BCC Minutes 03/15/1995 B (Budget) BUDGET MEETING OF MARCH 15, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 8:45 a.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
ALSO PRESENT:
present:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Manager
Michael Smykowski, Senior Budget Analyst
Jean Gansel, Budget Analyst
Thomas W. Olliff, Public Services Administrator
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to call this
budget hearing -- meeting of March the 15th, 1995, session. Before we
start, I would like to let those visitors in the audience know that
one of the rules that we operate under here will be that we don't
allow shouting of obscenities from the floor.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only from the diocese.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Shouting of non-obscenities is,
of course, fair game.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is Mr. Olliff swearing up a
storm again?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, I see you're on the
hot seat today. Are you ready? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's interesting that we
don't pray before budget meetings.
MR. DORRILL: Tradition. Tradition.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tradition to pray.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olliff, what we've been doing -- the
board has already spent an entire day doing this, so if you'll set
them up. Then they would like to have a description, and then we've
been focusing on providing a little history in terms of the outcome
measures that you have projected, but they will be quick to tell you
when they are ready to move on.
MR. OLLIFF: The first budget in your package is the
Collier County Health Department. In fact, the first four that you
will see are contracts as opposed to being actual county departments.
The first is the county health department which you are
all familiar with. It's actually a contract the county has with the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. They're located in
our building, Building H, on campus here. The request that you will
see is broken down into three different levels, a level for
communicable disease control which is level one. Level two is a
primary care level. And level three is environmental health and
engineering. That level is primarily those inspection services for
restaurants and local childcare-type facilities.
The total dollar request that you will see or actually
the total programs that you will see don't change from the ones that
were submitted last year in terms of expanded or additional types of
services being requested. So the levels and the total requests from
the county remains the same as it did last year.
If you want to walk through each of these levels, we
can, and I'll let Dr. Polkowski and/or Roger talk to you about some of
those specific outcome measures in each of those categories.
MR. DORRILL: Mike, can you just distinguish between --
this is -- As I understand it, this is their total budget and the --
this cover sheet on page two, you need to tell the commission how much
of that is their money. And I don't know whether you've broken out
the in-kind services or not. I-- because, otherwise, this is a state
department and we subsidize this function but --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the --
MR. DORRILL: -- $6 million.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the program package, for
instance, for the base level service on page four under the statement
of revenue impact, there's a breakout of the various funding sources
for that program.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. I got you. Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe that continues on through each
-- for each of the programs.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to know too if you can
identify which ones are mandatory from -- just from the get-go, tell
us which ones are state-mandated and we don't have to spend a whole
lot of time on those. I mean, they're mandated programs and our
contribution is also mandated.
MR. OLLIFF: Roger can correct me if I'm wrong. It was
my understanding from a county perspective there are no mandates here.
That's why we don't show a base level here. The county
participation is voluntary. We always have, though, participated
pretty much to this extent with the health department, and it's been a
decision on the part of the board that they want to supplement the
health portion of the state contribution to Collier County.
MR. DORRILL: You are obligated as is so often the case
to provide, own, and operate the facility. And so to the extent that
you have mandate, you're mandated in each county to own and operate
the building facility.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, one component of your base
level definition is health and safety issues, and obviously that comes
into play with the health unit.
MS. POLKOWSKI: Exactly. By state statute, it's stated
that the state along with the county in a partnership will provide for
the health and safety of its population. Jane Polkowski, the director
of the Collier County Public Health Unit.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it just me or is it hard to
hear this morning?
MR. DORRILL: It is and I've already called the sound
technician to come up. So y'all will need to speak directly into the
mikes, and they're on their way here to adjust the system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: You want to go ahead then and start with
the first level one.
MS. POLKOWSKI: Okay. These three levels are defined
like this by state statute. Level one, communicable disease; level
two, primary care; and level three, environmental health are defined
this way as requirements for public health units. So this is -- this
is literally as required legally.
Level one contains obviously by its title those services
which cover the communicable disease control activities and vital
statistics, the monitoring epidemic control, and that would also
include actually non-communicable as well when there are chronic
diseases where there may be cjusters. So actually communicable
disease control covers more.
Primary care covers the personal health care services.
It's primarily in the maternal child health area. We also have a
dental clinic if they're financially eligible. It's a women, infants,
and children program which is federally funded. There's a very small
school health program, and we have a limited amount of adult health
care which is primarily chronic disease.
And level three which is your environmental health
engineering program, these are, as you can see, of course, covering
principal -- it's covering the environmental health and engineering
areas and migrant camps and the water and day care centers facilities.
Each of those programs -- and you should have a sheet.
I believe they got this?
MR. OLLIFF: (Nodded head.)
MS. POLKOWSKI: You have a sheet that looks like this so
that it shows the statute of the rules that apply to each of these
program areas.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dr. Polkowski.
MS. GANSEL: Page 12.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you tell us -- is it possible
to break it down this way under level one -- levels one, two, and
three? I see you have the percent of total dollars of the budget 38,
49 and 13 percent of the total. Is there -- Is it possible to tell us
what percentage of those totals is county contribution?
MR. OLLIFF: If you flip two pages back from that,
you'll see at the bottom where it says "Statement of Revenue Impact."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I just wondered if anybody
had done the percentage math. I wish somebody could tell me, of the
38 percent at level one, how much is county money; of the 49 percent
at level two, how much is county money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is our accountant?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're doing it. They're doing
it. They're too dang smart.
MR. OLLIFF: We're at 7 percent on level one.
MR. DORRILL: Go a little slower, Mr. Olliff. You don't
want to outpace the budget director running the calculator. He gets a
little inferiority complex.
MR. EVANS: There is one thing in your calculation that
I'd like to bring your attention to. It's not simply a one line item
of county contribution. The county's contribution includes whatever
fees and third-party payments that are accountable for the county
side. So it's not just a county general revenue contribution that is
credited to the county's contribution. It's also including the fees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And can you translate that for
me? What are county fees and third-party as opposed to county
contributions? I see county contribution, other county revenue, and
then county fees and third party.
MR. EVANS: The county contribution is land-owned
general revenue contributions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Land-owned general revenue. That
part I get.
MR. EVANS: The county fees and third-party relate to
specific service fees that are collected for individual procedures
that the public health unit provides to the community.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So if some person comes in to get
some kind of a test, they pay a fee for it, and that's in this line?
MS. POLKOWSKI: It's in there. Right. Plus what is
allowed by county ordinance for environmental fees as well. So that's
included as well, as contrasted to state statute which allows for fees
collected under the state statute. That would be under the state
fees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got you. And then what's under
county revenue?
MR. EVANS: The other county revenue would be interest
credited to the county side based on monies that are available. In
addition, there would be some revenues that come in from grants that
the board allows to occur on behalf of the public health unit for the
benefit of the public health unit programs but which comprise money
that does not come directly from the county's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: General revenue.
MR. EVANS: -- general revenue. In fact, the board
supports the health unit's application for some of these grant
programs and -- For instance, the board just recently approved our
application for a community services block grant for our maternity
program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But as far as what percent--
what's going to be a line item in the county's budget, Mr. Dotrill,
the only thing I need to -- for that particular issue I'm looking at
county contribution. That's the only thing that's coming out of
general revenues?
MR. EVANS: Right.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. And you've probably done
the math by now. As to level one it's 7 percent?
MR. OLLIFF: Level one, 7 percent. And, Hike, catch me
if I've done something wrong. Level two I've got 22.8 percent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 22.8?
MR. OLLIFF: .8 percent and --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Are you including all the county,
anything county or just --
MR. OLLIFF: I'm assuming her question is, how much --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is.
MR. OLLIFF: -- is our general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
MR. OLLIFF: And the level three contribution is 10.6
percent.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 26?
MR. OLLIFF: 10.6.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 10.6. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you mean of the 13 percent --
of the total dollars there which are 13 percent of your total budget,
10.6 percent of the total comes from the county general revenue?
That's the math you've done? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
MR. EVANS: For that level program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For that level of that program.
Okay. So if we're weighing what we think the county -- What the
county spends the most money on is primary care. Second was spent on
environmental health and engineering. And third we spent on
communicable disease control. So if there's a policy statement there,
that's sort of the ranking of importance from the county's
perspective?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, you're looking at it in percentage
terms. If you want to look at it in terms of how much money we
actually spend, level two ends up being the largest cost item to the
county. Level one ends up being the second largest cost item because
it's in dollar value. And then level three is the last because over
all level three is a much smaller total dollar value. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Level two is almost 700,000. Level one
is 160,000. And level three is about 90,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just to give you an idea too, over all
the county contribution last year to the health unit was approximately
$900,000 and roughly another 200,000 for facility-type expenses, just
general overhead, electricity, et cetera, for a total contribution of
$1.1 million to the health unit from the general fund, and that's
again inclusive of the building-related expenses.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Inclusive of?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: As a part of their contract, we also show
what the value of the actual building square footage that we provide,
and I believe that number is somewhere around $600,000 with fair
market rent value. We don't show that as a dollar contribution
because it's actually not coming out of the budget but square footage
provided.
MR. EVANS: Commissioners, there's something as you
consider these percentage distributions I would like to share with
you. The programs for the most part are not discrete programs.
They're not just single compartmentalized programs. They do have a
great deal of interrelationship with each other. The client coming in
for service will be served in the focal elements of several programs
at a time. The relationship of our environmental health activities to
epidemiology and communicable disease control are tightly linked. So
one has to be cognizant that these are, again, not discrete, singular
functional programs. They do link up very, very tightly in a
continuum.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's just from our -- Our job
basically is to set the policy. As a policy, we as a county spend
most of our public health dollars on primary care and then on
communicable disease and then on environmental health.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which seems -- Do you agree with
that as the right thing, Dr. Polkowski? Is that the way you would
have us regularly spend our dollars?
MS. POLKOWSKI: I think -- You know, I think what's
important to recognize is the size of the program and the total dollar
amounts of primary care. The primary care program is larger, and
we've prioritized there to the area of greatest need in the community
which is the maternal child health program. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MS. POLKOWSKI: I might also add that the community
efforts in maternal child health has resulted in excellent results,
outcomes in terms of low-birth-weight babies, and that leads to cost
savings to all of us in the community.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask another question
that I think we're kind of getting a little too deep into the
operations today and not looking at the budget so much which is what
we're supposed to be doing. So let me ask -- The total budget appears
to be that your request is the same as last year; is that correct? MS. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How about the county portion of
that budget? Is that the same? MS. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I think that's what we
really need to know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's what you need to
know, Mr. Norris, and that's -- and that's -- I understand that
because you went through this analysis last year but I have to -- I
think it is my job to be a policy maker and to see if that's -- if I
agree with how we're spending our money. This is an area I care a lot
about. I want to be sure we're spending it the way I think we ought
to spend it so --
MR. OLLIFF: I'll tell you, you'll have an opportunity
when the annual contract comes to you. It shows where the county
dollars are spent, and that's really a commission decision, and if you
think that some of the monies ought to be spent someplace else or some
other program that Dr. Polkowski has, that's the time for you to have
that discussion with her I think.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize for missing
Monday, but just my understanding and what we've done in the past
years is we're simply ranking priorities and where they're at. And
we'll get into exactly what you're saying. That is part of our job,
but we'll get into that in the next phase of the budget process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's how
you laid it out Monday, but that's what we've done in the past.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was tempted today to leave a
proxy that said if it's mandated, you know, I vote M. And if it's not,
I vote D, and we can skip the rest of the week because if that's all
we're doing and today's not the day to make your case for, you know,
why this discretionary item should be included, then let's skip this
week. It's M's and D's.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're not trying to tell you
that we don't want you to know about what's going on here, and
certainly that is not the case. But really Commissioner Constantine
is pretty much correct, is that we're trying to rank the priorities of
the programs. And if you need some information on the program before
you can do that, that's fine, and we have no objection to that. But
at the same time, if we spend 30 minutes on each program, we're not
going to be through today and we need to -- we do need to keep in mind
that we need to move it along. So if you can balance that, please do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll try.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Okay. Do we have
anything else on the three levels of public health? We are ready to
rank them then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As far as level one, communicable
disease control, I see that as essential for communitywide health and
safety. Is there any --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I agree.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a consensus?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Nodded head.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Primary care --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Primary care is -- The bulk of
that money goes to the WIC program; is that correct?
MS. POLKOWSKI: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No?
MS. POLKOWSKI: WIC, in fact, s totally funded by the
federal government.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MS. POLKOWSKI: It's mostly gomng to maternal child
health area and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Currently I think that's
essential too. As Dr. Polkowski has pointed out, in the long run
we're, I think, saving a lot there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In avoided costs, future avoided
costs. The environmental health and engineering?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy. It would seem that that
would be essential too, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think health is one of the
important things that we do around here so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As opposed to all those not
important things?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Essential is fine with me. Thank
you very much. All right. The next program is David Lawrence.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, just for
your information, I had the same intent. When I started looking
through all this, I realized that the information is not here for me
to do that. What program is this; how much does it cost; do we want
to shave that; do we want to eliminate that. That information isn't
even in here. So I had automatically assumed that it will come later
so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bad news is that this does
seem to be such a waste of time to spend a whole week here going
that's an M, that's an E, that's a D. I mean, we know that -- Okay.
I will go through the steps.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's why we get paid these
big bucks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of us have absolutely
nothing else to do today so --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Schimmel.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Good morning. Can you hear me? I'm David
Schimmel. I'm the executive director of the David Lawrence Center.
We've -- You've been participating in the funding of community mental
health, alcohol, and drug abuse services for probably the last 26
years. We're an M. We're a mandated service. I would like to
believe that -- I would like to believe that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. Don't hold back. Tell us
how you really feel.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Yeah. Okay. But in the interest of
time, let me just give you a little history and a little overview so
that we can put in this perspective and provide a little education.
We would like to believe that you participate in the
funding of our services because you recognize the mission and the
important service that we provide in the community, but we know that
Chapter 394 state law mandates that counties participate. Every year
we get a contract from HRS, and that contract specifies a figure that
requires local match which is basically the county's responsibility.
That local match figure this year was $919,000. We requested this
year 76 percent of that match figure, and that is what we are
requesting for the next year. It is the same amount of money, 76
percent of that local match figure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The statute says we have to spend
919,000 but you only want 700,000?
MR. SCHIMMEL: That's correct. Throughout Southwest
Florida, to give you example so that you can compare, Charlotte County
Commission provides 100 percent of the local match for their community
mental health center. In Lee County there are two providers that come
to the county commission. They provide 96 percent of the match to one
provider and 100 percent of the match to the other provider. In
Sarasota -- The chemical dependency provider in Sarasota I think gets
96.5 percent of the match.
Statutorily we can ask you for 100 percent. We're
choosing to ask you for 76 percent of that. In the past, two other
items have been considered as potential sources of other local match.
One have been donations, and one have been client fees. But as we
have pressed this issue with the state and tried to get clarification
because the statute is somewhat vague, we have -- we have determined
and we have learned that the state's interpretation recently is that
if a donor earmarks his client fees, then it may not be available for
match, and most of our donations have, in fact, been earmarked. They
have gone to support facilities or specific programs. And client fees
are really excess revenue as a result of client fees, and the David
Lawrence Center has very limited excess revenue. And that excess
revenue, as you'll see on our audit statement, goes to our pension
plan. We have a pension plan that is totally dependent on excess
revenue.
So for next year we anticipate no client fees and no
donations essentially or a limited amount of donations that could help
contribute to that local match figure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because of the -- Because of the
state's interpretation of the statute, that if they're tagged, if
they're designated --
MR. SCHIMMEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they don't count --
MR. SCHIMMEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for the -- I mean, obviously
you're going to get money but they aren't going to -- they don't meet
the statutory requirement.
MR. SCHIMMEL: The state would have never developed this
-- the statute also clearly states that it's the provider's
responsibility to identify the match. It's not the county's
responsibility to do that. And the statute would -- I don't think
would have ever been developed if states would have thought that
counties would have used donations to opt out of funding community
mental health services. That was not the intention of the statute.
