Unit to a separate floor so
that we won't have any contact between maybe the alleged perpetrator
and the alleged victim. And we just don't want any problems security
wise. That could really -- that's one of the main reasons you
generally don't try to have these people in the same building. But
we're trying to accommodate everybody and work with them, and the
proposal that's made to you through Skip's numbers are -- we haven't,
of course, gone -- that -- we're not number crunching, but, as far as
we know, that those are accurate and that, that would accommodate our
needs for the next three years or so. But it would kind of -- in
getting back to your original question -- we would be hoping that at
the time, if and when the court annex building was built on top of the
old courthouse, the old -- what's currently the CID building for the
sheriff, that some funds would be appropriated to, in essence, clean
up after them and then convert that into the last fourth courtroom.
There are plans already prepared by the architects that you have from
Capital Projects, who have already designed this out to show four
courtrooms, judicial offices and a few business offices.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're basically -- you're in agreement
then with Mr. Camp's numbers?
JUDGE HAYES: Yeah. I -- I don't have any reason to dispute
those at all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And whatever's proposed that that
encompasses?
JUDGE HAYES: Yeah. We're -- you know, our first choice,
obviously, would be to have the whole floor built and, and have that
for just the judiciary, but, realistically, I have to tell you that we
can get by with the three courtrooms and three judges' suites. And
it's just that, by the time you build these, and because Cindy is not
now coming back in January, and we're hoping maybe as early as
September, we're -- we're really kind of set back a year against our
wishes. Our caseload's going to go up. We're not going to get the
judicial manpower we requested. So that has to actually be put into
play with this request as well. So, we would have had her come in in
January, and not really had a courtroom for her or an office. As it
is, we're hoping we can get her in as early as next September and, of
course, at that point in time you won't have built -- you may have
this built but you probably won't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This accommodates the visiting judges and all
that?
JUDGE HAYES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This would take --
JUDGE HAYES: And we have the charts for you. This was a tough
week because this was our Florida Bar Conference and our Circuit
Judges Conference so we're on a skeleton's crew this week, and -- but
we wanted to be, you know, be present to try to answer any questions
and also to also tell you personally that we have worked with the
staff and that I've talked to the head public defender here, Mr.
Osteen. We've worked, obviously, together for many years, and that
I've explained to him what our position is and I don't think he has
any problem with that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for you, Skip. Start to finish,
what's the total time frame of construction for the 2.4 million?
MR. CAMP: Four to six months for design, six to eight months for
construction.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bingo. Okay. We're in the next budget
year.
MR. CAMP: We can do this in twelve months.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But, you know, if we started a
little later we could push some funds into next budget year, couldn't
we? What I'm talking is --
MR. CAMP: It could be done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. What I'm talking about is a
difference between facing a million dollars or a million two in
addition this year, when, if we had a three month delay on the start
of the project, the whole project gets done but we split it out into
two budget years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your manager is dying over there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you telling me next year's looking
worse than this year, is that it?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. What I'm telling you is that we don't know
yet what next year's going to look like. And if you start a project
and you don't have it fully funded, I think you're asking for trouble.
I would prefer to see you bite the bullet this year. If you want to
do the project, we'll go back to the capital list and try to find the
money some -- through some of the other projects, but I would rather
do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The advice to bite the bullet when it
comes to taxes is not, you know, something that, that I warm to. What
we're dealing with here is a million, a million two or a million three
we have to find somewhere else. I mean, that's what we're dealing
with.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
MR. CAMP: Here's one suggestion. Typically we put a project
budget together that has all these contingencies, including furniture
and things like that. Why don't you go ahead and let us perhaps take
out the furniture and some of the contingency and let us come back to
you later as, as the numbers start to get tighter. And that -- we may
be talking $400,000 there, as long as you realize that we'll have to
watch the budget and, as it progresses, we may have to come back.
JUDGE HAYES: Some of these costs, I believe, if I'm not correct,
are Public Defender costs, right?
MR. CAMP: Well, it's furnishings.
JUDGE HAYES: Like moving --
MR. CAMP: Well, it's furnishings for the entire floor.
JUDGE HAYES: Yeah. Yeah. And, so, even though it says
"courts", it's not totally courts. MR. CAMP: No.
JUDGE HAYES: But I think it's -- I think we are -- I think -- I
think he was saying, in essence, they, they don't want to come back to
you and say, "We misjudged this," and so I think it's a little bit on
the highball side, and I -- because I look at these numbers, basically
it looks like a million dollars to me that's necessary to create these
things. The subtotal and the total, I think those are a little high,
but I think they'll come back less than that now. But --
MR. CAMP: I think we're looking at $400,000 less, but I just
can't tell you that now.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: You can't be sure about it.
MR. CAMP: We won't know what the bidding atmosphere is in six
months from now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. CAMP: There's a lot of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand Mr. Fernandez's concern
about starting a project, not having it funded, however, we do have
some projects that we do over the course of more than one year and we
project that expenditure for future years, road projects that spread
out over eighteen months, we don't necessarily put in one full budget
year. Even though the road project is started, we just earmark that
and know we have to start it for the next year. So my preference
would be to take care of it all in one, but if we find ourselves in a
bind on maintaining that tax rate, perhaps, between the 400,000 that
we will likely enjoy and whatever would be at the tail end of that, we
can get it back down to something affordable.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can't enjoy that $400,000 now because
we've got it budgeted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got to put it in there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we can, you know, as a contingency. If
-- what I'm hearing from Skip is that these, in all likelihood, are
contingency costs that may not be realized, it is prudent to plan
contingencies out of reserves. What I'm saying is that I don't want
to lose ground we've made. Today alone we've either pulled out or
earmarked nearly $500,000 in our budget already, so we've made ground
in what was already a good situation. I don't want to give all of
that back unless I absolutely have to. So I'm, you know --
MR. CAMP: We possibly could pull the $400,000 out now, put it in
reserves, and then if we have to go back later, fine. It's not
something we typically do, but that might be a partial solution.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't help what we're trying to
accomplish because we're still appropriating.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're still taxing for it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. If you appropriate it, I don't care
what fund it's in, we have to tax for it. So, I guess in a nutshell,
Judge Hayes, I want to get to that 2.4, I just don't know how we're
going to do it yet. So, I can tell you that, by wrap-up on Monday,
that I personally will try, I'll personally try and find other areas
that we can take it from.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could be at roughly 1.6 now. We
need to find 800,000 other dollars to do this, considering the other
cuts we've already done. We had -- in Mr. Fernandez's budget we had
1.1. We've cut roughly a half a million today. So, if you used all
of that, that gets you to 1.6. Then we still have to find, unless we
want to change the tax picture, we would have to find in our budget
enough to make up that difference, another 800,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a lot of money.