The intention of the statute was that no single group of taxpayer
would get stuck with having to fund community mental health, not the
federal taxpayer, the state taxpayer, or the local taxpayer.
So, in brief, we're requesting the same amount of
funding that we got last year. We think because we don't come in here
and ask for 100 percent of the funding each year, we've literally
saved taxpayers about $2 million over the last ten years, and we would
be very consistent with other counties in Southwest Florida if we did
ask for 100 percent. So I would be more than happy to answer any
questions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important that we
fund this because after the budget process, I mean, most of us are
going to require some of these services. But I'd want to commend the
David Lawrence Center for determining the cost on the front end
instead of backing in from the match. I commend you for that and
thank you for it. And, again, I don't have any comment other than if
it's mandatory, it's mandatory.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Let me just add also that we have to earn
every dollar we get from the State of Florida, and the state makes us
accountable for those dollars. That's where we're held accountable in
terms of performance and in terms of appropriate spending. So we will
generate about three and a half million dollars from the State of
Florida this year. And, again, our local match portion is 919,000.
We anticipate that will actually go up next year. I'm really speaking
about this year's figures, and every year we see about a 10 percent
increase in new clients.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a little help here,
Mr. Dotrill. Don't get me wrong. I think we should fund this 100
percent too, but I don't recall in past years this being classified as
mandatory. This was something we have always opted to, and I
certainly think we should continue to, and it would be essential in my
mind, but does the state statute require us? We don't have any choice
in the matter whatsoever?
MR. DORRILL: It requires some level of participation.
How we ranked it last year, Mike appears to be looking. I can't
recall.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe it's a moot point
because I think we should fund it anyway but --
MR. SCHIHMEL: What made it appear discretionary in the
past was whether or not client donations could be used to satisfy part
of that local match, and that is an issue that is spreading throughout
Florida and has forced the state to reinterpret the statute, and the
clarification that we are getting at this point is that donors, in
fact, can decide whether they want their money to be called local
match or they want it to go to build a building or something else.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We did call the first package mandatory
last year. Two and three were essential.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we're -- I might make a
suggestion. If we don't intend to change these at any later budget
hearings, we could go ahead and rank them H's and not look at them
again.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's certainly up to the board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll agree with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Schimmel.
MR. SCHIHMEL: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: The next item is the soil and water
conservation district. I believe that's next in your package. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's on page 23.
MR. OLLIFF: This particular program is a combination of
federal government, state government, and county government located at
the county's agricultural building near Orangetree. If you'll look on
your cover page, there is no base level; however, the county has
historically participated in this program which provides local water
conservation information and works with county staff in a lot of
cases.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Tom. What page is
this?
MR. OLLIFF: Page 23. Historically what we have done is
provided for a staff -- the money for a staff person that is the
secretary for that department. The rest of the employees in that
department are field personnel who are out in the field teaching
people about drip irrigation or working on county soil surveys when
we're looking at property. So the level one that's shown there is the
only level of county participation that's being requested. And I'll
let David answer any questions that you've got about that particular
program.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No disrespect intended, Mr.
Wilkison. As you know, I have the utmost respect for you. But what
are we getting out of the soil and water conservation district that
merits funding?
MR. WILKISON: Let me -- For the record, my name is
David Wilkison. I'm the newly elected chairman as of late last night
of the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You missed the meeting
apparently.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That goes in part towards
answering my question but --
MR. WILKISON: It's a long and tumultuous story. But as
of last night, the previous chairman had not discussed or presented
this budget request with our board, and what I would like to do today
is ask that you postpone any ranking so that I can present the budget
request to our board and get their approval. And also, in the
meantime, I'd like the opportunity to meet individually with each of
the commissioners, especially the two new commissioners and educate
you about the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District, what we
do, and essentially what you're getting for your funding.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Could we put a D on this and then
it just comes back or --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That sounds like a good idea.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We can do that. We'll want to
know -- What we'll want to know is why there's a large increase
proposed for this year. If you could have an explanation ready for us
on that, we'd certainly appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, a D with a red flag.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We'll put a D on that for today.
Thank you very much.
MR. WILKISON: Thank you, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations or condolences on
your new appointment.
MR. WILKISON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The next one is the county
forester.
MR. OLLIFF: I was looking for a forester and don't see
o~e.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: So I guess we're looking at a county
forester for this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
There we go.
There he is.
I thought we had a stand-in back
A bit of history for the two new
members, is we went through this discussion last year at length and
decided that for $3,000 we were certainly getting a lot more than we
paid for. So if you'd like to hear the presentation --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How about just what you do. Just
let me know that, and that will help me out tremendously.
MR. ANDERSON: Chris Anderson, Collier County forester
with the State of Florida Division of Forestry. The State of Florida
provides the forester position in the county based on the
participation of the county in the terms of the amount described here.
The state picks up all the other parts of that.
Basically a tree-related -- any tree-related requests
from private citizens from -- I do a fair amount of consulting with
the staff providing consultant services to county staff on
tree-related matters, various ordinances, the tree-related ordinances
that the county has, providing input and professional forestry
expertise on those type of things.
MR. OLLIFF: Chris, real quick, maybe I can help. I just
-- I went back and pulled some of Chris' monthly reports that he
provides to us so that I can try and get a better feel for exactly
some of the specific things that he does with our county staff. And
over the last four months, I just pulled some of the specific kinds of
things, and he works with all sorts of different departments. He was
a presenter at a local county agricultural program about native and
low-maintenance plants and so he was -- to 50 of the just local
residents who were interested in that. He worked with us on both the
Pelican Bay Park and Cocohatchee River Park on the trees that were
there after they had been installed by the original contractor, how to
provide ongoing maintenance with those working with our parks
maintenance staff. He works with our master gardener clinics out at
the agricultural department. He worked with community development on
a grant that Joe Delate was working on through the Division of
Forestry to help Joe put together that application package. And he
also attended and is working on -- an interesting thing I thought was
a way to inventory publically-owned trees so that the next time there
is a major storm event and you lose those, that you're in a better
position to be able to get FEHA money back to replace some of those
public trees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds great. Sold.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: And our contribution is $3,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I just have to ask. There
were plenty of things on that list that would otherwise not be his
responsibilities under his -- his -- what is it -- a federal and state
job -- under your state job. Those aren't -- We're getting $3,000
worth of services that he wouldn't have to provide otherwise?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the board's pleasure on
the ranking?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Discretionary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Chris.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hove to agriculture on page 27.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These are already ranked for us.
I like that. It saves us some time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can move on to animal control.
MR. OLLIFF: I think these are the actual rankings from
last year. Is that -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: And will continue to show up in this
year's.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody tell me if anything
changes from last year's H, E, D's, that they will be the same. MR. OLLIFF: Nothing's changed at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know. I mean, this whole week
is a waste.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I disagree. This is your opportunity --
This is where the staff is proposing to allocate resources in the '96
budget. If you disagree with either the staff ranking, what the staff
is proposing to do, or whether or not the staff should even be doing
that function and whether or not you want the staff to continue to
provide that function, this is your opportunity to say so prior to the
development of the line item budget. This is your opportunity to give
that policy direction to staff prior to that stage previously --
MR. DORRILL: I understand what you're saying though,
but what Mr. Smykowski is saying will be particularly true when you
get to some of the big departments. Thus far you're not -- you're
seeing very small departments or contract agencies that are otherwise
parts of state government. When you get to parks, when you get to
libraries, you're going to see some major new program requests that
the board has not seen before.
MR. OLLIFF: In this particular department, you will not
see some major new programs. What you see is primarily what
agriculture has provided in the past. These five levels of programs
are the same as last year. Base level -- there really isn't any other
than to maintain the building assets that are out there at Orangetree
or at the fairgrounds, and basically that is a single person, that
$49,000, to make sure that the building and the grounds stay there and
aren't vandalized and get maintained.
The first level of service is -- and, in fact, I'll let
you'll do this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you can answer this,
but I'll tee it up for you. MR. OLLIFF: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a $50,000-a-year
maintenance person?
MR. OLLIFF: No. They provide -- We try -- and in that
number on base level is to provide not only the salary of the person
but any operating expenses that might be associated with running the
lawn mower, running the water through the syste to make sure it works.
We're trying to give you a best guess of what it costs just to keep
that building standing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Denise, why don't you walk them through the
separate levels.
MS. COLEMAN: What do you want to know on the walk?
Because I don't want to waste your time, and I'd rather address the
specific areas of interest, please.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Could you identify yourself for
the record, please?
MS. COLEMAN: Thank you. My name is Denise Luhan
Coleman, and I'm the county extension director.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last year's ranks look like the
right ranks for this year.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help me with family and
community education. What are we spending 200,000 bucks a year on?
MS. COLEMAN: What you have -- and I don't have the same
page numbers, I don't believe, that you do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Budget page 32, I believe, for
MS. COLEMAN: That's -- Are we -- We're on the same
page. Thanks. What you have are organized volunteer leaders. And,
if I may, on your cover sheet, we talk about the number of hours, in
excess of 25,000, that are contributed to us, and when you think of
volunteers, these are very expert volunteers. We're in the business
of training trainers. That's what we were. We are educators. So
when we work with a volunteer, we work with a volunteer that doesn't
return $5 an hour to us but returns I would say a minimum of 20 an
hour.
So we work with a group called -- several groups here.
Family community educators are a group of trained volunteers that go
out and work in the community. Family financial counselors are also
another trained group. And we also have a very specialized program.
We have two Hispanic bilingual paraprofessionals who work with limited
resource families, 610. An example of this are families that are on
public assistance and working with them so that they can be -- move
themselves off of public assistance.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go too much
farther, two questions. You've told me about the volunteers. That
doesn't -- If they're volunteers, that doesn't explain how the money
is being spent. And, two, what's the track record? Do we maintain
some sort of record with those families so we know how many people are
off in six months' time, 12 months' time, and how many people are
still hanging on?
MS. COLEMAN: Okay. Part of the cost of volunteers is
professional staff to support them, to train them, and maintain --
maintain the volunteer network. Okay. So our professionals see
themselves as managing -- I hate to use the word "manage .... but
giving leadership to a group of trained volunteers, training them, and
then giving them leadership.
So part of the cost, yes, is devoted to developing that
volunteer staff in that -- in that regard, and then we have some
direct costs for the bilingual paraprofessionals. They are -- They
are paid staff. They are not volunteers. Then if that answers that
part of your question, moving on to the record-keeping aspect.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MS. COLEMAN: That we -- Once a year we have an
evaluation, and we ask the families themselves. We use -- They're not
-- They're -- Some are volunteers that receive a stipend, not from
us, not from the county, but from a federal program through the
private industry council, and we directly ask the families what
strides they have made and how they have improved themselves. So
that's the record-keep -- That's how we accumulate the data there.
That's one form.
We also with the family financial counselors -- Many
times our relationship with the family can last as much as two years
because they come to us -- they're not going down for the third time
because we're really not designed to deal with it that point. But
they've gone down at least once, you know, like you're drowning.
They've got down at least once and what -- We have fairly lofty goals
when we're working with a family.
For example, I don't know if you saw a family
highlighted last fall in the "Naples Daily News." Well, she was a
single person, and she was able to organize herself so that she now
owns her own home. So we have fairly long-term relationships through
our trained volunteers with a family. So they're -- if that answers
your question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many people do you have
working with the volunteers?
MS. COLEMAN: We have --
MR. OLLIFF: This program has got --
MS. COLEMAN: -- one and a half, one and a half
professionals.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I guess I'm still
grasping at $183,747. I assume they're not all making $120,000 a year
so --
MS. COLEMAN: No, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: The program totals four FTE's for that
program. So there are actually four full-time employees devoted to
this program.
MS. COLEMAN: There's one and a half professionals, half
of a clerical person, and then the two paraprofessionals -- the two
Hispanic paraprofessionals.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I question some of
this program. As I'm reading here, educate families on food and
nutrition, educate families developing knowledge and skills of
clothing?
MS. COLEMAN: Since that's all part of what it takes to
make a family, we included all of it. That's not a major area of
emphasis, but it is a portion. It's an integrated part. You're
right. That's not a main area of emphasis, but it is a part of it.
Credit management is a major portion of it. Goal
setting, budgeting, improving work skills, those are major portions.
But controlling the expenditure for food, the family budget, food,
clothing, utilities, things like that are a facet of goal-setting and
organizing yourself to achieve your family's financial goals.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned one of the
purposes of this is to try to help people get off or get out of their
current welfare-type situation. That's not how you worded it but --
MS. COLEMAN: Oh, okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only record-keeping we
have is what they give us for a report at the end of the year, so we
don't know what our success ratio is? I mean, if I write, "I enjoyed
the program. I now have better reading habits, and I can balance my
checkbook," then do we declare it a success?
MS. COLEMAN: Part of what you say is included in the
checklist, but it's also bills paid on time. It's reduction of debt.
Those kinds of parameters are what we -- I think you're interested in.
You addressed what we called the warm, fuzzy feeling, "I liked it,"
and you're right. That doesn't hold water. We're interested in more
definitive -- what we call practice changes in our jargon. What
practices have they changed? Are they now paying their bills on time?
Have they reduced their debt load? Have they increased their
savings towards long-term goals? Those are the hard -- hard kind of
facts that we're interested in. We hope that they enjoyed the
program, and many times we hope -- you know, the spoon -- the sugar
that helps the medicine go down, we try to work that way because this
is voluntary on their part. They are not -- They are not mandated to
participate.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Denise, how do we go about either
finding these people -- you know, how does the process work? Because
I -- and please understand, we're looking at having to face a few
million dollars of cuts this year, and we start seeing things such as,
you know, educating families in food and nutrition. Well, we just got
done with the public health budget that there appears to be some
duplicity there.
In addition, when I see things like, "Special outreach
is made to working families, single parent, dual income," you know,
and that kind of thing, these are the kinds of things that
unfortunately are on the edges of the tree. So that's probably why
it's receiving more scrutiny, not that it's not valuable, but we're
facing some serious potential cuts here.
And I guess I just want to know, do we go out in the
community and find these people? Do they come to us? What-- How does
that work?
MS. COLEMAN: When we go out in the community, we go --
we go out and link with other professionals more so than to -- you
know, the direct contact method. We work with HRS, and we have quite
a network. We work with the inter-agency group. We work with the
housing program that the Collier County Housing Authority operates.
And, as you may know, that particular program has 7,000 people, and
that's family members involved in that particular program. So we have
a close working relationship with them. We also sent referrals from
-- we're -- developed a relationship with the banking partnership,
those kinds of things. So we usually link -- We have a relationship,
for example, with David Lawrence Mental Health.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you, in essence, become a
referral resource more or less?
MS. COLEMAN: We are for a certain segment,
cross-section of families, we are the best ounce of prevention that
money can buy. We really are. And it is difficult to document. I
can appreciate your dilemma. Because then you don't see them in the
courts. Then they're not on the domestic violence roster. And
documenting that -- just like documenting 4-H youth work. Strong
families develop there, although I think you all had an opportunity to
share in that kind of celebration. But we have similar -- very similar
successes with families. We have strong, healthy families that are
buying homes and are a vital part of the community.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you can document
that. I mean, if somebody was in debt or was getting government
assistance for everything and suddenly can buy their own home or were
having domestic violence and no longer are there any incidents within
that family, I think those are documentable things. So I guess I
disagree when you say, well, there's no way to track that.
MS. COLEMAN: I didn't mean to say that if I said that.
I said it's difficult sometimes, you know, because maybe they don't
appear on -- You know, I don't know if they're going to have the cops
called to the house. Sometimes that's difficult to know that we
specifically prevented an incident.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I suggest we leave this as
discretionary? And Denise seems to be hearing that there's a big flag
on this one and she needs to --
MR. DORRILL: We did last year. I may have even not
recommended these last year, and we got into a similar debate as to
whether this was something that the county commission should be
funding, and it ended up discretionary, and so that's why I left it
alone.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the pleasure of the board
is to leave it discretionary, that's fine. But come line item time, I
do have a concern, particularly as Commissioner Hancock outlined.