JUDGE HAYES: Our only problem is that by the time that you get
the final product, whatever it may be, completed, we are going to --
in other words, even this delay with Judge Ellis is only going to be
from January of '99 to, at worst case basis, January of the year 2000.
I don't anticipate or you would barely be built at that point. In
other words, when she comes on line with us, we don't have a space for
her. And that's, that's our concern is that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we're going to have somebody who is one of
our local judges, so to speak, who still lives here and we're not
going to have a courtroom or an office for her. And so she's probably
going to come on line either at the time you build this or very
quickly thereafter, and then we still won't have any spaces for the
visiting judges, et cetera. So, we will -- it's going to -- it would
dovetail in nicely if we could go with the three courtrooms and the
three, and that was one of our concerns, in fact, even when I was
discussing this with you, was to figure out how to cut some costs, and
that's how we cut out the fourth courtroom, and that was a lot of
money and just gave that space to the Public Defender, but, of course,
that generates cost as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think my, my, you know, immediate
reaction to this is to take those things such as the ordering of
furniture that is basically stuff that goes in last minute and is
screwed in, okay, not the physical construction, not walls, not that
kind of stuff, but things such as furniture, fixtures, things that are
attached, basically, to find out how much we could find of that that
are things that, once they are appropriated, can be done on a very
quick basis, find out what the cost of those things are and see if
moving just those things into the next budget year, combined with the
other things we've done, gets us to where we need to go, rather than
dealing with the hard construction and that way that date of January
2000, per se, that we have -- we are ready for Judge Ellis or anyone
else who would be coming at that time.
JUDGE HAYES: So you've got -- well, you've got $400,000 there
that, if you took that approach, that you possibly -- I mean, I have
to agree with the County Administrator. I don't know if it's a good
plan on betting on that next year, but it would be -- you've got like
400,000 that could come up in the next budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we have some big 301 things on the
horizon, but, still, I don't -- we're going to spend the money either
way. That's just -- that's one way I see of getting there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Skip. Skip, tell me again what
we would get for our 1.1.
MR. CAMP: I don't know. I was not privy to that scheme, if you
will. I have not seen that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think Mr. Middlebrook has that.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: My recollection from the report was two
courtrooms and three judicial chambers. I believe that's correct. It
may only be one courtroom but I believe it's two.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Two courtrooms.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That sounds right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So that puts you quite a bit ahead
of where you are today?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it sure flies in the face of what
Commissioner Berry was saying about doing and redoing and doing it
again, you know. Well --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because then you go through the disruption
again --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of the fourth floor being torn up again
or, you know, there's construction going on. Then you're going to
have to allow more money again because it's going to have to be
completed at night. I mean, these are all dollars that somehow figure
in. I mean, I don't like, you know -- if we don't have the money, I
don't like going ahead, you know, and planning this thing. But, at the
same time, I don't want to -- I don't want to waste it going --
redoing all the time. I -- there's times when you almost -- you're
better off to bite the bullet, do it, get it done and then move on.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. But wait. Wait, now. It's two
courtrooms and three judges' suites --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- which we're going to have in any case.
So we're not going to have to build those back out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the staging and getting started again
with, you know, starting the construction, mobilization costs, all
those things get repeated.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I need to correct that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Pardon me. I misspoke earlier. The -- I now
have the report in front of me that I received. The fifth option,
which is the one that we funded in the budget, is for three chambers
and one courtroom, one courtroom.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, see.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I apologize for that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's doesn't get you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Beans.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That doesn't do it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about -- how about if we bump it to
three chambers and two courtrooms?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But sufficiency is a scale.
MR. CAMP: That's still not giving your Public Defender or your
Clerk of the Courts any relief.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got to --
MR. CAMP: -- what we've tried to do is have everybody get a
little.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got to do it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The challenge here, I mean, we can
throw the phrase out bite the bullet but the challenge here is, if we
do it at 2.4 million, we raise taxes this year. The budget in front
of us, we do not, and if we do it at 2.4, we raise taxes or we find a
whole bunch of stuff to cut out, which, we're getting near the end of
our thing, and, frankly, we haven't done. We're getting near the end
of the list and we haven't done it at this point. So, unless you have
some magical things in your mind that you could formulate between now
and Monday, I don't know what those other things -- I happen to have
my own little list of things that I would cut, but we just -- we're
going to have to come up with a million something to cut out of other
places, or we need to increase taxes this year, so when we say "bite
the bullet", let's make sure we're very clear on what that means.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we understand how it will bite.
MR. CAMP: I think if you decide to consider this, you can,
again, look at $400,000 potential in the next fiscal year, if it's
furnishings and those kinds of things, if that helps at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That helps $400,000 worth of this year's
taxes. That's a lot.
JUDGE HAYES: There is $400,000 that wouldn't come on line in
your next budget.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's do this. Let's go ahead
and flag this for Monday and let Mr. Fernandez come back with some
suggested cuts and over the weekend we can think of our own cuts to
suggest as well from other areas.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. It's hysterical.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But let's -- you know, there's no -- we're
not going to gain any ground here on this today, it doesn't look like,
so let's just flag it off until Monday and do it in wrap-up.
JUDGE HAYES: I'll be available on Monday, too, if either -- if
Mr. Fernandez wants me to come back on that date, I cleared Monday
morning out so I would be available if you need it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE HAYES: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're going to go back to Public Works A-35 and
A-36.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. Mr. Smykowski, how much longer;
what, what do you think here? The only reason -- the only reason I'm
doing this is I'm thinking of our court reporter.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have -- we have Public Works to go through,
the Airport Authority Operations and the extent to which you want to
go through Capital Projects lists.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think we better -- we better take a
break.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll just take a break for about -- until
about quarter of.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Administrator, the cavalry has arrived.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Lord.
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. John Boldt is here to answer your questions
regarding those stormwater issues.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, your Stormwater Management Director. I
understand you have some questions about the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System, NPDES. Very quickly, for years EPA has
spent billions of dollars on wastewater treatment discharges. They
had that pre-water control, now they're targeting stormwater
discharges into the waters of the nation's estuaries. That's in a
two-phase program. The first phase, which we've -- all the large
communities over 200,000 have already gone through their permitting
process and have their permits and now their implementation. Now,
communities over 100,000, of which we are one, are going to be in this
phase 2 program. It's been re-tooled, streamlined, we've been told.
It's been published in the Federal Register and we expect in next
March or April to get the letter that says we'll have one year to make
our application to discharge stormwater into all the waters of the
nation's estuaries, such as, the Cocohatchee, Little Lely, every --
every outlet we have, including, you know, those in the cities and so
on, will have to have a permit to discharge.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Otherwise we've just got to keep all
the water.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just plug it up.