We've got some cutting to do this year. It's not that these aren't
important things, but I'm not sure it's the business the county needs
to be in.
When we started this process three years ago, as we
fleshed out the definitions of essential and discretionary, it was,
well, in times of fiscal constraints we would have to trim back these
items, and so I don't think anyone is saying that, gosh, this is a
waste of time. That's not my suggestion, but we are in a time right
now where we have to face some changes money-wise, and I think this
may be one of the items.
I wonder if we could briefly go back to the item just
before that too, environmental safety and efficiency. I think -- You
and I talked about this last year, and I think I'm a little more
comfortable with this, but maybe you can help me again. MS. COLEMAN: Sure.
MR. OLLIFF: This one is a little more what
traditionally agriculture you may think of, and in this community
there are several forms of agriculture that are commercially
important. The primary one, of course, is the vegetable industry in
this community. Second surprisingly is probably livestock. We still
produce about six and a half million pounds of beef, livestock, a year
that we sell countywide. The other two areas are both urban and
commercial horticulture. And whether it's landscaping or whether it's
home horticulture, this is the program that deals with the livestock
and both of those different forms of horticulture, whether it's urban
or commercial. And so we have three people. Primarily one is a
livestock agent, a county livestock agent, who is the person who works
with the local livestock producers. And then there's two other people
who work with commercial landscape people to try and get them to
understand what are federal requirements for spraying pesticides and
those types of things. Then there's another person who works with
local people who deal with their own gardening issues, and that's
probably our master gardener program there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There aren't a lot of farmers and
ranchers who don't know their business. They're probably some of the
most educated people in real life education that we -- that you can
find in this community. My question is, in looking at efforts toward
water and even some pesticides and fertilizers, we just looked at the
soil and water conservation district, and it appears that some of
their efforts are in the same vein if not -- maybe not focusing solely
on agriculture but in a general sense. Has there been any cooperative
effort with the soil and water conservation, and can there be to
potentially reduce the cost of this program and incorporate an
existing board into the work that you're doing?
MS. COLEMAN: There are been collaborative efforts in
the past because we don't want to duplicate efforts and there are
certain -- there are projects that the soil conservation service
undertakes that we don't undertake, but we more or less invite them
into our programs to give -- to explain their services that we do not
provide so that there's not a duplication. That's the type of
partnership that we have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're all in agreement then that
we're going to rank as last year?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can rank it as
discretionary, but I'm going to have to a hard time with that one
portion come line item time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you propose then to rank
that one not recommended at this time?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would propose that. I don't
know what the rest of the board feels.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I think this is the time
to let Miss Coleman know that there is a concern up here, and I'm not
ready to say not recommended yet on that. I'd like to leave it
discretionary.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do I.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to have an opportunity
for a little more information on it before we cancel it out all
together.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That's fine.
MS. COLEMAN: Any further questions?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's it.
MS. COLEMAN: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next is animal control. Animal control
under base level service if you will look there, the statutes that
mandate the types of activities in animal control generally deal with
dangerous dogs and, oddly enough, livestock, because the statutes are
generally very old in that regard, and back when Florida was primarily
a much more rural area, there are requirements that we have areas that
we can hold runaway livestock, is primarily what the statute requires
as well as dangerous dogs. And we have tried to show you in terms of
workload -- and, in fact, some of these numbers surprise me. The
number of actual bite cases annually that involve humans and those
type of things are somewhere in the 450 to 500 a year, and Jodi will
tell you that a lot of those don't get reported because those are only
the ones that we pick up that have gone to a doctor or gone to the
hospital and actually have had some sort of a report filed on them.
Cost for that base level of service was $50,000. Again,
that's just one person. Primarily that's a person to not only go out
and get those dangerous dogs but to maintain the facility that you
have on North Airport Road as well as a facility in Immokalee near the
landfill and the county jail there.
The level two program, this is -- and we've looked at
this and tried to determine if there's a way to try and break this
down a little further for you. But when you do a part of this, it's
almost like -- it makes no sense to do only a part and not do the
other positions of this. As soon as you make a decision that you're
going to go out and pick up stray animals, then it makes only sense to
kennel those animals, and then it only makes sense to try to adopt
those animals out as opposed to the other option, and then finally you
have to euthanize if you're going to -- So as soon as you make a
decision that stray animals is going to be a part of the department,
then pretty much you pick up this whole package of items. We've
called that a health, safety, and ordinance enforcement item, and it
restores seven and a half of the current eight and a half full-time
employees to that department.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Tom.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just briefly, what is the
statutory requirement regarding stray animals?
MS. MORELOCK: The only thing that's required is the
livestock for the strays by the state.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we approach it more
from a public health and safety aspect?
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you identify for the record
again?
MS. MORELOCK: I'm sorry. I'm Jodi Morelock, director
of Animal Control.
MR. OLLIFF: Some of the other oddity things that the
public doesn't usually know that this department does in terms of this
level of service is we inspect all the local pet shops, the kennels,
and any rodeos that happen to roll through town. That's the
obligation of us to inspect those as well. So that's all part of this
category.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a lot of rodeos in the last
few years here.
MS. COLEMAN: Immokalee.
'COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that's right.
MS. COLEMAN: They have several in Immokalee.
MR. OLLIFF: The next program is the data input and
management program. This is actually only a one-half of a person.
This is a position who generally does nothing but input licensing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may be able to -- Excuse
me, Tom. I may be able to short-circuit this a little. It seems to me
the first four are obviously essential. We don't needs carcasses
collecting on the road and so on.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm glad we didn't get to that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question on four
though.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I was just going to
say on five, after spending a little time up there and watching how
you guys buzz around and try to keep up, I have -- the last two years
have put this off, put this off. I don't think I can in good
conscience put off the kennel worker after being up there and watching
y'all hard at work. And then I'm going to need an explanation on the
final one, but I'll let you do your thing first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I agree 100 percent on kennel
worker. After spending a workday up there cleaning cat cages myself,
the kennel worker position is needed to free up some trained officers
to go out and do the calls and answer some of the overburden there.
Jodi, I have a question, and it's the same question I
had when I was out there, on cremation. I know that this -- the
megamonster crematory out there was dropped in your lap. You didn't
have anything to do with the acquisition. I understand there was some
-- it was in some part donation or in all. Did we actually pay for
that entire piece, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: We paid for the initial capital cost of
that cremator. All the cremations done afterwards pay for themselves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I noticed is the amount of
time that thing has to run for one cremation and what we charge for
that cremation are not equal. That piece does not pay for itself in
any way, shape, or form. Would that be correct?
MS. COLEMAN: I think the way we're running it now is
we're not doing one cremation at a time. We do -- Whenever we do a
save ashes, we are getting $100 basically for each save ashes, and
we're trying to do them like three at a time, four at a time. So I
think it's going to pay for itself doing it this way.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my --
MS. COLEMAN: It is a lot more difficult.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- concern because we're not --
we're not using it for our -- for the euthanized animals. Those are
being disposed of other ways. You know, I just want to make sure that
that thing is going to either pay for itself or we're not going to run
it because there's no sense running it at a loss when we've already
paid for the piece. So that was my concern. As long as I can be
assured that we're not running it at a loss, then I'm okay with that.
MR. OLLIFF: We had that same discussion and I think --
in fact, recently we amended the rates that we charge, and I think
that the rates that we've got, we tried to figure out annual gas cost
and operating cost for electricity and things, and I believe that it
will pay for itself the way we're currently operating it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On number six, enhanced data
input and management, Mr. Dotrill, you have not recommended down
there.
MR. DORRILL: Two reasons I did not. Last year as well
I shared your concern that the increasing call load for service did
not make sense having your professional animal control officers
cleaning kennels all day. So my first issue was, what do you need
more? Do you need assistance in the kennel area to free up officer
time or an additional clerical position? They obviously needed the
kennel worker position.
The second issue is because of the board's recent policy
change with respect to spay and neuter and what may be a change in
operating procedures for licenses and annual renewals. I didn't think
we had enough history yet to know whether or not we're going to have
an increased clerical load there and I was taking a wait-and-see
attitude. And if the vets aren't selling your licenses and people are
mailing in applications and renewal requests, we may have to come to
you with a supplemental budget activity.
The final criteria that I applied is you do have a
fairly good volunteer clerical work force that assists and volunteers
at the animal shelter, and I thought that this was an activity that
they could be trained to perform. They probably disagree somewhat
with my logic on that because volunteers are -- you know, are not
there every day and the training aspect -- they're just seasonal, and
so volunteers for animal control purposes are not as assured as some
other departments but I sort of -- a combination of those in trying to
save general revenues, I didn't recommend it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I probably concur with that
as long as we do, indeed, do a review. If we find ourselves in a bind
We Can '-
MR. DORRILL: We need to watch that because -- if all of
a sudden she's doing 20,000 animal license renewals a year because
heretofore they were done by local vets and they got a fee for that.
That's something we're just going to have to watch.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I too would like to see that come
back. I'd prefer an NR on that now because as a memorandum went to
Mr. Olliff, we have been discussing the ability to or the opportunity
to send out license renewals on an annual basis and possibly increase
renewals. The fees collected from that could more than pay for this
position. I believe your assessment was that that is a possibility,
if not a probability. So I'd like to see this come back as a budgeted
situation where, in essence, the work will be funded for instead of
adding it to the budget line at this point.
MR. DORRILL: ANd from that same token, just to complete
that thought, that if we are going to get into the billing activity
for animal license renewals, I would probably put that as part of your
new consolidated billing program and get these poor people out of the
-- you know, the billing and accounting business and let them take
care of dogs and cats.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even better. So I'm NR on that
one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: NR? That is NR? Okay. NR. And
the kennel worker's a D?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Leave it at D with strong
feelings of a need there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about one, two, three, and
four? What is the consensus there?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I kind of think they're
essential. I don't think you can leave a dead cat or dog sitting out
on the road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is true -- That .5 data
input is truly half a person. She's part time so I -- I agree.
Essential on all of those.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That moves us to the library department.
The organizational chart is on page 44, and the summary of the
program priorities is on page 45.
MR. OLLIFF: Base level. Again, this is -- sort of goes
to your point about the total cost versus the number of personnel.
Commissioner Constantine had asked about the total FTE's to the actual
base level process. This is another good example of that where we've
got one FTE but our base level estimate is $150,000. That base level
is because there are seven different facilities throughout the county,
and that cost was trying to estimate the cost of trying to at least
maintain the humidity control. In those particular buildings, you
have books that you try and maintain dry and cool and so that we try
to build in the cost in the base level. But at your base level, like
all your others, you have no service provided. The buildings are
closed, and there's just one person who goes from site to site and
tries to make sure that we keep whatever inventory we have. John, why
don't you walk them through here.
MR. JONES: Okay. Carl had to leave to do his radio
show so I've already taped my interview on how this came out so --
MR. DORRILL: Not so fast because I've got a couple of
not recommendeds.
MR. JONES: It's an effort. First, between the year
that I sat here a year ago and here today, the library system has
really improved. The things that you provided to us this past year
made all the difference in the world, and each month I've tried to
send you documentation so you can see what the value of the dollar
you're spending is.
The fact sheet I gave you is interesting. Let's go to
employees. The measure used throughout the country for employees in a
public library is employees per 10,000 residents. The state leans
about 3.71. We're running at three right now. If you'll look at the
counties below us, you'll see it changes. It moves back and forth.
However, we are not understaffed right now. We are capable of
handling what we have given our present staff. We are growing. Our
circulation's increased about 28 percent but we are -- But right now
we can deal with what we have with what we've got. I'm not so
concerned about that.
The percentage of your population with library cards --
I don't think that's new to you either. This is a community that
reads. They use the public facilities, and we rank in the top three
or four in the state.
Books per capita, we are still on the bottom, but what I
would say to you is this. There are times that you could give someone
more money than they can spend wisely. If you were to say to me this
morning we want to go to 2.0 books per capita which would entail a
million dollars, we're not capable right this minute of spending that
money wisely.
What I am capable of doing wisely is moving at
increments up the ladder as you see fit. The directives from last
year were .05. That was a lot of money in there and that money -- to
order a book requires research. You have to go -- You just don't go
to the book store and grab a bunch of books. There's a system.
books per capita don't upset me right now. That's more of a backward
measurement. The new materials we're putting in I think has satisfied
the public.
Now, I have -- Host of the complaints I have heard this
year have been concerning things that I don't really relate to
libraries. They're things we have to do like meeting rooms and things
likes that, but I haven't heard a lot of complaints about the books,
materials. I don't know what your response has been to that, but I
know a year ago when I came to you that's all people talked about, was
we needed more material.
So what I'm saying to you is that with the help you gave
the library last year we have made some real strides. We're not on top
of the market. But, again, if you want to fund it, we could run the
biggest library in Florida. That's no problem. But I think we're in
a fiscally conservative community, but I think we're providing really
top-notch service for the dollar that we are providing.
Now, as far as the budget, I can do it -- we can do it
several ways. I tried to write it. I have done -- As far as outcome
budgets before, I tried to write it in such a manner that would
possibly answer your questions about why we wanted to do something or
why something existed, but I'll be happy to go over it with you piece
by piece if you so choose, or we can just mark them all essential and
I can get back to work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm enjoying your company,
sir. I want to spend a little more time together.
MR. JONES: A sense of humor is important I think in
Collier County.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Anybody's county. Mr. Dorrill, you
said you had some comments to make on this.
MR. DORRILL: You'll see mine at the bottom of the page
there. Some of the important distinctions -- I'm just going to focus
on the expanded services that begin with number seven. You need to
know that number seven is one of those things -- one of those
well-intentioned grant programs that funded the county's first
professional librarian in Immokalee, and the grant is now over, and
you need to make the call on that one. Do you want a special
librarian in Immokalee? You've had one there for two, probably three,
years that was funded through a state aid and grant, put a
professional librarian in a rural community, but now that's coming
home to roost to the tune of $35,000.
There are some special issues concerning the next one.
This seems to be a year -- this year and the end of last year where
everybody wants their own volunteer coordinator, and volunteers are a
very, very important aspect of the library, in particular because
volunteers are the ones by and large providing the raw manpower to
restock library books. But in order to have a continuing recruitment
effort and a training effort, theywre asking for a county-paid
position that would be there in assistance of that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask before you go on
-- Iwm not comfortable with that. I canwt -- I always try to picture
in my mind how many hours a week possibly doing their duty -- MR. DORRILL: You need to get the program emphasis of
that from Mr. Jones as we sort of debate these back and forth.
MR. OLLIFF: Why donlt you let us -- It seems the focus
is going to be on those expanded services. Why donlt we start there
at least, and if youlye got some questions on some of those other
regular programs, we can back up and answer those. But the first one,
just so youill understand, is a funding expanded service request, but
it actually results in no expanded service to whatls being provided in
Immokalee today. That person is there and has been for three years.
Itls paid for by the grant. But budget-wise, it means that the county
has got to step in and start funding her salary in order for that same
level of service to continue.
MR. JONES: Prior to her coming here, your Immokalee
library was open 20 hours per week. So by having the funded position
coming in -- Now, she is a bilingual librarian who works in the
community. She goes into Farm Workers Village. Iive got -- I could
bring you photographs. I could show you tons of statistics. Shels
dealing with hundreds of children there. Shels dealing with hundreds
of adults. But from an administrative point of view, welre open 40
hours a week with that position there. If you say to me, "We donlt
want to fund that position," then youlye got to turn around and give
me a clerk at reasonably close to the same investment so I can stay
open 40 hours.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would the investment in
a clerk be, Mr. Olliff or Mr. Smykowski?
MR. JONES: About 20. But the key to it is that she is
Spanish-speaking. She is bilingual in a community that is 62 percent
and 20,000 people --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Jones, I have
received a lot of letters of support and what a terrific job shels
doing, so I donlt even want that to come into question. I mean, she
is by no -- no question, shels brought things up to a level that they
have never been in Immokalee, and I appreciate that.