MR. BOLDT: Based on experience from other counties, including
Lee County, we feel that that whole thing is going to cost about
$500,000 to prepare that application and to get it all filed and
prepared. It'll be a joint effort. The county will be the lead
agency. Co-applicants will be the City of Naples, Marco Island,
Everglades City, FDOT, Big Cypress Basin, and all the community
development districts that have their own water management programs,
such as, what, Lely Resort and Pelican Bay and those type. But the
county will provide the lead for that. And it's quite an elaborate
system, yes, and I've tried to map that all out for you on that, the
table that's in front of you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The EPA handout.
MR. BOLDT: -- that what the different types of the program are
and when dollar estimates are and when it will kick in. That first
part one is a 300 -- we estimate to be $300,000 effort. Because it
doesn't start until next April, we're only going to ask for, in this
fiscal year, $100,000 to get it started, and the rest of it would be,
we would be coming back a year from now to ask you for the balance of
that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're looking at a total project of about
five, three, four --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: $500,000.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: $570,000, plus --
MR. BOLDT: That's the -- that would be the total cost.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the total.
MR. BOLDT: Right, over the whole period of all --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any construction associated with
it; I mean, once we get the permits, are we going to then have some
capital or just, we get permits for what we're currently doing?
MR. BOLDT: No. They'll be looking more at things like
monitoring. Some of the best management practices that you can put
into, into implementation as opposed to hard construction dollars.
But, just to get to the point where they're satisfied with the, that
the discharges are going to meet their standards, it takes all that
effort to prove that, do all the monitoring and all that sort of
thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for, just for personal information,
are we -- are we just -- once we have to comply with the federal
standards, will our practices substantially change or are we just
going to have to spend money to prove that we're in compliance with
the standards?
MR. BOLDT: I think you're -- you're going to have to see some
changes in the way we deal with stormwater. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: It's simple things such as street sweeping, which is
based on my readings of other communities around the country. It was
those sorts of things. Public information programs. They were real
big on familiarizing people. You're not supposed to dump oil down
your storm drains and things of those nature.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just throw it out in the yard?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Throw it out in the yard.
MR. BOLDT: And if they were -- you know. We've seen no
indication that our stormwater discharges contain any, you know, real
bad water quality, you know, that you get from large industrial areas.
But if they were to find one, then the cost that would be associated
with locating the source of that and helping to eliminate those type
of discharges.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BOLDT: We think we're going to be pretty clean down here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. BOLDT: Based on our type of land uses.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions for Mr. Boldt?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There was a question related to that, the ponds,
retention ponds. John, when we expanded --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Grey Oaks issue.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Grey Oaks, ugly ponds.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That ugly retention pond across from
Bear's Paw.
MR. BOLDT: I've asked for an additional two-man crew, basically,
though, to do the majority of the work is going to be in the
maintenance of the urban stormwater ditches in people's backyards
where we no longer have access where we can get equipment along. We're
getting increasing pressure to do that. And, typically, all we can do
now is park a pickup truck on the street and drag a hose in the
backyard and spray the ditch with -- for the aquatics, but we don't
have the manpower yet to do the maintenance on them, the pickup of
litter and things of that nature. That was the primary purpose of
this. The secondary was --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John?
MR. BOLDT: -- the treatment ponds.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Right. That was my question. And
from my workday with stormwater management and putting that pack on my
back and spraying aquatic weeds and weeding and all that stuff. MR. BOLDT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need another crew. But the nexus of
my question was that that retention area on Golden Gate Parkway across
from Bear's Paw, the Grey Oaks property -- MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a temporary water management area
or is that permanent?
MR. BOLDT: Well, that's a permanent one. But I understand it
will eventually be incorporated into the Grey Oaks project and they
will eventually take over the maintenance of that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the physical appearance of that area as
it is now, once that project is developed will not be the same; is
that correct?
MR. BOLDT: Yeah. I imagine they're going to do a much better
job than we're --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because the term bone ugly comes to
mind every day as I drive by that thing. It is not maintained well at
all, it is not grassed. It is -- I mean, it's just -- it's, in my
opinion, an embarrassment. So if this -- I understand the reason for
this appropriation. What I want to make sure is that, one, we do what
needs to be done in that area. But I've seen equipment out there
doing stuff, and it's -- it's never looked better or worse. It just
looks bad all the time. So, I don't want to throw -- I don't want to
throw additional funds at that unless they're going to have a real
impact, unless it's going to clean it up a little bit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you feel about it though?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stop mincing words, huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you feel about it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not really direct, I apologize for
that, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard to figure out.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is this going to do for that area?
MR. BOLDT: Well, what I had proposed to do was basically some
aquatic plant control, try to maintain those aquatics so they don't
look that bad. In that area they've gotten beyond that point now. You
know, we have bushes out there yea high. Even cattails. We can kill
the cattails and they'll turn brown but they're still going to stand
there unless you go in and physically move them, remove them.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the problem with the cattails?
Did someone determine them and the carrot wood to be exotics now or --
what's the problem with the cattails?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They reduce -- they reduce the capacity to
operate as a stormwater retention area by taking up space. So they
can get so big they can reduce your capacity by fifty percent or more,
said the guy who used to work for the late Dr. Spring Aquatic Weeds
(sic), so they actually recruit -- they reduce the functionality of
your stormwater areas.
MR. BOLDT: Very true. So this is going to be --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I rather like cattails myself.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can plant them in your backyard.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think the people out where I live
would like that at all.
MR. BOLDT: They'll spread real fast.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the aquatic weeds are one side of
that, the other side is just simply maintenance of the area around the
ponds and that's the part that seems to me it's just an eye sore.
if we're going to appropriate these funds, I'd like to hear that that
place is going to be cleaned up a little bit, not just from the
aquatic weed side but that it will be aesthetically a little more
pleasing.
MR. BOLDT: Okay. All right, sir. Well, that's one of many
ponds like that. We're going to have more every year, and if we can,
from -- post-construction, do the maintenance on these things so they
don't get to look that bad, then it will be much easier than trying to
go in and retrofit what we have there now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have other questions on Public Works.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wonderful.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other questions in Public Works, though.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Another question in Public Works.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On Page A-38 of our budget, $207,900,
seven employees have previously provided service on Marco Island.
Employees will be used to enhance service in the balance of the
unincorporated area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. The magic seven.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I read that as seven people that
were on Marco, now aren't needed any more so we're going to use them
somewhere else.
MR. KANT: That's not entirely true, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good, because that would be a really bad
reason to keep --
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services Director.