My question, based on your experience both in North
Carolina and here so far, where else do we have professional
librarians in a similar circulation type situation? In other words,
would the circulation of Immokalee merit a professional librarian in
any other community or elsewhere in Collier County?
MR. JONES: All right. I can give you an answer that
may not totally satisfy. Sometimes --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have one that would
totally satisfy?
MR. JONES: Yeah, I do. In an area like Immokalee where
you have a population that is non-traditional population, itls very
difficult to take traditional measurements and measure them. One
example, in a reading program, if you have one child that reads 100
books, is that more important than getting this particular child who
has never read a book to read a book? So those are the kind of
measurements that you deal with in Immokalee.
She does a lot of visits and programs in the schools
there. She does it into the Guadalupe center, into the Farm Workers
Village. She introduces children to literature. She is bilingual and
she is trained. So that's the decision the commissioners would need
to make. Is that what you want to provide? On the other hand,
Collier North --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to change that. Is that
what we can afford to provide? Want and afford are sometime two very
different things.
MR. JONES: I understand that, sir. And that -- As I
have stated several times here, I'm your library director, and I will
carry out the directives.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. JONES: Of course I want the position. I would not
be here --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And we would not be doing a good
job if you weren't here asking for it. I understand that. MR. JONES: -- if I did not want the position.
MR. DORRILL: That's -- You know, the point -- This is
very monotonous and can be very boring, but this is -- this is one of
the real gems of program budgeting. Had you not had program
budgeting, you'd be looking at an overall that -- it's just 5 percent
more than it was last year. So what?
But to force you to break things out in spending here,
what you're saying is the end of a state grant that paid for this
rural librarian, it forces him to show it separately, and it forces
you then to deal with the cost of funding that program now that the
state grant's gone.
MR. OLLIFF: And, also, so the board is aware, this is
the same level of service at every branch that we have. So I
understand we have a professional librarian at every single branch,
and this is the same in Immokalee. So if we don't do this, then we're
basically saying we're going to do something less in Immokalee --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The same salary?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. Same everything.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would have answered my
question, Mr. Jones.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Jones -- Mr. Jones, we all
recognize that you know what you're doing in your business here, and
you know it a lot better than we do. And rather than have us sit up
here and try to make a decision on this program or that program, what
if we just asked you to bring back in June when you come what you feel
is the best way to cut, say, 10 percent out of your budget, and that
way we don't have to make the decisions because you're the one that
knows how to run the library.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we going to make that
request? I mean, not that I think that's a bad request, but I think
if we're going to make that request of the library, we need to make it
across the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, I expressed similar
difficulties. There's one area that I put lower on the list of areas
I want to cut and it's the library.
MR. JONES: When you say "cut," do you mean off the
total expansion budget, the whole package?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, sir. That way you don't have
the Board of Commissioners in here interfering into the minute details
of your operation because you know that operation better than we do.
And the point is, rather than us having to make a decision, we've got
to take this program out or we've got to take that program out, you
know which ones ought to be trimmed or --
MR. JONES: Yes, sir. And I'll be happy to -- I'm quite
qualified in doing that. I simply want the board to appreciate that
if I decide that some programs are less important and they happen to
hit in a politically-sensitive area, this board will take the blunt.
For example, I've got two professionals in the Estates
branch. If I decide that, okay, if that's what it has to happen and I
pull that children's library from the Estates, there is going to be
repercussions that come to me, and I'm going to sit here and start
reading the letters to the editor, and Carl's going to want me on his
program.
MR. DORRILL: One little asterisk next to that. That's
why you have me and Mr. Smykowski to assist you with that. Because,
otherwise, whenever the board asks the sheriff,"Sheriff, can you cut
your budget," the sheriff says, "Yes," and, "Sheriff, we don't
understand law enforcement so we're going to allow you to do that,"
historically the first program that the sheriff recommends cutting --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Road patrol.
MR. DORRILL: -- school crossing guards, and all hell
breaks loose.
MR. JONES: No. No. I will not stand here and talk
Armageddon. I'm a professional. I won't play that particular game.
If you ask me in a professional way to give you that type of criteria,
that type of priority, sometimes it may not be the thing that's
pleasing. I used that as an example just to point out that I don't
want to stand there and take the flack by myself.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Not at all. And I think
if there's anybody that understands taking flack for making tough
decisions, it's the four people plus the one that's not sitting here.
MR. OLLIFF: And what you're asking is, at line item
budget time to come back in and show you that. So when we show you
that, we would tell you what it is that we would cut if that's what
you wanted to do, and we would probably try and tell you at least what
our belief of the repercussions would be, and then you can make that
decision. It's your decision eventually to make.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I think that's a good idea
because we're going to have to cut. We know we're going to have to
cut, but please, please, please let's not focus on libraries here as
the place where we're going to --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- require a 10 percent cut.
That's the -- That's one of the last places I'd like to see a cut. So
we're going to -- Perhaps that's a real good directive to give each
department head. Show us the 10 percent you would cut if you had to.
MR. DORRILL: And, again, that is the beauty behind
program budgeting because I would then probably go back and you -- you
have to begin to compare and contrast. It's like, do you want to
spend $145,000 a year in support of the 4-H program and having paid
county employees coordinate the 4-H program, or do you want to have a
professional librarian in Immokalee and a volunteer supervisor.
Because then you can begin to put some rank or some priorities to
these things.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the list we should have.
I mean, that's exactly what we should be doing. So I'd like to just
endorse what Mr. Norris said but as -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is what you are doing though. You
are developing those priorities and establishing that policy.
MR. DORRILL: You're just developing a list, and at some
point the board may have to pick a number when it comes time to
determine what is the assessed value for the county and how has it
increased over last year. What is the, quote,"budget shortfall." The
board may send us on a mission to go find $2 million and you want a
list of $2 million on something, and you may turn to us, and then the
constitutional officers know what are the program implications of
making this level of cut.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us out of our list of D,
discretionary, items which you would cut if you had to save $2
million. I mean, I think that's a great approach.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It is. Again, it got away from -- Four
or five years ago in between the two public hearings it was cut a
million dollars out of the general fund. You had a week to do it.
You did not have a programatic budget format, and you didn't
understand the service implications of the decisions that were going
to be made. This allows us to target and focus upon -- You know,
obviously if you said libraries has to do with 10 percent less, John
will come back and programatically tell you it may be, okay, last
year you approved extending branch library operating hours. That may
be the first thing to fall by the wayside if a 10 percent reduction
were required, but you would understand the service implication to the
public of that decision.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to go ahead and move on
with ranking these. Barring Commissioner Norris wanting a separate
direction, on one through six, Mr. Dotrill, I don't believe anything
is mandatory by state statute when it comes to libraries. So
technically --
MR. DORRILL: There again, in base what you're saying
are the absolute minimal cost to keep the buildings from
deteriorating. We'd just totally shut the place down. So that's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to keep the current operating
personnel doing what they're doing today.
MR. DORRILL: One through six is -- what you see is what
you have.
MR. OLLIFF: What the board decided last year to do is
they actually created a D/E category.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not doing that.
MR. DORRILL: They don't like that at all this year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say one through three
are absolutely essential. Four through six are discretionary just by
the nature of the term, but I don't think any of us would consider
cutting those. I don't think they're, quote, "essential" according to
our own definitions, but I don't think anybody will have any
suggestion we cut any of those. Specific questions come in seven
through 11.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Seven through 11 are definitely
all -- well, seven through nine are discretionary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to say not
recommended for the volunteer supervisor, and I think Neil put it best
when he's saying that's kind of the trend. I think the beauty of
volunteers is that it's free. And every time we add somebody on, we
-- don't we have one countywide or something now?
MR. DORRILL: You have one, and you're forcing it to be
split between your side of government and the court side of
government.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know in the Red Cross we have
100 volunteers, and our volunteer coordinator is a volunteer.
MR. JONES: Hay I respond to that? There are three
types of volunteers. There's the untrained volunteer, the trained
volunteer, and the advanced volunteer. The two most -- The three
biggest uses of volunteers in the country are the Babe Ruth Little
League Association, hospitals, and public libraries. They have
determined an untrained volunteer is worth about $6 an hour. They
have determined that a trained volunteer is worth about $9 an hour.
And an advanced volunteer is worth about $11 an hour.
But let me give you a hypothetical. We get someone who
is untrained. They come in. We're pretty busy, if any of you have
been to the library particularly this time of the year when we have
our volunteers there. We don't have staff time to train them. So
they start shelving books, and they're not totally trained, but we
have to get the books back out on the shelves. So they take and
misshelve books. Now, in a public library a misshelved book, you
might as well throw the money out the window. It's gone. You can't
find it.
The value of a volunteer trainer -- This was a dual
position to be shared by the library and the parks. We need a
volunteer trainer six months out of the year. We're averaging in the
headquarters facility 40 to 50,000 people using us this time of the
year. That place is busy. The volunteer trainer teaches the
volunteers how to help us; thus, we can actually maximize an asset.
What I've heard from this county since I came here was volunteers are
an asset. Assets are developed. They don't walk in the door.
They're developed and they're trained and they're used. You're asking
me to take a volunteer and replace an employee, but I have no way to
teach them or train them short of taking a staff member to putting
that staff member to train them; thus, I'm not getting the job done
out there. It's a roll.
So while on the surface I think it has an easy answer, I
think -- like a lot of things, it requires looking into what are the
implications of it financially. Are they an asset? I'm saying to you
I can take a trained volunteer and pay that trained volunteer that
trainer's salary indifference of the skills that I'll have a volunteer
do. Rather than have them just shelve books at six bucks an hour, I
can put them to work in circulation at $9 an hour. I have one lady
now that's been trained. She actually sits and helps in the reference
deck.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, will a volunteer supervisor
create a reduction in your staff requirement? In other words, will
you have enough trained volunteers then that you can release a staff
member?
MR. JONES: Again, I'll go back to the fact sheet. The
state mean per 10,000 employees [sic] Is 3.71. We're running at
three. If you look at every county around us, Lee County has 4.28.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You also told us when you
read that, that that's not a problem.
MR. JONES: That's because I had a -- and I've had a
volunteer trainer now, the friends of the library funded. I've had a
volunteer trainer now for four and a half months. The volunteers are
actually working in your libraries. They're not standing around
having coffee like I found last year. It's not a social club.
They're there working. They're trained. They sign contracts. They
sign in. They sign out. They're assigned duties, and their duties
are then checked. It's a job.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think they're bound to have --
I mean, I think that there's certainly enough of a case to be made
here that this has potential for economic value that we leave it as
discretionary and allow it to be discussed again. I think that there's
clearly some economic value here so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So seven through nine we'll
go D for now?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree, but it appears
I'm in the minority.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Ten and 117
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to -- Ten I'd like to
see stay discretionary for sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, you put not
recommended for those?
MR. DORRILL: I did last year. Mr. Jones -- he and I
are in agreement in this, is that we got into creating a personal
computer lab type program at the libraries a number of years ago for
no other reason that your former library director was a computer wonk
and he liked that. I think if Mr. Jones had his way, he would not be
offering a variety of personal computers available for public use at
the libraries.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd rather see those become books
on the shelf personally.
MR. DORRILL: It is redundant through -- The adult
education system is doing the same type of thing. It is a burden to
him because you get people loading unlicensed software or software
that has viruses in it. It is a burden to take a professional
librarian or someone when someone is having problems loading up their
software or accessing information. It is a resource detraction away
from him, and what he's saying is that you either need to try and
maintain or begin to phase out the personal computer lab that is at
the downtown central library, or you need to do some things to network
and have more of a server as I understand it -- let the server
determine what software applications are going to be available to the
public as opposed to people trying to load in their own. And it's
just -- It's one of those things that you're either going to have to
put -- again, putting some big money in personal computer labs at the
downtown library or we need to try and, frankly, create a disincentive
for people to go there for personal computer access.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, Mr. Jones, if you hate this
idea, why is it on the list?
MR. OLLIFF: What this is is -- for two years we've come
and told you about how difficult it is to maintain micro personal
computers at all of these libraries, and it's just a maintenance
nightmare, and we don't have a position in th library that is a --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why is it on the list?
MR. OLLIFF: Because the public has grown to where they
want it badly, and they rely on it, and the computers are used from
the time we open the door to the time we close the door.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus they've come to expect it.
MR. OLLIFF: You're exactly right. And we had this
discussion last year about do you want to just pull them and bite the
bullet and suffer the hail of public criticism that will come, or do
you want to try and do something else. And we decided to try -- This
year what we're proposing to you is that -- We found the majority of
our problems maintenance-wise are from people either messing with the
operating system, bringing their own software in, or screwing up the
operating system that's there. And so what we're proposing to you is,
well, let's make them dumb terminals, for lack of a better word. We'll
give you a word processing program, maybe a data base program so that
you can do those things, but you can't bring your own software in, and
you can't do all those things.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm ready for not recommended on
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As am I.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As am I.
MR. JONES: Okay. The other part of that particular
program was to network the CD ROH's for the branches. For example,
last year one of the programs I asked you folks for was to network the
CD ROH's in the headquarters, and that's where the telephone books and
the encyclopedias and all the programs came that are now available.
The money here provides the money to network it so that people at East
Naples and people in the Estates have access to the CD ROH network
that we're building. So this was a two-part thing. Again, it was a
-- it was not -- See, people want everything. I really can't afford
to give the same thing to every location. So I'm trying to develop
systems that allow me to buy at one time and expand. That's what
you're looking at here.
Again, on the surface if you're going to just ask me to
cut 10 percent, it really doesn't matter because if you'll look at my
front figures, I've always been an honest administrator. I don't give
you a lot of junk. I asked for exactly what I needed. If you ask me
to cut 10 percent, you've gone through everything I asked expanded,
and you're back into what we're doing today. And, you know, what we
have, it's my number six priority. It's pretty evident right on the
top. My number six priority are current hours, and so we'll start
backing down our library system. That's where we go because there's
not 10 percent in expanded services and so --
MR. DORRILL: Hike, just so we can move on here -- The
recorder is going to need to take a break in just a minute too.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to take a break anyway
right after this discussion. I think we've ranked everything but
number 11. Do we have an agreement on NR on that one? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is it?
MR. DORRILL: My rationale for the last one is
increasingly -- and all of these are great or good programs that would
be great, you know, nice-to-haves. But by the time you get down to
number 11 here, you're getting so specialized that -- you know, the
young adult section is going to have their own reference librarian.
Well, yeah, that would be a great thing to have. But, again, I'm
trying to take a little historical look at this.
Your general fund spending in libraries is up over 20
percent in just three years. That's over a half a million dollars
just in the general fund. So I'm -- You know, the further we get down
the list, the harder I am. And I made a judgment call, frankly,
between should the young adult section have their own reference
librarian or would it be nice to have a discretionary children's
librarian who could service all of the branches countywide, and I went
with the children's librarian at the branches as opposed to the
reference.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We'll -- That concludes the
library section, and we will take a ten-minute break and be right
back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What were four through six? How
did we rank four through six?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Four through six --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: D, D, D.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- was D. D, D, D's.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call -- Reconvene the budget
workshop of March the 15th of 1995.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're on page 64 for the museum.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Smykowski. I was
about to ask what page are we on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It appears as if we're only about
an hour behind already so --
MR. DORRILL: Miss Matthews, I just -- I want to give
the board a little 30-second update because it's good news. We
received the permits for Clam Pass early but actually dispatched some
employees to Fort Myers yesterday afternoon whereupon Mr. Hargett
coordinated the moval of the heavy equipment last night, I understand,
between two and three o'clock in the morning, and we owe some thanks
to the city manager for giving us access through Horizon Way, and the
other heavy equipment was brought through your access at Vanderbilt
Beach, and they started digging at 4 a.m. This morning. We expect to
be done Friday morning.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got to love government in
action.
MR. DORRILL: So that's a lot of credit to a lot of
folks who really, really hustled on this because last time it took
eight months. But, as we speak, the smell of diesel fumes are wafting
over Clam Pass with the Board of County Commissioners' heavy equipment
out there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have nothing to do with the
diesel fumes I want you to know, but the opening of the pass, sure.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
watch it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Thank you very much for handling
Thank you very much.
I say we adjourn to the pass and
That's real good news, Mr.
Dotrill, and I'm sure we as well as the citizens who live around there
are very pleased with that. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Go ahead.
MR. JAMRO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Jamro,
your museum director. Here we are again with the base level and, of
course, our two components of the museum service and one expanded
service request this year. Last year we determined -- although I
searched very hard, there was no mandate or legislation that obliged
you to have a museum. It is either in your view a cultural luxury or
cultural necessity. It's always your call, and we're your servants in
that regard.
If I can answer any detailed questions for you -- Maybe
the expanded service is the place to begin, that I thought long and
hard about proposing that this year, expanding our operating hours and
requesting two part-time employees to do that which I thought was the
most economic way to do that. I know that you have budget
considerations this year that are very pressing. This is a request I
think on behalf of the hundreds of people who have asked me to bring
this request to you essentially. That is the most often heard comment
that we hear at the museum. The second being we need more signs to
show people where the museum is. That one we can handle. But the --
Either a Saturday or a Sunday opening seems to be on most residents'
minds. They're quick to point out that their families never have a
chance to visit the museum unless we have a special event in which
case we're open. So that, again, I bring to you on behalf of our
constituency for your consideration.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Jamro, you operate Monday
through Friday?
MR. JAMRO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right now being closed on the
weekend is a normal matter of course. MR. JAMRO: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you considered closing one
day during the week and opening on Saturday, for example?
MR. JAMRO: Many times. And in larger institutions that
is often the way to go. As we are a county department, provide
information services to not only other county agencies but a variety
of businesses and the publishers in this town, we would actually lose
a workday. In a larger institution, you have your administrative
staff still in place and almost a phantom staff on the weekends to
handle those -- or evening hours to handle those expanded hours.
MR. DORRILL: That, however, was my reason for not
recommending it, was that if we wanted to explore -- we do have some
other departments that work a staggered work week. The best example
is Road and Bridge. Road and Bridge works four ten-hour days Monday
through Thursday, and then they're off Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
They have one crew that's on standby for traffic accidents and things
like that, and I thought there was at least the alternative of being
closed Monday but then open Tuesday through Saturday as opposed to,
you know, the $15,000 that it would take to open on Saturday.
MR. JAMRO: With four employees, if I may add, there
isn't a lot of ability to stagger. You know, we can't -- The museum
is sufficiently large now -- Well, they are staggering a little
because they're kind of overworked. But there isn't the opportunity
to really -- You must have at least two employees on site. We have
school groups that need shepherding and general visitors. The
facilities are subject to be open and closed. We currently have two
buildings on the honor system that are not staffed at all but are open
nonetheless. We have, of course, you know, vagrancy problems and
things like that so -- And also with employees with day care and other
obligations, the weekend hours seem to be out of reach for us. I
assure you we are making every effort we possibly can to enhance the
museum staff with volunteer participation. That is a goal of Friends
of the Museum this year as well. But some of this just cuts to the
very heart of volunteer services. You know, our volunteers without a
trained supervisor really isn't as effective as they could be, and I
think if we could -- My plan was to build a nucleus of volunteers
around at least a part-time employee.
But rather than jeopardize our Monday through Friday
operation -- I, of course, support the county manager's views. At one
point he had said how about a seasonal part-time employee. Maybe we
could explore that possibility. But I just want to bring to your
attention the fact that there is a demand, a very real one I think,
for weekend hours, and how we approach that is, of course, your call.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am, in essence, in support of
the museum. What you have done there when I first came to Collier
County only five years ago and walked into a trailer with a creaky
floor and pictures stacked up against the wall -- you're creating your
own problems, Mr. Jamro, by having a very fine facility over there and
a good collection, and it makes me ask this next question.
On item number two under exhibition and information
services, you had a lot of internal cost to the museum of building new
cases and new exhibits, and you've done a terrific job at that. At
what point do you see the actual internal construction of exhibits
tapering so that some of those funds are no longer necessary? In
other words, in essence, museum build-out. If we just continue
allocating the same amount of money for exhibits every year, there has
to be a point at which there's no more room for exhibits or that you
don't have an exhibit in mind that has a place to go. So I guess I'm
looking at a long-term plan for item number two to determine whether
or not we're going to be funding that in perpetuity or whether there
is an overall plan for that eventually to be phased down.
MR. JAMRO: Certainly. That's a great question. Well,
there are many responses. First of all, you raise funds to build
another wing to get more room you can, but I think we have to realize
that you can have too much museum sometimes. We're getting very close,
you know, to build-out.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have that much history
here. What we have only goes back about 100 years so --
MR. JAMRO: Well, the archaeologist would argue --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have their own spot over
there now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they will.
MR. JAMRO: There are always some expenses to exhibit
upkeep, of course. It's like a piece of furniture. It has to be
taken care of and conservation of artifacts, moving them, but we are
very close to build-out and I think -- in fact, this is about the last
request that we will need these kind of funds.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It helps -- It helps me
supporting that when I see the end result and I see the potential for
-- you know, for that change. It helps clarify it.
MR. JAMRO: We've been under construction for a decade
and it is time to -- The other pressures too are now satellite
facilities in Everglades City. There's talk in Immokalee. There's
work with the preservation board in marking historic sites. There are
other things the museum would like to get involved in, frankly, than
just build static passive exhibits. Let's go out and reach out to the
community and bring them here or, better yet, help them encourage
their local efforts in their own communities. Don't export everything
to Naples.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to that -- and I
thank you for that answer -- I'm also going to support Mr. Dorrill's
recommendation for the simple reason that I was a volunteer at museums
in college and spent a lot of time there and did a lot of work and so
forth. I would really like to see a heavy pursuit in that area before
allocation -- I know it's only $15,000, but at this point I'd feel
compelled to support Mr. Dorrill's comments. MR. JAMRO: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with that too. Mr. Jamro,
let me make a comment though. At the dedication of the plaque at the
Ochopee post office, you and I had talked about a touring guide at the
eastern part of the county. MR. JAMRO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And another gentleman there -- a
Mr. Warren had talked about dedicating Tamiami Trail from Royal Palm
to the 40-mile bend as a scenic drive, and I just want to tell you
based on the conversations at the TDC Monday night, I think you might
able to get those approved through the TDC. So that's another --
MR. JAMRO: That's -- That's encouraging news. I didn't
sense a lot of support there for those projects that evening, but if
you're telling me there was some support there, that's excellent news.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, based on Mr. Cuyler's
interpretation of the word "capital projects," it's certainly
worthwhile bringing them forward and seeing if there's money there.
MR. JAMRO: We work very well with the Collier County
Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board who is behind a lot
of that, and I think they certainly deserve encouragement, and I think
that is probably the way of the future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the historical board
would have a good opportunity. I don't want to hold this meeting up.
We can talk further about it. Do we have consensus on the NR for item
four?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And what are we going to do about
one, two, and three?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: E, D, D.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly what I was
thinking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: E, D, D.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: E, D, D? The base level meaning
the preservation of the building itself? Is that what that is?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Mr. Jamro.
MR. JAMRO: And the contents. Actually, it doesn't
include me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't?
MR. JAMRO: No. No. I'm not --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we'll consider that.
MR. JAMRO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we have a ranking of E,
D, D, and NR.
MR. JAMRO: What you do with the museum's collection is
-- essentially you are -- you have about 15,000 separate contracts
with donors, and you're obliged to ensure those things. Those build
up to your base cost. You know, that's why that's a little high.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. JAMRO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is parks and recs.
MR. OLLIFF: Parks and recreation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those little ones that should
just take a few minutes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 72 is the summary of the program
rankings.
MR. OLLIFF: Before we get started, one of the things I
wanted to try to at least press upon the board -- and I hope you all
got a copy of that little information packet we provided to you. We
tried to provide some comparative budget statistics from some of the
different departments. And I think, in particular, parks and
recreation continues to show that we're doing a whole heck of a lot
more with a lot less, and we're doing it better than almost anybody
around us. And I think some of the comparative numbers that I wanted
to at least point out to the board were the park maintenance employees
to park acres. I think right now we're about one employee to 24 acres
of park land maintained. And if you'll look at every other county and
every other community that we've surveyed, there's nobody close. And
if you look at our cost per acre that we're maintaining our parks at,
again, this year we're at $2,700 an acre and there's just -- there's
nobody close to those kind of numbers, and I think we continue to try
and do more with the less that we have.
One of the goals of the department is to increase the
total amount of revenue that we collect. Our ultimate goal is 50
percent. Our near-term goal is 25 percent of that budget. We told you
last year we were at about 16. This year we'll be at 17. I'm sorry.
Two years ago we were at 16. Last year we were at 17. This year we
expect to get 20. And, realistically, depending on some of the
decisions with the budget, we expect to be at 25 percent next year.
So we're trying to do more and more in terms of having the users pay
for the services that they get.
I think that sheet tries to show you that overall your
park staff does a real fine job, and I just wanted to make sure that
we pointed that out to you before we get started. Base level service.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. Thank you. I'm Steve Brinkman, the
Parks and Recreation director. And just to kind of summarize, we have
about four million users last year that used our parks and recreation
facilities. We collected about a million dollars in revenue. Of
course, most of our budget packages or our services are basically
discretionary in nature. We have no mandated state mandates or
anything else that actually mandate parks and recreation services.
The top seven packages are what is considered our
current level of services. The package number eight starts the new
requests and that's on page 83. We have a request for a departmental
secretary. At the current time, we have essentially doubled in staff,
budget, and revenue collections during the last five years and have
not added any secretarial staff, clerical staff to the department
during that time. We basically have one clerical staff to every 27
people in the department which is a very large number. So we feel
that that is a real top priority for our department to try to get some
additional assistance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What would this person be doing?
MR. BRINKMAN: Would be working out of the
administrative office, assisting over there with a number of different
duties, typing and handling registration, typing up registration
packets. We have kind of a multi-purpose office. Everyone kind of
pitches in and handles that with a number of different tasks and
duties. So they would be, you know, assisting us with those duties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who is currently doing that
work?
MR. BRINKMAN: The four clerical staff that we have on
board right now are doing that work. We would like to expand that
four by one additional person.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What kind of applications are you
talking about?
MR. BRINKMAN: All of our program -- When you come in
and sign up for program registrations or to run a facility, you have
to actually sign someone up.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that goes to a central
office? It doesnwt stay in the individual park facility?
MR. BRINKMAN: No. That does go to -- Therews --
Everything comes back to the central office as far as all the
paperwork and the cash information because we have to verify all the
collections that were done on a particular day, and we send that
information then on to the clerkws office or the cashiers.
MR. OLLIFF: Itls generally just office work. They do --
For every employee that you add, there are annual evaluations that
have to be done, annual paperwork for all of those employees as well
as revenue collection. We do in-house production of our own "Leisure
Line" publication. So this office staff is the one who gets that
ready for print and produces that. They just generally take care of
all of the recreational programming, sign-up sheets, and coordinates
all of that information.
We are trying to get to a system where anybody can sign
up for any program at any park at any facility. So welre trying to
make it as easy on the user as we possibly can. But all that stuff
eventually gets funneled through a single source before it ends up in
finance so that theylre not getting deluged by seven, eight, ten or 12
different locations. So therels one person from the parks office
whols saying, herels our revenue, herels the sheets that verify those
kind of things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems a little out of the
ordinary to -- inaccurate picture, I guess, when you say 27 people
ratio because I suspect the work of many of the parks and rec
employees such as lifeguards do are less likely to generate paperwork
than positions in other departments.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. Actually, though, everyone has a
certain amount of training, a certain amount of payroll. We have to
keep track of the hours. We have to arrange for all their personnel
work upgrades and evaluations and that sort of thing. So with every
employee, despite what theylre doing, therels a certain amount of
work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, since theylre
talking about the handling of funds related to applications for
programs and so forth, is it your intention that the DOR would
eventually take this over?
MR. DORRILL: We evaluated that as part of the billings
activity for that department, the concern being that we would still
need the assistance of parks employees but that we might do some
cross-training there long term because, otherwise, I donlt want to
have to put a separate departmental employee at the community center
or at the parks administration building just to receive cash. So some
of the concepts are similar, but I didnlt want to have to hire or
place administrative staff out at parks facilities just to receive
cash.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my question is if they're
taking these applications at all the various park sites and along with
checks or cash or what have you and funneling them to the central
parks office where they are then accounted for, it seemed to me that
they can just as easily funnel it to DOR.
MR. DORRILL: In longer term, that's their intent to be
able to transition back so that they're -- The fiscal accounting
effort for purposes of making the deposits and things like that would
then come back into your other departments. We're trying to get them
out of that business over the long term.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we were to agree to add this
person and whenever the DOR is fully up and operating -- I think that
won't be too terribly long -- what happens then to this person? What
happens to the work that the four people who are already partially
doing that they won't be doing it?
MR. DORRILL: I'll get the staff to help me a little
further with that because you've otherwise still got a very big
purchase requisition and department coordination. They are performing
the secretarial and clerical duties for all of the recreation staff
and the recreation programs and some of the things that they alluded
to, the marketing and the publication of the parks and recreation
newsletter and the magazine and the things that they do. Beyond that,
I'll tell you, I don't think they have a lot of correspondence work
that they're involved in because they're more program as opposed to
correspondence and administration. Y'all help me help you here if
there's anything I missed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Based on what we're
talking about, I'm having some difficulty with adding another
secretarial FTE. If we're going to be going through this transition
program, I'd rather go through the transition program and see if this
person is still needed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: NR.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: NR.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: NR.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, for that reason, I mean,
I -- We're in the midst of making some changes, and I don't want to
burden ourselves with another person. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff was one of the
fortunate and capable county staff that came in with levels of service
that we can pick and choose from, I believe. In the way of parks
maintenance you've offered three levels of service. What he's done is
given us the ability to choose a level of service and an associated
cost, whether we want to maintain what we have, whether we want to
reduce that, whether we want to eliminate it.
My question is, by choosing one of those levels, how
will it affect items eight through 157 In other words, are we putting
the cart in front of the horse by talking about these individually
before we choose that level of service? Because by choosing it, we
may eliminate the need for some of these, and I'm just curious as to
the order by which we take that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Another thing -- Let me
get this on the table because it's something that we probably need to
discuss because the privatization plus task force has been talking
about the parks now for three or four months gathering various
information, and one of the things that they are discussing and
listening to various companies on is to contract out the maintenance
of all the parks to one company or two companies, whatever it takes
for the size of the county, and then looking for non-profit companies,
i.e., maybe civic associations to actually operate the various parks
and so -- and that has an opportunity to reduce our cost
astronomically. I don't know where it's going to go. They're in the
midst of investigating it, but it is something that's on the table
very much, and I don't think they're going to have a solid answer for
another four or five months.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That isn't going to really have
any play in what we're discussing here today but it may down the road.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it may before this fiscal
year goes into play. So, I mean, we may be making some changes to
what we're talking about based on whatever the privatization plus task
force comes up with on a recommendation for this. Commissioner
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Mr. Brinkman, I'd like to
sort of propose something to you that I -- that was similar to what I
proposed to the library director. And that would be the hypothetical
question, what if we instead of going down here and picking and
choosing as the Board of Commissioners each individual program that
you have outlined, what if we just asked you to come back in June with
a -- for example, 10 percent overall reduction and you make the call
on how to do that and still provide the maximum amount of service?