We presently have ninety-nine allocated positions. As of October
1st, if -- the way the budget has been presented to you, we will have
ninety-two allocated positions. We were not planning to continue to
service Marco, but, if I may take just a second and give you a little
bit of history, in 1991, late '91, we had a reduction in force. At
the time prior to the reduction in force, we had 125 people in the
road and bridge section. We managed 1,300 miles, 1,320 miles, to be
exact, of roadway. In 1991 we got rid of thirty-two people. So,
going into 1992 we had ninety-three people. In 1994 budget year we
were given four, a four person maintenance crew and in 1997 we were
given two additional people for drainage maintenance with the new
jetback. And that brought us up to the ninety-nine people we
presently, in this fiscal year, have allocated, and also brought our
road mileage up to 1,560. Now that we are not going to be maintaining
Marco, we're going to lose 100 miles -- 112 miles of road and seven
positions. However, we're still going to have ninety-two people,
which is considerably less than the 125 we had. We're going to have
150, roughly, additional road miles and we're asking for the seven new
positions. Frankly, I would love to ask for more, but, having been
around for a few years, I know the folly in that. So we believe that
this is going to provide for some enhanced levels of service in the
rapidly urbanizing areas.
I think it's important to recognize that the character of a lot
of the roadways has changed over the last six to eight years. A lot
of the two-lane roads have gone to four lanes. We have quite a bit of
additional vegetation control. Every time we go to four lanes we
create a grass median, and we've also had an interesting boom, and I
think that's a reasonable word to use, in the Golden Gate Estates area
in terms of the way that has developed.
I did bring some pictures and exhibits, but I don't want to take
your time with those unless you have some other specific questions.
But, it's our position that the seven positions that we're requesting
for the enhanced maintenance as an expanded service are necessary to
be able to deliver the service that we've been asked to deliver.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It -- one of the things that make me,
frankly, sort of buy that a little more than I had, to be blunt about
it, is that there aren't, as I understand it, seven people who are
going to lose their jobs if you don't get these seven positions. These
are unfilled positions. These are essentially new positions. Am I
right about that?
MR. KANT: There are presently nine unfilled positions, that's
correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not like there are seven jobs
they're really trying to save. That made me feel a little bit -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What this has the effect of doing,
basically, is expanding -- is an expansion of service, period. MR. KANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is no different than if you were
asking for seven new positions. MR. KANT: That's correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a seven percent increase in
personnel. Even though you had 125 at a time, there was some reason
for a reduction, and I'll point out the Public Health Unit as an
example. We made a dramatic reduction in the Public Health Unit. What
did you hear this year? Nothing. Now this year we may have to come
back with some of that, but the point is, there were some
inefficiencies that were, were routed out, you know, and now we're
dealing with specific issues on that. That may have been the case at
a time in Transportation, it may not have, but the bottom line is, I
don't get -- median mowing is about the only Transportation complaint
I get, and I'm not so sure a seven percent increase in the personnel
MR. KANT: Well, we've had -- we've had -- we're asking for the
seven percent increase. Of course, we've had better than a ten
percent increase in the number of miles we have to maintain with that.
But most of our complaints -- we get approximately 22 to 2,400
complaints a year. I beg your pardon, service requests. We do not
refer to them as complaints. Of those service requests, anywhere from
a third to a half have to do with litter control and the issues of
mowing. That's approximately 200 a month, and that's over and above
what we schedule. We try to schedule our work out on a weekly basis,
per crew, per piece of equipment, and whenever we get something that
we feel needs to be paid attention to that takes us out of that cycle,
it means we have to divert personnel to do it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This was the same discussion we had the other
day regarding perhaps using -- utilizing some of this with the litter
and actually making the mowing a little more efficient so we don't
have bits and pieces of stuff strewn out all over the roadways.
MR. KANT: Our intent with this crew is to dedicate at least one
or two of those crews -- typically our crews are run anywhere from two
to four people -- to litter control. Typically what we'll do is, when
we do have a bad case and we have to divert a crew, they'll go out in
front of the mowers. We can't always have --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Way out in front of the mowers.
MR. KANT: It's interesting, on some of the roads that are used
by some of our trucking companies as haul roads, what we get the next
day, but, that's another discussion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would like to suggest, too, this is kind of
a side bar, that at the same time we're doing this, we also contact
our building industry, local building industry, and remind them that
it's time for another reminder to keep the trucks covered as much as
possible. And I have to tell you, some of the big gravel trucks that
are going down the roadways with the little piece of net, they have
obviously met the -- maybe the spirit of the law, but certainly not
the letter of the law, with one little piece of netting over, you
know, down the middle of the truck with everything else flying out on
either side. So, it's just something that we might want to remind --
MR. KANT: When we do get a truck number, Commissioner, they get
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that right; is that all it takes?
MR. KANT: If we -- if we get a truck number and we dispatch a
crew to do a clean-up, we keep track of that time and we send them a
bill, and I don't know of any of them that have refused the bills.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cool.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you. I didn't know that that
was a -- the process.
MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So I'll --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that there's a majority
support for this. I'd like to cut the seven positions back to five. I
agree there's a need for additional positions but I think seven
percent -- I know we have ten percent more road miles, but I would
just like to see, in light of everything we had, discussions we had
with Judge Hayes and ways of trying to find things, I'd -- I'd like to
see this go back to five percent.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You can have ten percent more road miles
even including the loss of road miles on Marco?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. KANT: That's correct, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to reduce the level of
service, Tim. As much as I want to find something to cut, I don't
want -- I mean, this is one of those places like, you know, if we
reduce the level of service in Parks, if we cut out a Parks program,
we're going to hear about it. That's what this community expects. If
we reduce this service, you know, if they've got ten percent more road
to cover, I don't see how they can do that without an equal increase
in manpower, without reducing the service.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying five people is a larger
increase than we've had over any given year in the past couple of
years. So, it's a suggestion, you know. If it's not majority support
for it, I'll get off it. But I'm making the suggestion anyway.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, I certainly think it's, you know,
all right for you to suggest it. I guess I'm going to hang with the
seven, only because of the demand and I know that some of the demand
has certainly come through me through people that happen to live in my
district that are most concerned about trying to get an increased
service.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can count.
Same question on the 289, basically we're expanding Traffic
Operations by one person; is that right?
MR. KANT: No, sir. Again, that was done to try to be consistent
with what we were -- we had done in Marco Island -- in Road and
Bridge. That actually represents a full-time equivalent. That is
about two-tenths of a sign person, three-tenths of a signal person,
some portion of an engineering technician, a little bit of
supervision.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five-hundredths of a broom and dust pan
person, kind of a Jack of all trades.
MR. KANT: Precisely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well --
MR. KANT: There was no dedicated -- there was no dedicated and
is no dedicated traffic operations personnel for Marco Island because
there's, very, very little, compared to the rest of the county,
traffic operations requirements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think that's all I had on Public
Works.
MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. We're on A-47 and A-48, which is the
Airport Authority operations budget. I think one of the keys here at
the bottom of A-47, there's a note that the Airport Authority business
plan called -- assumed a transfer of 289,400. They have done slightly
better than that. The general fund transfer decreases to 282,600. So
this is in accordance with the business plan the board had approved
earlier.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In my opinion, that makes the discussion a
lot more brief.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure does.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very brief.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't even need to have any.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for coming.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: See you later, Mr. Drury.