Would you be able to handle that all right, that type of a request?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. I'm sure we could handle, you
know, developing something like that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you think that you could handle
that type of request and end up with a more well-rounded service than
if we sit here and try to cherry pick your operation program by
program?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's leave that as an
option, and we may want to talk about that again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are our specialists, aren't
they?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. Yeah. And that was the
point I tried to make with the library operation too, is that they
know their operation a lot better than we do and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if we're going to assign some
cuts, let's let them decide where those cuts would be best made and
still provide the maximum amount of service that they could do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, I don't disagree with
that at all. I just feel like we've sent Mr. Olliff and maybe a
couple of other department managers down one path and now we're kind
of changing tac because he did, in fact, provide us with a buffet, and
we can pick and choose and so forth. As a matter of fact, I see a
difference between level-- the existing level of service and the next
level of about $1.5 million between those two, and it's been outlined
very clearly on what he's proposing and so forth so --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, the staff has already
ranked each of the programs. So based on reductions, I would assume
if you did not approve any of the expandeds, and he had programs one
through seven, my guess is program seven would be the first one
hypothetically that he would evaluate eliminating based on his own
ranking.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is this points
out something that I think we were trying to get to at the workshop,
and that is that 10 percent in some departments may be much more
difficult than others, and this gives us an opportunity to see what
that reduction is. Ten percent in this department would be just over
$600,000, I believe, whereas we have a chance to fiscally look at what
a $1.5 million reduction would be.
And please understand me. We have what I consider to be
the finest parks that I've ever seen, and no one wants to jeopardize
that, but the bottom line is still the bottom line. And a tuft of
grass on the infield clay a couple times a week, is that worth, you
know, $100,0007 You know, those are the decisions we have to make,
and I like the way it's presented here.
So if it's the board's desire just to go to -- to ask
for a flat 10 percent, you know, that's fine, but I do think we've
been given some very important information here that helps us make a
specific decision.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, the 10 percent figure
is just a hypothetical. I mean, I'm just asking if the concept would
be better than having us delve into it further.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, does the
department manager prefer it? Is that more or less what you're
asking?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I asked.
MR. OLLIFF: We can certainly do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why can't we do this, that if
we're looking for a 10 percent cut in the park's budget, why can't we
ask them to design a program that produces that, and let's see what it
looks like.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, right now, once
again, I'm not proposing a 10 percent cut in either this or the
library. I just posed the question to see if that would be a
functional way of arriving at a reduction in case we even decided that
we wanted a reduction.
MR. OLLIFF: Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
thought that the way this whole process worked last year is you ended
up with basically that list, and basically you took all the D's at the
end. And rather than just saying, "Parks and Recreation, let's look
at your D's. What would you recommend," somebody at a higher level is
making a recommendation about is that D more important than a library
D more important than an ag D.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Collectively at the end of this process
you will have an entire list of all programs ranked discretionary and
then --
MR. OLLIFF: And from a countywide budget standpoint, if
you want to say, let's look at what 5 percent would be, then here's
the line. If you want to look at what 10 percent would be, then
here's the line from a total staff recommendation would be made.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. And I'm assuming the manager
would make recommendations within that whole laundry list of
discretionary-ranked programs and he would have to evaluate obviously
again between -- program seven in this case is summer recreation
programming versus extension of branch library operating hours. Those
would be the types of decisions that would have to be made.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me it doesn't
have to be neither nor. I think your suggestion is a good one,
Commissioner Norris, but I think we still need to go through this
exercise because the decision is ultimately up to us. But I think
you're absolutely right. The people who are working in those
departments know the ins and outs of those departments better than we
do.
So if we're looking for a specific number, they need to
be aware of that. As far as individual priorities, they may have --
we may disagree on some or we may see things here that are not
recommended. We've already done a few of those and I -- I think. So
we need to go through the exercise, but I think it's a great idea that
we should alert them to a number. Perhaps 10 percent is too small of a
number.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: True enough.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We seem to be stuck on this 10
percent and I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't know what the number is.
I mean, that's totally a hypothetical. I'm sure that when we get to
the end of this process and look at what the proposed budget is and
compare that with what we had last year, then we'll have a dollar
figure and then we can -- we can reallocate where that dollar figure
is cut if, indeed, the board wants to make the cuts, and that's really
what I'm trying to get at.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In June you would have this hypothetical
laundry list of programs that are discretionary, and based on the
tentative budget -- line item budget we would bring to you, it would
be inclusive of all the discretionary-ranked programs. If you're
unhappy with either the spending level, the millage rates, whatever,
we would then refer back to that laundry list of discretionary
programs and pick and choose amongst them to arrive at whatever either
dollar figure or millage rates that you want to back into.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see a little bit more how it
fits in. I was looking at it -- again, inexperienced of going through
this process, I wasn't sure how that fits in with what we're trying to
do here today and I'll go ahead and --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In prior years we've had the luxury of
being able to afford the items that were ranked discretionary. We've
never actually gone back in and had to choose between A versus B
versus C versus D.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I guess we should go ahead
and proceed with the rankings on these.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I want to talk about item
14 and that's the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to talk about the rest
of the add-ons. I don't think we've heard on any of them except the
secretary, and we've not recommended that one.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I was focusing on one
through seven so understood. Number nine, is it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Number nine, the athletics/sports
supervisor.
MR. OLLIFF: If you look at the numbers there -- I'm not
sure what page that is -- page 84. If you'll look at the numbers
there from '92 to '93 fiscal year to what we're currently at, at
125,000 versus 75 -- 77,000, the growth of the athletic leagues has
just been absolutely enormous, and that's all your softball leagues,
your little leagues, your soccer leagues. All those leagues are
combined into this number. And if you'll look, we're basically
running a county athletic league program with two FTE's. There's two
people basically that coordinate every league in this county and
schedule all of the fields for those users.
MR. BRINKMAN: This would provide $10,000 in revenues,
well, which would pick up about half the cost of the person so --
MR. OLLIFF: We get complaints all the time from those
league people who feel like the county ought to be more involved in
how their league operates and they ought to be scheduling more and
working with coaches. We don't have that luxury. We've got two
people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we going to raise the league
fees to cover the costs?
MR. BRINKMAN: We could do that.
MR. OLLIFF: We have been doing that almost annually to
try and get that revenue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, if we're going to be
adding staff to cover leagues and it's been the policy that the
leagues cover their costs, then the $22,000 would need to be absorbed
by the league fees.
MR. BRINKMAN: We could increase those costs. Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What are the costs right now for
league fees?
MR. BRINKMAN: It varies between leagues, and they're
both youth and adults so it's a wide variety.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At $22,000, what's the estimate
that it would raise it each league's fee for the entire year? Maybe
$5?
MR. BRINKMAN: We would have to go back and take a look
at that. It might -- It might be as much as $5 or it may not.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought would be if you can
get it in the league fees, do it. If you can't, we can't afford it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's my point. If we
can't raise it -- If we're talking about hiring somebody to handle
leagues, we need to be able to pass that cost on. If we can't pass
the cost on, then we can't do it.
MR. BRINKMAN: We charge each of the youth leagues now,
for example, a $5-per-head fee that does come back to the county so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I agree. That needs to be
absorbed in the league fees.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Discretionary?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's discretionary I would think
so long as they can find a way to pass the fee on. If they can't,
then the person doesn't get hired. How does that sound?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds good to me. D/NR.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. And do you agree with
that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like you've got three.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would suggest concentrating on
the player fees and not the sponsor fees on that because every time
you raise the sponsor fees --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You lose sponsors.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it goes crazy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would seem to me that as many
kids and adults play in these leagues that you might be talking a
quarter.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 125,000 people. I think we can
fix that.
MR. OLLIFF: The other thing to look at is, is there's
just been sheer revenue growth by the growth in the leagues itself
without even raising the fee at all just because you end up with more
and more leagues. There's a great deal more revenue coming in than
there is, you know, the previous years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's talk about the
additional community centers. Mr. Dotrill, you have this rated NR.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. This would provide an additional --
MR. DORRILL: From an economics issue, this would
provide additional full-time staff at the community centers. As I
understand -- again we're in effect, you know, penalizing ourselves
for the success of the community centers. I know there are times when
there's only one individual who is on staff. In addition, there is a
maintenance person who may be there during a certain portion of the
day. But I was not looking to grow those programs, and we were going
to stay with the staffs that we have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me it was only a
couple of years ago that we were looking to cut assistants from some
of the parks themselves, and I think that failed. They did not end up
ultimately cutting those, but there was serious discussion about that.
So now it seems odd to me that we'd be looking to add over and above
MR. OLLIFF: Well, what this request is, is the
community centers are open 80 hours a week. We have three people at
each community center. That's basically a supervisor and one other
person and a maintenance staff person. The maintenance person is not
a person who can collect revenue or who can run programs or provide
oversight of after-school youth or any of that kind of activity. So
generally half the time the community center is open there's only one
person there.
The other thing you need to realize is that outside of
that community center staff, there's no one in the park. So you have
a 35-acre park that there's no one there. And so there's generally one
person for half the time that it's there, and that person has got to
stay in the building. They can't leave that building unattended and
go wander the park and make sure that things are okay.
So we've talked about this before. Frankly, we've got
some exposure there that -- you know, we've got that much land and
that much athletic fields and recreational equipment out there without
any staff people at all. And on a Sunday, unless a group is using the
community center, there are occasions where your parks have no staff
whatsoever.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, you put not
recommended. How much exposure do you think we have here?
MR. DORRILL: I was not worried about that given the
overall -- the list of programs and anticipating that you've already
added one new park at the Vineyards this year, and you're going to add
another new park in Golden Gate Estates, and I had a concern for
additional floating coverage, the park ranger's position. And that's
why when you get to the very bottom of the list, I like the concept of
a floating individual that would allow more hours, not necessarily
full-time coverage, but hours at all county park facilities. So I
stuck with the park ranger in lieu of additional community center
staff.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As someone who's used the
basketball courts hundreds of times and never needed a soul, I agree.
MR. OLLIFF: We have -- We can continue to do that.
It's just the difficulties that anytime somebody is sick or they're on
vacation, you don't have the coverage, and we have to try and move
people everywhere around the system to try and cover that, but that
can be done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we having any problems -- any
serious problem with vandalism in the parks at this point?
MR. BRINKMAN: We're generally having a vandalism
problem. It may be greater in one or two parks than in some other
Ones So '-
MR. OLLIFF: But even then, the vandalism is generally
after hours because that's when -- There's users generally in the park
while the park is open, so that cuts down on the vandalism. The joke
is, in some of our racquetball courts, they're such billboards for
spray-painters that we have to repaint them so often that they're not
regulation size anymore. There's so much paint on the racquetball
court. Yes, we do have some problems.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do have some problems with
vandalism. Do we have consensus from the board that that should be --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not recommended.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: NR.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: NR. The specialty program, Mr.
Dotrill, you ranked it NR?
MR. DORRILL: I think we can dispense with both of the
next two in my categorizing nice-to-haves, and when you get into
expanding the marketing function of a recreation program that is just
exploding, I think that if you do nothing at all, you're going to see
probably another 10 percent increase in recreation activities at your
parks. In the specialty aspect of programs, I just -- I felt the same
way.
Towards the bottom of the list, I did like the idea of
call-in touch-tone phone registration to aid in recreational sign-ups
and registration.
I probably would have not recommended number 14 subject
to some additional board conversation. This needs to be looked at in
terms of an avoided cost. You asked us earlier in the year to explore
our improving the county standards recreation fields at East Naples
and Pine Ridge middle schools, and we were being responsible then for
the ongoing maintenance, the mowing, fertilizing, spraying, striping
of those fields but in return for which we then get after-school
recreational use. I was a little surprised by the cost of that. But
because we previously have been directed to explore that, that's why
that is still in there. And I already gave you my comments on park
ranger.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Talking about $180,000 in
additional maintenance on the school athletic fields to be used as
parks, are we any closer to having a recreational easement from the
school yet, from the school board?
MR. BRINKMAN: We are working with the legal department
to structure kind of a model recreational easement we can take back to
the school board. So, yes, we are working on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't feel comfortable about
adding maintenance people and doing expensive maintenance on something
that the school board at this point can say tomorrow, "Forget it. We
need the property."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
MR. OLLIFF: And you made that clear to us. And I
think, you know, before we ever invested dollar one in the capital
improvement on a school site, especially the major types that we're
talking about here, we would want some assurance that we had a
long-term easement that would protect our investment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree with the
chair. I'd say not recommended there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's not do that and hold
it -- Can we at least hold it in abeyance until --
MR. DORRILL: My answer is yes. That's why I said I
would have not recommended that aside from your previous interest that
was expressed to us, and we can update you on the easement process.
MR. OLLIFF: We have maintenance of those facilities?
There's a timing issue that I don't see occurring certainly not in
October and probably not until the tail end of next year if we even
got it then.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I just -- You know, I
think the school has a budget problem also, but I don't think we
should incur our budget problems to save theirs. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we NR'ing that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're NR'ing that based
upon what I'm hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, I'd like to suggest
NR for marketing enhancement.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We did that, I think.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that done?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that stayed. The
specialty program too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What have we -- eight through
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The phone registration and the
park ranger are what we're discussing now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, what is -- the phone
registration for what? Registering for what?
MR. OLLIFF: Recreational programs.
MR. DORRILL: Anything.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a mother of a participant,
please, please, this would be a huge enhancement.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Up until the last year it was like camp
overnight --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's horrible.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- to sign -- to ensure that your child
would get into the summer program.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. What that would do is it provides
a computer software that provides an automatic package. When you call
up, it's a voice system and leads you through a particular
registration. You sign up for that. It automatically signs you up,
the software does, and then you enter your credit card number, and it
automatically bills you for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you get the over-the-phone
physical too?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, as a matter of fact.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be cheaper to do a
simple lottery? One time -- I mean, you don't have to stay all night
if it's not first come first serve.
MR. OLLIFF: This is for every program -- like for
after-school programs for working parents and for summer camp it's --
MR. DORRILL: Whether it's summer camp or you want to
take karate or golf lessons, you're trying to register, you can do it
over the phone rather than literally having to drive out and fill out
the registration.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
up for some --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
Nobody -- Unless you've done it
-- you're trying to sign your kid
-- program and you cannot do it
over the telephone. You have to physically go down there. This is
troublesome for working parents.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. This will allow you to do it after
you get home from work at eight o'clock in the evening or ten o'clock
in the evening or on a Sunday afternoon.
MR. OLLIFF: And then you can come and pay when you've
got the ability to get down to the park and pay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Since this doesn't entail an FTE,
I think we're -- we're probably agreeable to it. I just have one
question on it. And that is, you're talking about credit card numbers
over the phone, and I'm presuming that there's a security mechanism
for those credit card numbers --
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. BRINKMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
what we're talking about?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
ranger, 15.
-- so that they are not abused?
Yes. There is a system for that.
So 13 is going to be D? Is that
Uh-huh.
Yes, me'am.
And now let's talk about the park
HR. BRINKMAN: The park ranger is right now currently --
especially during the season, there's not any coverage of our
community park sites. We had an attendance last year of about a
million and a half people in our various community parks, especially
heavy for athletic use, and this would allow a park ranger to get
around and be in those park areas, especially in the evening hours
when all those ball games and things are happening.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those that --
depending on what level of service we chose, it has a very direct
effect. If we chose a reduced level of service for the park rangers
and they'd need to go out and hire an additional one would not be
there. So I think until we know that, it has to be left at least
discretionary until we know what the other level of service for park
ranger across the board is going to be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What exactly is he or she
going to do when they hit -- I mean, at the different leagues and so
on, there are coaches, parents, or spouses or -- you know, I'm
assuming in the case of an emergency someone who can respond at most
of those locations. I'm wondering what the purpose is.
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, there's -- For example, in the --
They're always -- especially with the nights that there are lots of
games, which is just about every night of the week, there's usually
traffic jams and people who park illegally and block -- in other
words, block the actual parking lots or lanes of the road. So someone
needs to ticket those cars and to get the person to move their
vehicles in that instance. So there's a lot of -- and there is a lot
of people problems when you get that many people in a park area,
people abusing the rules and regulations. And because we don't have
someone who can go out and patrol the park from the community center,
it's important that at least a ranger be there. Also, we have a
number of community parks, so that person needs to get around to all
those different areas. So that in itself is a big job, and respond to
calls and problems.