MR. DRURY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for being here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Appreciate your being here all day. I'm
sure you learned a lot.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: More than you wanted to know.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. What he learned was to never come
back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one thing nice about that form, we
have a business plan. If it's in accordance with a business plan, off
we go.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bingo.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. The remaining item is the capital projects
supported by the general fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is page --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A-166, the infamous salmon-colored page.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In order to get started on that, Mr.
Smykowski, Madam Chair, if you'll allow me -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, I understand you had a
discussion with Judge Hayes that, if we're trying to reach a total of
somewhere around 2.4 million on the courthouse fourth floor
renovation, that you -- you may be able to offer some relief there to
discuss today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Madam Chairman, I believe that, through
some revision of the budget and phasing, combination of phasing, I
think we can get there by proceeding with the amount that's in the
budget and doing a phase in this budget year and picking it up next
year. I'm advised during the break that we handled other capital
projects by phasing in a similar fashion, medical examiner facility,
for example, was done in that way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Evidently, your clerk is a little more lenient on
that than the clerk I'm used to working with, so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, what you're saying is we're going to go
forward with the project but we're not going to alter the proposed
budget as it is right here?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think we can do it within that. We don't have
the specific numbers yet, but Mr. Camp was confident that we were
going to be able to work it out in such a way that we can proceed with
the project and not have it impact the budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if there's a small scale budget
amendment during the year that needs to happen, we can, we can deal
with that. So that's great.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Keep in mind, there will be a budget request next
year to complete the project. Make sure that's understood.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There will be another 1.1 million dollars
being asked here next year to complete the project.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Something over a million dollars.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Essentially we won't have much option, though, so
that's clear.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So that will be an automatic that we'll have to
consider next year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And, you know, really, this is, I think --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in the fiscal best interest of the
taxpayer because, you know, why appropriate all of the money and then
carry it forward the next year.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, what good does that do? Let's, you
know just pay -- pay it as you go forward.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And it will address the immediate short-term need
out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. Makes sense.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- next year as well. So I think that will work
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you for working on that in
such short time. I appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sounds good. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's go home.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask about the Domestic Animal
Control facility?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That's the second half of funding for that
facility, not unlike the courthouse project we were just talking
about.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they told us last year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's going to put us into completion
this year, so that -- it won't. You shook your head no.
MR. TINDALL: For the record, Phil Tindall, Budget Office.
This is another project that includes some phased funding. They
will be requesting additional about 650,000 in the FY 2000 budget.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This is the first year of a
two-year phase?
MR. TINDALL: First year of construction.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Will this provide a functional
portion of a building that they will move into or are they going to be
in their current site from -- until sometime in the year 2000?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where's Jody?
MR. FERNANDEZ: She was here earlier.
MR. OLLIFF: I thought we were still talking about courthouses.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Courthouses for dogs, yes, or doggy jails.
MR. OLLIFF: This workshop -- this workshop's moving much too
fast for me.
Public Services Administrator, Tom Olliff.
I'm sorry, the question was?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question was, the 859,000 being
appropriated for domestic animal control facility, at the end of the
fiscal year, what do we have, do we have a facility that we have
people moving into, that has construction left to occur, in other
words --
MR. OLLIFF: No. At the end of the year you will have a
finished, completed project which you should be reviewing the
operating -- the operating budget, which we expect to have that
department in there right about October 1st.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And where will this be located?
MR. OLLIFF: On donated property on Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so the second phase of construction
planned for the following fiscal year is like an annex or attachment
to it?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
Mr. Smykowski, anything else that we need to know?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The jail components that are reflected in the
budget assume some sort of bond loan proceeds. We'll be working on
that with a -- with our financial advisor to identify the funding
source for that. That is probably the biggest thing that needs to be
identified in the 301 project list.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we pledged any repayment of any of
those bonds in the upcoming year? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because construction will not be complete?
I mean, if bonds are issued during the year, do we have any repayment
obligation in that first year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's none in this year.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: By the time any type of design would be done, no.
And you could structure, structure the repayment schedule accordingly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not spending any jail construction
money this year?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It is not assumed in the budget. Okay. That
would be correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
money this year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
going to force some interest payments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They want their money.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So yeah, they --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're picky that way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Strange.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're picky about that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would understand.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. On A-168 is the Parks capital. Of note
there, there were some projects requested by the City of Naples, in
the middle of the page.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's that mean?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 80016, Veterans Park, Mr. Fernandez,
that you eliminated the 20,000, what particular project was that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was a vehicle, I believe, that was moved to
the impact fee fund that was deemed to be a growth-related vehicle,
therefore impact fees would be an appropriate funding source for that
as opposed to using ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. You through?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On our Naples Landing phase 1 and phase --
or 2 and 3, I mean. We're not getting into the squabble about the
transfer of materials and all of that, are we?
MS. RAMSEY: I can address that. My name is Marla Ramsey,
Director of Parks and Recreation.
The City came to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at our
last meeting requesting basically $50,000 in beach and improvements
similar to what we had done the year prior and then phase 3 for the
Naples Landing, requesting $60,000 from us. Pay rev. is recommending
that we fund, in the beach ends, to the City of Naples the 25,000 you
We might be spending some jail planning
Okay. That was just my question. I
Once you issue a bond, the bond holders are
have listed. But, in the Naples Landing their only suggestion there
is that we do $25,000 as well just to cover the parking improvements
that would be going at that site, not the amenities such as
landscaping, gazebos and sidewalks that would connect the streets
along the Naples City streets.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, could we --
MS. RAMSEY: And the City has agreed to that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They agreed to that?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, they did.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But we're not getting into the squabble,
now, are we?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We've been careful about that. They
asked us, remember, one year to, to fund some money for the
improvements, for the construction of -- I mean the commercial
construction area?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why I'm asking.
MR. OLLIFF: The answer to the question is no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question on Parks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bluebill Park --
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can understand why the county
administrator eliminated $750,000 from that, however, that leaves us
no money for any type of planning work whatsoever on that park; is
that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: At this time, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm not entirely happy with that,
because we've got beach parking issues up there that we've all heard
about and talked about. And, as far as I'm concerned, we ought to
have at least the money in there to address the design of that area,
of that park, and then we ought to be pursuing the FRDAP grants, other
grants for whatever construction dollars are available so that we can
maybe phase the project with grant funds.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I very much would not want to see that
project stop.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this, in effect, stops that project.
So, Mr. Olliff, if we were to say we needed money to look at --
to do the design of that project for beach parking, what would be a
fair figure for -- to complete a design element in this coming fiscal
year?
MR. OLLIFF: Round numbers, to be safe, I'd say 150,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not in the habit of adding things in
at budget time, but that's something that I think's important to me
and important to beach parking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is this the -- excuse me. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. It's just important across the board.
And we've made representations to the City of Naples City Council
that, you know, we're moving forward, we're not ignoring beach parking
issues, we're working hard to come up with some alternatives on county
property, and we do not need to -- we need very much not to stop.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to ask for the board's support in
adding that $150,000 into that line item with the clear direction to
be used for design purposes only in a collaborative effort with the
community there, and that we begin pursuing FRDAP, Florida Recreation
Department, whatever, FRDAP grants, because we can use the value of
the land to leverage those grants for construction, to at least do
some early phases.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we -- I'm sorry. I may have missed
part of that conversation. Do we require the whole $150,000 right
now?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is a conservative estimate on Mr.
Olliff's part to at least complete the design in the next fiscal year.
I'm not saying we have to use all of it, but I'm looking for a number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we had 750 and now we're talking
about 150.
MR. OLLIFF: The construction estimates that I've seen range
anywhere from a million to a million and a half for the total project
and we generally estimate about ten percent for all your -- your
design costs. That was $150,000 for the design, but we've also looked
at this project in terms of, it's a neighborhood park and it's also a
beach parking lot. The beach parking lot portion of that is, is an
eligible project for regional park impact fees. The neighborhood park
falls into your policy for neighborhood parks, which would be an MSTU
project funded by the benefiting neighborhoods that surround the
property.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps by Monday you could divvy up
how much -- if we had 150 thrown in there, how much of that would come
from the various --
MR. OLLIFF: I can. Because you don't have an MSTU right now, I
would say that we'd go ahead and put the MSTU portion in 306, which
would probably be the smaller portion of the project. But, we'll do
that by Monday.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is the location of this on the southwest
corner from the cemetery; is this the area you're speaking of?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, it's the entire western side,
north and south of the road. The original plans have a parking area,
or the plans as we've last seen it, have the parking area on the north
side of the road and a linear park on the south -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with fishing piers and docks and all
that kind of stuff. So it's kind of on both sides of the road there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right.
MR. OLLIFF: And Marla also reminded me that we've already
applied for some ISTEA grant funds for that project as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So I -- all I want is -- I'm just
looking for a dollar amount that let's continue with the planning
effort in this coming fiscal year, and if that's a hundred thousand
dollars, fine by me. I just -- that's an important project to me for
beach parking.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You just want to know that it's going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give us real numbers, please, by Monday.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just give us the numbers.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And to the extent -- the extent to which we can
use impact fees, we may be able just to absorb the balance, the
neighborhood park components here out of the existing reserves that
our budget, not impacting --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So can I ask the board to put 150,000 in
there but ask that during wrap-up we determine where the funding
sources are for that total 150,0007
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe that's fair.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only question -- I can't find it --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's on a spending spree today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- was the hundred thousand dollars' worth
of playground equipment is going where?
MS. RAMSEY: Again, that -- those are four different locations.
We have the Golden Gate Community Park where we took down the existing
wooden structure and we're going to put in some new facilities there,
Cocohatchee River Park and Poinciana Village and Coconut Circle.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you were going to get me some pictures
of what's going to go there, if you think of that.
MS. RAMSEY: I'll send you some pictures. It's very similar
equipment to things that we have at Sugden and all of the new, new
playgrounds that we've put up recently, Tigertail, et cetera. They
all -- all the plastic and metal playgrounds.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was the replacement of the balance of the
wooden equipment.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The last residual wooden equipment in the system.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've talked about an aquatic facility in
North Naples at some point. How many -- what year are we looking at
that?
You got yours, you just be quiet, okay?
MS. RAMSEY: Actually, I'm looking at that in that regional park
facility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. That's what I thought. I
just -- I didn't see it. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question on here. The
beach ends of the money we're putting toward that, I think
Commissioner Hac'Kie's point reminds me of the issue we discussed at
the time is we want to make sure that's done in concert with an
interlocal agreement. I don't want to put a bunch of money into the
beach ends and have them turn around a year from now threatening that
the county people can't use them. And I think that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Councilman Sullivan's no longer there, so
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If memory serves me correctly, I think
they said they had at least a fifteen-year life on them, and, whatever
that life is it seems like we ought to have some interlocal agreement
guaranteeing county --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- has the opportunity to use those.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. A-169 is the library capital.
MR. OLLIFF: Before we leave the Parks capital item, there were
two late requests that were submitted -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- by both the City of Everglades and --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the City of Naples.
MR. OLLIFF: Councilman --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doctor --
MR. OLLIFF: Nocera.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dr. Johnny.
MR. OLLIFF: This past Tuesday. And the Edge Skate Park request
was for $55,000 of county money.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to get a prescription from --
MR. OLLIFF: And we also received a letter from the City of
Everglades requesting $40,000, I believe, for some improvements to a
parking lot and some interior improvements for the community center,
slash, skating rink down there in the City. Both of those were
received after your budget process began and they've not had an
opportunity to be reviewed by your Parks Advisory Board. And I sent
you-all a memo yesterday just requesting that, to protect the
integrity of your system a little bit and allow your staff to have an
opportunity to review those, make sure that, one, that we know where
they're coming from, are those requests coming from the actual city or
is that an individual request that's coming to you, and making sure
that we have an opportunity to be able to look at the numbers that
were put together for the total request so that we can see if they're
justified.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Enough said, Tom. That's consistent with
the direction we gave when Councilman Nocera was here, was that we
felt that it needed to go through the system, so I don't think it's
appropriate to put it in the budget today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there's time for that to happen before
final budget.
MR. OLLIFF: There is. And that was my recommendation, is,
there's still time at the final public hearing to be able to consider
that, should you want to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Library.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Library. Essentially there you're looking at
replacement type library materials, books, periodicals.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think I asked this the other
day, but just to confirm, we are keeping our standard increase as far
as materials, we go up one half.
MR. OLLIFF: 0.05 books per capita per year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-170 is the stormwater management capital. The
largest projects, again, the Belle Meade master plan of $400,000.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you about that, since the state
is buying the Belle Meade, why are we doing a master plan for it for
the tune of $700,000?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Boldt is migrating his way up here.
MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, Stormwater Director.
That's specifically aimed at that very large agricultural area
along the north side of 41, opposite Fiddler's Creek as the area we're
targeting. Not, not the underdeveloped areas to the north of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not what we think of as Belle Meade.
MR. BOLDT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- and pardon me for not
understanding, but what do you mean "specifically aimed at"?