MR. OLLIFF: There's a lot of alcohol in the park kind
of issues that the rangers deal with. I mean, if there's not somebody
who occasionally at least goes through there and says, "You need to
get that alcohol out of the park," if it doesn't happen, then it just
becomes a habit, and then those people will continue to do that kind
of thing, or dogs or whatever it is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just hate to think -- By
the way, I noticed last year on our calendar cover for Parks and Rec
it was two kids and a dog, but we don't allow dogs in the park.
MR. OLLIFF: I noticed the same thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On a leash, aren't they?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think a dog --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. You're right. They're not.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not even on a leash.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just hate to have somebody
-- We're talking about all the spread-out parks, and I hate to have
someone spending 60 percent of their time behind the wheel of a jeep
which then we must provide them and the gas and so on. So it goes
further than $22,000, but I hate to have them spending 60 percent of
their time on the road between parks.
MR. OLLIFF: That's the decision we make, and your other
choice is try and staff somebody at the parks. And we still think
even if he can only be there 20 minutes per park, it's still cheaper
than having a staff person part time in each of the parks and --
because during the season, as Steve indicates, the rangers are
primarily stuck at the beaches because the traffic at the beaches and
in the beach parking lots just absolutely demand that there be
somebody there to try and take care of what is just a crazy situation
during the season at our beach parking lots. There's no one for those
other community parks. And we'll probably end up using some of the
existing vehicles if it's an evening person. Those rangers that work
the beaches during the day, it would be -- the same vehicle that was
used during the day would be that person's vehicle at night.
MR. BRINKMAN: Which is why there's not a vehicle cost
in here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
strongly objecting to it.
So that's a D then?
Yeah. I think.
Yes.
I think that's what -- Nobody is
Keep that a D.
Has there been thought to concession stands at the
various community parks for these -- all these leagues plays that we
have parents and families?
MR. BRINKMAN: There are.
MR. OLLIFF: There are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are already?
MR. OLLIFF: Each of the leagues runs a concession
stand. We're being told -- and I've got a meeting, in fact, this
afternoon with the health department officials who indicated they're
thinking about trying to require restaurant standards for concession
stands which would mean basically the concession stand people are out
of business for cooking food.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So DNR is back at work, huh?
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When the health department
tells you that, remind them that they have to come back before us one
more -- two more times in the budget process. MR. OLLIFF: I will be happy to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that our public health unit or
is that the DNR?
MR. OLLIFF: I think the actual discussions are coming
out of the state level. The local people just enforce whatever it is
they're told to enforce, but that is the arm through our local health
department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. So we do have
concession -- Are there agreements on that for fees? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's all in place. Okay. Shucks.
I was hoping I saw another place to pick up some money.
MR. OLLIFF: The other statistic that I thought was
interesting, in all talks of privatization on that budget fact sheet
we did go through and look, and in terms of total budget of the parks
department, 60 percent of the department's actually already privatized
and -- I mean, it's through concessions and all of our major beach
facilities or concessions with fees. And, you know, we're doing as
much as anybody that I know of in terms of privatizing our parks
department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. I've got
two points to bring up at this stage of it here. First of all, it
seems to me that a large number of the personnel positions at Parks
and Recs would be ideally suited to use as recap positions. Are we
using recap in Parks and Recs to any extent?
MR. OLLIFF: Not really. Primarily because of the
salary scales. In Parks and Rec, most of the employees -- we don't
pay them enough that they -- they reach that threshold at the initial
recap reports that have made it worthwhile to put them in recap.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. The other one is since
we're talking about park rangers and beach parking lots, I have -- I
guess it's your analysis -- it doesn't say whose it is -- of
reinstituting beach parking fees and the revenues and expenses that
would be involved. Did you do this one? It looks like March the 9th.
MR. OLLIFF: It is. I -- In fact, I -- For some reason
-- Go ahead.
MR. BRINKMAN: Somehow I knew this was coming, and we
went ahead and prepared for you an updated version.
MR. OLLIFF: We haven't been contacted by anybody. Just
knowing the budget situation the way it was, we knew this was an
option the board would probably want to see at least and discuss. And
then these numbers I will tell you right up front -- If you'll just
shoot right down to the footnote at the very bottom, the double
asterisked footnote, it says that all the vehicle counts are based on
'90, '91 actual car counts. I mean, these are old numbers, but what
we tried to do is show you the numbers that we had the last time we
had fees. So realistically I think that we would probably do
significantly better in terms of revenue than these numbers show.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The only way that I'm really
interested in beach parking fees is if county residents are able to
get an annual sticker that allows them to either park free or maybe
they would buy the annual sticker for 20 bucks. I think back in the
past we had one for 35 bucks if I remember right. Is that -- Does
anybody remember that?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that correct?
MR. BRINKMAN: There was one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So maybe they're involved
financially at some degree. But if you don't have a sticker, then you
pay the daily rate. And do these figures reflect factoring in that
the locals will have a beach parking sticker?
MR. OLLIFF: I think they do only -- I say that only
because when you establish the annual fee, you try and establish that
based on how many times you expect someone to come through the
turnstile anyway. So I think the annual fee would reflect that person
coming through 30 times, or whatever it would be, at a dollar a car.
So, yes, I think so.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you a question on the
master meter proposal. If you, for example, take $3 a vehicle, that
would be a day. So they go in and they slug the meter for three bucks
and they get a slip out that says that they can park all day long; is
that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They could even leave and come
back, I guess?
MR. OLLIFF: You could set it up any way you want to.
That's the way this was set up, a $3-per-day charge. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only way I have any
interest is if it's free to all our county residents. I think the
beach is the most basic recreational service we provide, and to start
charging our own residents -- and, again, the example I've used in the
past is, two or three bucks to you or me may not seem like much, but
to people who have two or three kids and who are scraping by month to
month, if it makes them even stop and think about whether or not they
should go to the beach, we've done a disservice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I am vehemently opposed
to charging the taxpayers who paid for the improvements that they're
parking on to pay for them again. Vehemently opposed to that. If we
want to charge visitors, that's a different ball game, but I will not
support in any way additional cost to taxpayers of this county to park
at the beaches that they have paid for.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm certainly willing to listen to
it as -- on the basis of local citizens getting free stickers or
anywhere up to, say, 20 bucks, but I do need an explanation of how
it's consistent with not charging them anything but yet charging local
citizens a fee to go to the swimming pool, for example. I mean, how
is that consistent?
MR. OLLIFF: The argument that has always been used
before is that a county beach is considered a park just like a
community park is, and you can generally go into a community park
without a fee just like you can to a beach. And then there is always,
how can you make that distinction then. Going to the beach is going to
cost you something.
There are some other alternatives, and one of them is an
interpretation out of the County Attorney's Office. We've always had
this argument when we've brought it up about whether-- if ad valorem
is being used to a certain percent to fund your beach maintenance
cost, then there's an argument, at least in my mind, that can be made
that you can charge people who are out of county and not charge people
who are in the county as long as your percentage of ad valorem is
being funneled into there accordingly. So if 20 percent of the people
who use the beach are local residents, 20 percent of that budget is
funded through ad valorem, then local people shouldn't have to pay
because it's just then a matter of how are you collecting the money.
I'm collecting it from local residents through ad valorem. I'm
collecting it at the gate for those people out of county. I'm close
to getting them to bend on that, but I've got to work on that one.
The other option is Lee County pays for all of their
beach maintenance through their tourist development tax. Everything
that has to do with beach maintenance is paid for out of their tourist
development tax, period. And I don't know whether that's something
that our county attorneys would give you a legal opinion and say you
can or can't do that, but I found that out yesterday, that that's how
they pay for their beach maintenance program.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think once we bite the $15
million bullet to make beaches again, we'll then have several million
dollars a year that we certainly could use for maintenance or
additional parking or whatever we wanted to use it for. It just
happens that I just signed a memo going to Mr. Cuyler once again
asking that question about a tiered beach parking for essentially free
for county residents, a fee for out of county, and a larger fee for
out of state, and I'm still trying to get an answer to that question.
MR. OLLIFF: If the board ever decides to use tourist
development taxes, I wish you would pick somebody else to go to the
TDC and make that request.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't see it happening until
after the beaches are done and paid for. I mean, I wouldn't even want
to approach it until then.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Back to the original subject --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Back to the original --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I would certainly like to
propose that we do reinstitute the beach fees and like to ask the
board members to sort of start on the decision process whether we want
actual staffed locations at some of them or whether we want to go with
master meters. There's certainly ups and downs on both of them. The
staffing requires some funding obviously, but, on the other hand, you
get a larger measure of control at your beach-front parking lots and
the parks themselves. So there's a level of decision to be made
there, but I'd certainly like to get the discussion moving along
today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see a real -- I'd prefer the
staff method as opposed to meters for the simple reason that we can
adjust it based on seasonality. In the middle of June, if we're not
even getting enough collections to pay for that staff member, it
becomes a seasonal part-time position without benefits. We have a lot
of seasonal people down here looking for part-time work. That's the
peak time. That's when we're going to gain the most revenues. So I
would prefer to look at, if we're going to address this issue -- and I
believe we are -- to look at a staff position, potentially seasonal.
When we see those lines cross that it becomes a cost to us, that we
cut it off for that time period of the year and that there is, and I
repeat, no cost to county residents.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Comment?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The only way that I'm
even going to participate in the discussion is if there is no cost. I
don't want, "Well, maybe only $20 or essentially zero." I want it cut
and dried. No cost to county residents.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't help but support that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Otherwise, I don't have any
interest whatsoever. Of the two, I would lean toward the master
meter, only because after the first year, the one-time cost, it brings
in that much more money. It's a huge differential in how much we can
make as opposed to put out there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's a very good point and
that's where the -- really the central part of the discussion is
whether it's worth it to have an additional measure of control at
these parks and free up some -- there will be some other ranger and
other staff time freed up because of that that, of course, is not
reflected in those figures, and that's where the discussion lies right
now and where the debate needs to go, is whether it's more beneficial
to us to have the staffing than it is to go with meters and collect a
little more money or a lot more money and not have the control. So
that's the discussion I would like to see go forward.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I could go either way on that.
I'd look forward to getting more information, but it sounds like at
least two members of the board are in line with making sure residents
are not charged beyond what they're currently paying in ad valorem.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's three members of the
board not wanting -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, at least that part of
the debate is settled.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Residents -- Residents are paying
their fee through ad valorem taxes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's fair enough, and I have
no objection to that. As I said before, anything from zero to 20
bucks is fine with me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Obviously the permit that they
give -- If we go to a master meter situation, the permit that they
have will be a plastic card that lifts the gate for them or whatever
it's going to be.
We still need to get an answer through from our legal
department as to whether we can charge a tiered structure on parking
at the beaches, because in some of our beaches we have used grants,
state grants, and it may be -- and it may behoove us to pay the grant
back. I don't know how much money we're talking about but we need to
-- need to get those answers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll need that analysis, and I'm
sure we'll get it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I will remind the board that
we're doing this right now, the City of Naples, the identical same
thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. I know. We're paying
them what? What are we paying the City of Naples?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 210.
UNKNOWN VOICE: $210,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It appears someone in the
audience has done a small amount of research in this area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we want to go back-- Tim,
you had mentioned the different levels.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We need to resolve that
yet too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Under Parks and Rec, I'd
like to -- at levels one, two, and three, obviously one being close
the gates, they're nice parks, and we'll see them in ten years, I
don't think anybody is looking for that one. It seems to me the
decision lies between the current level of service -- which is I
believe three, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and a reduced level of service
which is two. The difference to me appeared to be $1.5 million, and
the main functions that were affected were maintenance functions such
as mowing of grasses, dragging of infields of the parks and so forth.
Although I saw the impact on level two to say unsafe conditions on the
infield, you know, possibly die-off of grass because it not being
mowed frequently enough -- I don't know enough about the Bermuda grass
out there, but I mow my grass once a week and it's fine. So mowing it
three times a week, I don't know if that's really going to create a
die-off. And as far as only dragging them four times a week, I mean,
I grew up on ball fields that were dragged twice a year. So, you
know, I see the point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I grew up on ball fields that
never got dragged at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right on this
point. I raised this point last year, and I think whether the exact
level you have here and the exact dollar is it, I think we can do a
reduced level. If we're looking for dollars to cut, it seems mowing
twice a week instead of three times a week or picking up trash twice a
week instead of three times a week, all those things are very viable
to look at, particularly the kind of money we're talking about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, would you be kind
enough to move us through this two, three, four, five, six, seven and
what it means because I'm a little bit confused as I get to the back
pages as to what it is we're really talking about. You have parks and
recreation at one million one a piece for two and three. What does
that mean?
MR. OLLIFF: The department is organized into several
major sections. There's a recreation section. There is a maintenance
section. Within the maintenance section is also that ranger program.
That's why we show it together. It's probably not, you know, a good
perfect fit, but that's the way it's organized currently. So that's
how we show it to you in the way of programs.
Each level of these programs basically layers on from
the base level and shows you -- you know, here's a very minimal level,
and then there's added services in each of those extra levels, and I
can go through some of that detail.
I think maintenance is where you seem to be focusing,
and it's just a matter of how many times the park gets maintained in a
given week. Currently right now we go out to the parks and we mow
that grass three times a week. Because of the type of grass it is,
that's an important thing to do. It helps the grass stay alive, and
it protects an investment that's out there. And because of the use
that those fields have, it's important as well. But we're emptying
the trash every day. We're cleaning the bathrooms every day. You
know, we're taking care of those things every day. So I think if you
look at level two it's easier perhaps on the maintenance side to look
at --
MR. BRINKMAN: On page 78 is the parks maintenance level
two, and that gets you up to 77 percent level of maintenance and 56
percent on the rangers. So that on the maintenance basically they're
doing the community parks four times a week versus seven. They're
doing neighborhood parks two times a week versus three. They're doing
the school sites two times a week versus three, and the regional parks
three versus five which would be what we are currently doing now.
MR. OLLIFF: It's almost easier on some of these things
if you keep your finger in level two and three and you can sort of
flip back and forth and see level two compared to three there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I spent the better part of the
last 20 minutes doing just that, and I think the maintenance reduction
is something that has got a cost savings that is worth taking a look
at. The reduction in rangers from seven visits a week to three visits
a week is something that we may not want to do, in my opinion, for the
simple reason that the vandalism and so forth -- and, again, I'm not
talking about just vandalism, but those rangers' trucks provide a
quiet upkeep service to the park that I think is important. So I'm
looking at possibly a hybrid of two and three but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If we were -- What's the
-- What's the absolute -- I'm just confused with what makes up $6.1
million. That's on the front page, the subtotal.
MR. BRINKMAN: All seven -- All seven of this first
packet -- MR. OLLIFF: 6. -- $6.6 million is what it costs you to
have the park program you have today.
MR. BRINKMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BRINKMAN: Current service level.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we were to go to service level
two which is your 77 percent and 56 percent on rangers, what am I
knocking out on these levels?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioners, on page 78 under the
statement of service level, it identifies under maintenance and
rangers what level two buys you in this packet versus the 100 percent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that, but I'm on the
front page. I want to know --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She's asking about dollars.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You'll be knocking off number six
and number seven.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will be knocking off number six
-- Okay. So if we were to do that, we would have an NR on six and
seven.
MR. OLLIFF: No. It's not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought we would on
that.
MR. OLLIFF: No. That's not the way to look at that.
The way to look at that is there's -- If you'll look on the cover
page, there's three park levels. Park level is number two, number
four, and number six; correct?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: If you look at park level number four,
staff ranking number four, that park is what you're saying is shown as
level two in your pages. If you decide that's the level you want and
you will back out the last park section, the last park level of
service which is that $689,000 figure on the right.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right. That's what I meant.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's what Commissioner
Norris -- MR. OLLIFF: But not number seven because number seven
is recreation. So if you want to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Recreation builds the same way.