MR. BOLDT: Well, the whole Belle Meade area extends even as far
north as north of 1-75. There is a whole basin there. But we're
looking specifically at the agricultural area and how that's been
developed and all the ditches and reservoirs and pumping stations in
there and how that can be interrevuted (sic) into a master plan that
would, you know, deal with that water that's moving through the area,
under 41 and through Fiddler's Creek. So, if they do buy out the
whole north area, that's, that's the preservation area. That isn't
the area where we're proposing a master plan. It was the area south
of there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, but do we need to spend this, this
size of a sum to study that? I thought we knew pretty well which way
the water was going and what we were going to do with it already.
MR. BOLDT: Well, only in this -- here again, that large
agricultural area, it's a maze of farm ditches, pumps, reservoirs.
Everybody's pumping water in all directions. The natural flow waves
through that area, they've all disappeared and we would like to put a
master plan together through that area north to be able to flow
through it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask this, then. Once we have
our master plan in place, what do we do with it? Do we take it to the
agricultural interests and say, "This is what we've planned and we
want you to pump this direction, we want you to follow this plan," or
what are we going to do with the plan?
MR. BOLDT: Well, there are various funding options, one of which
would be to create a, you know, a taxing district out in that area to
implement over a long period of time, or there's even some areas to
the western portion of that. There's a very large DRI there that
you'll be addressing later in the year perhaps, and we want to make
sure that all fits within a master plan for the whole area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the concerns I have in that
area, if you look at a map of that area, a wide, broad, map, and look
at where -- what's been purchased, what's planned to be purchased, and
then there's a -- everything funnels through and almost looks as
though -- I'm sure it wasn't -- but almost looks as though it was
designed around these agricultural areas. And so I'm wondering, if so
much of the planning was done and these areas were specifically
excluded from the state's efforts and the water management district
and everyone else's effort to go through there, why now, on the local
level, we're paying particular attention to it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How did we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm being a little wise there in that,
when that whole system went through the state level, folks
representing the owners of that agricultural property went and
effectively lobbied to have a break and everything else that was being
purchased through. So, I'm wondering, if the flow way goes everywhere
except in this magical agricultural space, according to what happened
at the state level, in planning and purchases, why we're going back to
study it on our own now?
MR. BOLDT: Well, the area they're proposing to buy out are some
of the, you know -- the viable wetland areas are still remaining.
They're all discharging water to the south, the sheet flows through
there. When it gets to the agricultural area, that's the area I'm
concerned about. What are we going to do with it now and the future?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point being that that agricultural
land would have everything go through it too. I mean, there's some
active ag. out there that's being purchased to allow that flow way to
go through, but that active ag. that was purchased isn't owned by the
same folks who owned the land we're talking about and didn't have --
the active ag. that is being purchased didn't have the same lobbyists
working for them. And my -- I would like to take a closer look at
this before I commit $400,000 to it because I have a real problem the
way that whole situation has unfolded out there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, only -- I'm only curious to the point
of knowing what is it we're trying to accomplish with this study and
how are we going to make it happen once we figure out what we want to
do.
MR. BOLDT: Well, because these basin studies take, you know,
three to five years to go all the way through the process and come up
with all the alternatives, we're just looking at the increasing
development out in that area as it goes through underneath 41 and
Fiddler's Creek. We've asked for years for that US 41 outfall swale,
which would be where the water would all be passed around either side
of Fiddler's Creek.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, if we're doing it in response
to potential future development, is there any opportunity for that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pass it on.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- future development to participate in the
funding?
MR. BOLDT: Absolutely. If we had a master plan to implement, we
could do it in that fashion also.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me, when we've done
other water management areas, it hasn't necessarily always been after
the fact that they were a participant. And it seems to me, what I
just heard you say is, this is in response to Fiddler's Creek. Well,
perhaps Fiddler's Creek should be, and others out there -- but perhaps
Fiddler's Creek should be paying for some of the bill for this master
plan instead of after the fact. I just -- having the general taxpayer
pay $400,000 because some individuals have decided to develop out
there doesn't seem right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did you come to prioritize this, John;
how did you come to put this on as, this is worth $400,0007
MR. BOLDT: Actually, that's --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 700.
MR. BOLDT: Actually it's $700,000.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we thought it was worth four.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I cut it some.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It sounds like I didn't cut it enough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I don't know.
MR. BOLDT: We're going to phase it over two years. This will be
the initial funding to get this study up and going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's so critical because --
MR. BOLDT: For one reason it's a commitment that we made, you've
already made to DCA as part of our overall growth management plan to
do basin studies in various areas, and this is the next one we had
targeted as, you know, that. The rest of them we've got going. We've
got the Cocohatchee, the basin's doing, we're doing the Gordon River,
and that was the next one put into our growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we flag this and see if we can't
find out for Monday if there's an opportunity to pay these current
planning costs through the private sector, have the private sector who
is going to be affected participate, and -- anything else? I mean,
that's really what we really need to ask.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Just the general public should
not be footing the bill for this.
MR. BOLDT: Speaking to the issue of Fiddler's Creek south of 41,
they're going to be incorporating and we've already stipulated that
they're going to have to accept that water and pass it through.
They're going to be building into their construction the cost. If
they weren't there we'd have those costs in addition. So they're
already making their contribution.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. But I think I'm more looking towards
the people that are north of 41.
MR. BOLDT: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And those properties that are in --
directly involved in this study.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask just a real fundamental question
I probably ought to know the answer to already, but if there's, for
example -- I have no idea what you're talking about -- but there is a
DRI coming in, do they have to give you a stormwater master plan or
give somebody a stormwater master plan?
MR. BOLDT: For their portion of the property they have to look
at the off site impacts and how they're going to deal with the
regional waters and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, so to what extent -- how much of this
$700,000 worth of basin will be covered by the stormwater management
plan being drawn up by this DRI that's coming down the road?
MR. BOLDT: This large 1,940 acre project is only a little narrow
strip along the western side of this area that you're dealing with.
The vast majority of it is in another --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems like we ought to at least be able
to partner with whoever that is, you know, and share the cost that
way, if they've got to do part of it. I don't know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So Water Management District hasn't
done anything out in this area?
MR. BOLDT: No, sir. In accordance with the cooperative
agreement we signed with them in 1991, that's the county's
responsibility, to do these planning type basin studies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So it's just planning. This is --
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of the land that's impacted
that we're talking about is owned by the county?
MR. BOLDT: Owned by the county, a very, very small percentage of
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, really, that's where my problem
lies, is that if a very, very small percentage is owned by the public,
probably a very, very small percentage should be paid for by the
public.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's take a look at it on Monday then,
it's -- if you can -- you think you can -- that would give you enough
time to generate a little answer on that. MR. BOLDT: I'll try to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question, just because I don't want to
send you away without knowing what it is we want by Monday, my
question is, what -- what will we be able to do differently as we get
development applications in that area if we had a stormwater plan?
MR. BOLDT: Well, we could identify reservoirs, storage areas for
stormwater retention, the flow ways that are needed to go through that
area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if we don't have it, we can't require
people to put that in as a part -- as a part of their DRI or as a part
of their PUD, and then we end up later coming in and having to solve
the stormwater problem is what I think I'm hearing.
MR. BOLDT: If you do it piecemeal, you're going to end up with
what we have out there right now, which is everybody pumping water at
each other because there's no master plan for the area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, the questions for Monday, but I'm kind
of getting why you need to go somewhere, why we need to study it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have it flagged for Monday.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you tell me quickly, where's this Lake
Calais structure?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Bayshore area.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay. I know it. Never mind.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Behind the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kelly Drive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know. I remember. I know where you're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bayshore. Lake Bayshore, we should have
changed it to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's over on Kelly Road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Behind the new botanical garden. Hundred
acres.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you say we continue the
airport stuff until Monday and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's got a mean streak. I though we
already approved it all.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was operations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. I just thought --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page A-171 are the proposed Airport Authority
capital projects that were funded. They're broken down by airport
site, the first grouping, Immokalee Regional Airport, second,
Everglades Airport, third, Marco Island.
MR. DRURY: John Drury, Executive Director for the Collier County
Airport Authority.
What we have here is about a twenty-three percent decrease from
last year's capital program. Everything in this capital program is
identified in the airport business plan that we presented several
months ago here. Just about all of these are safety-related projects.
All of them come with grants, they're either eighty percent aviation
grants or fifty percent aviation grants. And the budget that's before
you is the amount needed to leverage the grants to accomplish these
projects that are with -- consistent with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Shouldn't you be out managing the airport
or something, John?
MR. DRURY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doing one of those things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks good to me.
MR. DRURY: I have -- I have one other related item --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay.
MR. DRURY: -- that probably needs to be brought up, because it's
a budget-related item and that is the manufacturing incubator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that's not here?
MR. DRURY: No. That's a current year project. The bids came in
for that about $313,000 over budget. We had $607,000 available budget
to construct that facility. A quarter of a million dollars of that is
being funded by the United States Department of Agriculture by a grant
we got, 190,000 of it is being funded by an Economic Development
Administration grant, another federal grant for that, and the
remainder was funded by the county. We went to the -- we went out for
bids and received, I think, about eight responses. The lowest
responsive bid was $313,000 over budget. And what I'd like to do is
ask the county manager and the county commission for direction on what
to do with this project, and there appeared to be three options that
-- we've looked at many different options, but there seemed to be
three that are available. One option is to go into capital reserves.
I believe there's about $500,000 available in capital reserves this
year to fund that overage. The other is to, as Mike would put it,
cannibalize next year's budget. In other words, try to put it into
next year's budget and move some things around. And I think the third
option is to not do the project, and that would mean returning these
grants back to these agencies.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not an option, surely.
MR. DRURY: And all I'm, I guess, asking for is direction from
the county manager and the county commission of what the best approach
would be to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Isn't that what capital reserves are for?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You may consider that as, as a reserve issue. I
think there's another option that you probably ought to at least talk
about, and that is the opportunity to redo the scope and re-bid it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I don't want to slow this down. We've
finally got users, we finally have activity. You don't know how long
and painful this road has been.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. But we talked about this privately
before, John. What was the -- what is your, your lease reservation
rate right now? Has it changed since we talked?
MR. DRURY: No. We've leased the building out to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A hundred percent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A Hundred percent.
MR. DRURY: To Global Technology, yeah. And they're ready to
move in there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can't stop now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that being the case, I think we need
to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Out of reserves.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just, we had talked about the
clean room and the activities that would go on in there. I had asked
you specifically where the customer for that will come from and then I
said, you know, what companies in Lee County or Collier County or
Charlotte County are going to go and use that facility?
MR. DRURY: With Collier County we looked at Shaw Titan and
another metal company will be -- probably will be using it. Basically,
any manufacturing company that has a quality control program must have
their measuring equipment and products calibrated. And the biggest
users of those are the aircraft industry and the automotive industry.
We did not have the time to identify how many of those companies are
in Lee and Charlotte County that are currently in that industry, but
we know there's quite a few. We also know, for instance, Thompson
Aeromotive, which is one company that'll be moving out there that does
afterburners for jet aircraft, the only reason they're moving out
there is because of the, the testing lab. And if that was not part of
the project, they would not go out there. So, there are a number of
companies in Collier County that will benefit by using that, and there
will be other companies and other counties coming to this facility to
get their products and their measuring equipment tested.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And currently they have to go to Tampa,
Hiami, somewhere.
MR. DRURY: Tampa and Hiami are the two places they go to now.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: John, a quick question on the re-bidding issue.
Yesterday when we spoke you indicated there may, on a bid
technicality, the lowest bidder may actually be thrown out of the
process, and then we'd have to award to the next highest bidder, which
would be another 60, 70,000 dollars.
MR. DRURY: Well, the $313,287 is the most qualified bidder,
which is the next bidder. It appears that the low bidder is being
disqualified by Purchasing due to the fact that he did not list all of
his subcontractors, and that is a requirement in the bidding process.
There is an --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: But when we spoke yesterday you indicated a
two-month delay in re-bidding could probably be accommodated.
MR. DRURY: A two-month delay could -- the problem I have with it
is, I have to re-negotiate with the tenant as far as when they go into
the building. And that's not something that we necessarily couldn't
do. There's -- there are some other options that are -- I know Steve
Camell is exploring, and one is, when the bids are over budget, you
can negotiate with the lowest responsive bidder. And he's going to
open up that door, once that lowest bidder gets all of his
documentation in that shows that he was responsive.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me suggest this. I mean, that's
certainly an option, but whatever we do I don't think is a part of the
'99 budget, so I don't know that we need to sit here and discuss it
any further today. What I think we should do is have Mr. Drury and
staff decide the best course of action, and if negotiations might
help, that would be something, but, in any case, bring it back to us
at the next available county commission meeting so that we could talk
about it then, which is, what, July 28th, I think.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. DRURY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because whatever we do is going to be in
'98 budget, correct, we're not putting this in the '99 budget? MR. DRURY: That's the direction we needed.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. But it would be -- one of the options
will be taking money out of 301 reserves or general fund reserves,
which would essentially carry over, have to be either made up or just
absorbed by reducing reserves. So as long as you're --
MR. FERNANDEZ: It does have a budget impact potentially.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: But we'll address that and adjust the budget
accordingly.
MR. DRURY: Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That concludes our session for today. And
Monday, then, we have wrap-up scheduled.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're just getting started. You guys are
not bailing out on us, are you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. No, we're not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's nothing further, then we
will recess until Monday morning at 9:00, at which time we will then
have the wrap-up session of this year's -- this next year's budget.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 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
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES BY:
DAWN BREEHNE AND ELIZABETH M. BROOKS