MR. OLLIFF: Right. Recreation builds -- Recreation has
nothing to do with maintenance. So if you decide, for instance, to go
back up one level of recreation, then you would slice off the last
level of recreation then.
MR. BRINKMAN: The number seven package.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Got you. So if we were to
take this level service of two on park maintenance, we would be
reducing the 6.1 by $689,000? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now I understand it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: So what I'm suggesting is that we
make two through five E's and six and seven D's, and we can decide
whether we want to cut back on either the parks maintenance side of it
or the recreation side of it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What does -- What does the level
of service seven buy us on the recreation side?
MR. BRINKMAN: That's basically the summer camp program
and the -- and the --
MR. OLLIFF: Summer food group.
MR. BRINKMAN: -- summer food group.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the food -- Isn't the food
grant program self-funded?
MR. BRINKMAN: Self-supported. Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Self-supporting. So there's no
point in knocking that out. And the summer program, if we were to
knock that out, we'd have several hundred parents banging on our
doors, wouldn't we?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I would think so.
MR. OLLIFF: Coming through -- Coming through my office
first.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me know when they start.
I'll take a vacation.
MR. DORRILL: Commissioner Hac'Kie would have a coil of
rope.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Chain.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I wouldn't be able to leave
very easy, huh?
MR. DORRILL: Not on that one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For that reason, since seven is
the summer parks program and the summer food grant program, I couldn't
support making that -- I mean, I can support making it a D, but I
don't think I want to support knocking it out.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
number six, the parks?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
six.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Okay. That's fine. What about
I don't have any problem with
Let's make a D out of that one.
Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think a D and then ask Tom
and Steve to dig through there and see -- item by item, when you start
cutting a mowing day or a trash pickup day, what does that all tally
up to.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So then we're going to make one,
two, three, four, and five essentials; six a D; and seven an E --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: An E if we want any sleep.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Because I -- if I want a good
night's sleep, it's got to be an E.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if it's discretionary,
that doesn't mean we're going to cut it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think that's true.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is a discretionary program
but we just --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By putting a D next to it, we
would ensure those phone calls and visits.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we would because I
just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, it is not an
essential service to the county. It's discretionary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You're right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Mr. Olliff and Mr.
Brinkman have the message that we're looking more at six than seven.
MR. OLLIFF: Our -- You know, in terms of your
definition, our understanding is everything we do in this department
is D if you want to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's absolutely true because
there's nothing that says we have to do it other than 186,000 citizens
who live in the county who like our parks.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From an efficiency of time
standpoint, wouldn't we want to go ahead and make seven an E like we
have made two, three, and four an E?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: See, I don't -- I have no problem
with making it an E.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we don't have to look at it
again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me. I don't
think it's going to go away. I have a real good feeling.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to knit-pick
over it, but they're all discretionary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. They are.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if you're going to
make them all the same, make them all a D and note under item six that
we'd like to see some cuts. But, I mean, our own staff has just said,
gosh, this isn't essential, so let's not write it down as essential.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually, none of it is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None of it is essential.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we're characterizing some of
them as essential.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I love to argue, it
probably doesn't matter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hold it. Commissioner Hancock
brought up the idea that rather than adopting staff ranking six as the
level of service that we want to consider, he was asking for some
hybrid between the park ranger and the maintenance program, and I'm
wondering if you can do that to give us some level at which you feel
better about the --
MR. OLLIFF: I think what I've heard is you'd like some
more information specifically about if you went down the level in
maintenance or if there's a recommendation about some reduced level of
maintenance from your staff, we can put that together for you before
you wrap this up.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: But I think you also said you don't want
to include a reduction in the park ranger functions as part of that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about -- How about you just
separate out the cost -- the ranger cost between three days a week and
seven days a week so we can look at that specific item.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's fine.
MR. OLLIFF: We can do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Chairman, before we leave, I
would like to ask the board to give the staff specific direction on
what to do about the beach parking fees. We talked about it, but we
didn't give them direction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Matthews
has pointed out, we can't do anything as far as -- unless we know --
unless we know what we can and can't legally do. So I think we've
expressed an interest as long as nobody in the county is responsible
for paying twice and we'll await Mr. Cuyler and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As soon as I get that memo from
Mr. Cuyler, I will share it with you, Mike. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if he comes back saying that
we can put a tiered structure together, maybe we would look for you to
be giving us some idea of what to anticipate on a tiered parking fee.
MR. OLLIFF: What I've heard from the board is that
there are three members at least who would consider it if there were
no cost to county residents and so there were a --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we're not sure we can do
that.
MR. OLLIFF: There were a couple of options that I
provided to you that would do that, and what we can do is a little
analysis of that and then get that back to you and let you make that
decision.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. And that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Will you -- Will you request Mr.
Cuyler to get busy on that?
MR. OLLIFF: Hopefully from the chair.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got a memo going to him
today. Also, part of that analysis may have to be in anticipation of
paying back grants, and we'll need to know if that's necessary or not.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We are I presume finished
with parks? Where are we going next?
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Don't we have Golden Gate
Community Center?
MR. DORRILL: You can finish the division probably
within five minutes if you'll focus on social services and veteran
services on page 96.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have to do the Golden Gate
Community Center?
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. I passed over that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that all funded through a
taxing district?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not all of it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A portion of it is funded
through the taxing district.
MR. OLLIFF: With the addition this year out of the
impact fees, if you've ever driven down the Golden Gate Boulevard
there, you'll -- I mean --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Parkway.
MR. OLLIFF: -- Parkway, you'll see it's well under way.
That portion is a county portion. The other portion is a taxing
district portion. It's an odd and unique setup for us, but it's a
60/40 expense split there where 60 percent of it based on square
footage would be a county function. Forty percent of it will continue
to be paid out of a taxing district.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The base level is simply keeping
the building from deteriorating?
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that would be an E?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an E.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Level two, what does that entail?
MR. BRINKMAN: That just brings in three folks to run
the center and gets it up to about a 40-hour-per-week operation
number, and then the third level actually brings in four additional
folks and runs the facility 80 hours a week seven days a week.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a note on -- it says
midnight basketball here. Some of those programs are great programs,
but I think we can organize those through volunteers and not expend a
great deal of money. I know you'll have the lights on in the
building. But I've got a good friend who put that together up in
Orlando, and it is done virtually at no cost. So I think we can do
some of those just like little league doesn't cost anybody money. I
think we can do volleyball and some of those things at very little
cost.
MR. OLLIFF: Again, this is that facility -- and
Commissioner Constantine knows better than I do, but it's booked
generally three and four months in advance, and then the public demand
for that is greater than any facility that we have so --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: So we're going E, D, D? Is that
what I'm hearing?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: E, D, D?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fine for me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are now to --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 96, social services.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Good morning, Miss
Skinner.
MS. SKINNER: Good midday. This is Martha Skinner of
your social services department. I think my presentation here is
pretty well self-explanatory. Over 50 percent of my budget is state
mandates. This department has been in the business of delivering
services showing that our county does care for even our poorest
residents out there since 1951, basically the same programs except
that occasionally the state comes down to mandate that we have no
control over. We try the best we can to control those costs. And if
you will see on your facts sheet from social services, we're getting
better and better at our Hedicaid billing expense deductions,
deletions that we're avoiding cost of. And in '94/'95 if we continue
at this rate, it looks like we might exceed $400,000 in savings.
MR. OLLIFF: That was a phenomenal number to me. That
means that there were that many billing errors in the bills that we
receive from the state, and I think we're one of the few counties that
goes through every bill bill by bill. We deduct '-
MS. SKINNER: Every item. We got a $69,000 bill day
before yesterday. We spent just concerted hours to get these figures
in, and we ended up paying 13,000 on that bill. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good grief.
MS. SKINNER: Out of the errors that we were able to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I like the sound of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let me --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you will be proceeding to our
cloning factory after this also, won't you?
MS. SKINNER: We have shared this with other counties,
and now they are doing this. And the state is screaming they want new
legislation to pin us down to send us a bill once a month, this many
people with no backup, no proof that they're county residents.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. Rather than doing a better job on
their billing, what they're proposing is we'll just give you a
flat-rate bill.
MS. SKINNER: Which you can't correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you won't know who it's
for.
MS. SKINNER: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I do have to say -- and Hartha
and I have at FAC board meetings fought this issue at least twice now;
right?
MS. SKINNER: Very successfully.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sure we're going to be
fighting it again because the large counties do not want to review
their bills. They just want to pay it.
MS. SKINNER: With the savings they could accumulate,
they could have three or four people and still be monies ahead but
they --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they don't see that and --
anyway, so it is a fight that we'll be continuing I'm sure through the
FAC. You want to continue, Hiss Skinner?
MS. SKINNER: Yes. I've outlined -- I don't have the
pages that you have here, but the base level is outlined. The base
level that I have indicated here is the mandated state programs that
-- for instance, Hedicaid hospital payment, Hedicaid nursing home
payment. There is an item called the Health Care Responsibility Act
where we are assessed $4 per capita that would make our obligation
around $750,000 a year. We really go over those applications very
thoroughly. That's to cover indigent care that cannot be given in
Collier County such as trauma centers, burn centers that our people --
our indigent patients have to be sent to another hospital. Those
counties should not have to bear the cost of that so the home county
does have to. We have kept that expense down to 20 or $30,000 a year
out of our obligating cost of $750,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excellent.
MS. SKINNER: So another thing we have that is a
mandated is our indigent burials. We don't leave our indigents laying
around dead somewhere. We have to by state law do the indigent
burials. Cremation is not allowed in case those bodies were to be
claimed later in the state law. So we do pay for that cost.
As you know, the abused -- the medical exams for abused
children is also a mandate. The counties have been fighting that, and
more and more counties are being pushed by judges to come on line with
that. We're still in the process of trying to get a contract for this
year, and I'm sure that will be coming to you very shortly. And we
also insist that they go to every other avenue of payment such as
Medicaid for these children, third-party payers, or whatever. And we
figure on everything we do here the county is the agency of last
resort. So we do try to get them into any other program -- on any
program we have here before we do pay.
We're seeing about 20,000 clients a year passing through
our office. I have three social workers handling that caseload and --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many? Three handling --
MS. SKINNER: Three.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- how many cases?
MS. SKINNER: About 200 -- We have 20,000 contacts a
year that's either phone information referral or absolutely coming in
and determining eligibility for services for our program or any other
program that we can refer them into.
We haven't added a staff member in almost six years. My
secretary -- Because of the requirement of our finance department now
with 20/20 spreadsheets and ledgers and blanket purchase orders and
requisitions, my secretary is totally overwhelmed. I find myself
doing some receptionist duties because she's so backed up with book
work that I am asking this year for a part-time person so she can do
the book work and the part-time person could act as a receptionist
which would be the lowest paid rather than asking for a physical
person.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that's your enhanced client
service support person? MS. SKINNER: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the base level staff ranking
number one you're telling us is mandatory? MS. SKINNER: It's mandatory, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The services for seniors?
MS. SKINNER: That is a grant program that we provide a
hundred thousand three hundred thousand -- one hundred three hundred
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The amount stated on there?
MS. SKINNER: Yes. Yes. Yes. And match money for a
grant of 619,000. This money provides in-home care services to our
frailest elderly to keep them functioning in the home as long as
possible without going into nursing home care. If they went into
nursing home care, we think that 300 of the 400 would be eligible for
Hedicaid nursing home care which would then be a cost we would have
under our mandated Hedicaid payment that we'd have to pick up, that
the cost for 300 at what we're paying at today's rate would be
approximately $198,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So by paying the 100,000 --
MS. SKINNER: The match. Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we're saving $100,000 roughly.
MR. OLLIFF: That's a great program. This is one of the
programs where we get to do things -- it actually costs us less than
it would otherwise, and you'll never hear about it again once we leave
here today. But, I mean, we pay a dollar for every six that we use,
and we keep people in their homes here in the county as opposed to
being institutionalized. It's just a real good program.
MS. SKINNER: And, as you can remember, last year I cut
four long-term caregivers that go out actually in the field and take
care of these people because we found out that we had to cut costs and
be competitive and we franchised that out. We contracted all that out
enabling us to pick up approximately 30, 35 more clients. That was
hard to do. Some of these people have been there 15 years, and we're
really dedicated to those clients.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this an E?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We'll be ranking that as an E, you
say?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would say it's E because we
certainly don't want to have to spend more money to achieve the same
level of service. Item three, emergency medical assistance.
MS. SKINNER: Most of those referrals come from our
local physicians and our hospital. And, as you know, as I've said
before, we're the agency of last resort. A for instance would be a
mother of four children -- the husband maybe is a tractor driver in
the fields -- goes into the emergency room. They discover a tumor
mass. She has no insurance. There's no place for her to go. She
doesn't qualify for Medicaid or any other program. She would qualify
under our indigency scale for us to help her get the surgery she needs
and go back and be able to be a mother to her children and take care
of her children.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought this was what the
hospital does in their great benevolence.
MS. SKINNER: They do -- They do their benevolent part,
but for years we've been doing a small part of just the very poorest
people and they -- The hospital is very good. They try to get them
into every other program so they won't be a part of their indigent
caseload. But those few --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is separate from the
hospital's indigent caseload?
MS. SKINNER: Yes. This is a $200,000 item, and because
the need was so great last year and I had extra money in Medicaid,
that went up to $300,000 last year, but we're holding to 200,000 this
year. We expect, because the demand is so great, we'll be out of
money in this account probably in May.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we didn't fund this, the
hospital would do it?
MS. SKINNER: The hospital -- If we determine
eligibility and decide they're truly indigent, after May we'll call up
the hospital and say, "These people meet our eligibility criteria.
We're out of money," and they will continue to write those off.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why wouldn't we be out of
money today?
MS. SKINNER: I think it's the token part that the
county is saying, yes, we are doing something for our indigent
hospital caseload. We've done it for a long time. It doesn't mean we
have to continue to do it, but that would be your call.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds like a D.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like a D to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. You've got $990,000 here
instead of 200,000. What's the rest of that for?
MS. SKINNER: Well, the other part is paying the doctors
to operate on these people and put them to sleep and take care of them
in the hospitals. A lot of the doctors are referring to us.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So those help in euthanasia.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say put them to sleep?
MS. SKINNER: Well, anesthesiology.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're talking about animal
control again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is not euthanasia. This is
monitoring surgical procedures.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We round them up. We put them in
small cages.
MS. SKINNER: I mean, they have to go to sleep to have
the tumor mass removed. But there are, you know, like three or four
doctors probably involved in one case, and I wheel and deal on those
costs.
MR. OLLIFF: There are some cases that come up in this
particular program where I'm not sure that the hospital would do those
things. If a person shows up with a broken arm, you know, I'm not
sure the hospital would do something for that person if they could not
and did not have the ability to pay. If it's a life or death kind of
thing, it's a critical issue, the hospital will do that. But in some
of these cases I'm not sure that they will, and those are the cases
that we're usually involved in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Medicaid, they have to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
I think they have to.
I think they have to.
If they accept Medicare and
They have to.
-- provide indigent care.
MS. SKINNER: But they don't qualify. If there's a
husband working in the home, they're not going to qualify.
MR. OLLIFF: And you can't believe the number -- the
percentage of the population who works enough that they don't -- they
don't qualify.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They fall through these cracks.
MS. SKINNER: All of our service people have no
insurance and they don't qualify.
MR. OLLIFF: And this is a crack. Exactly.
MS. SKINNER: We're supposedly a safety net which most
counties are. That's why we keep saying, state, don't mandate your
kind of cost out on us. Let us be the safety net for our people here.
Let us do what we can for our own local people.
I have, for instance, a case in front of me that this
lady had to have all of her -- about half of her foot cut off because
of diabetes. The hospital bill was 25,000-something. We paid 8,000
because that's the term we have with the hospital. We pay 80 percent
of the Hedicaid per diem rate, and that's at my insistence. The
doctor's fee on this was like twenty-five fifty-three. We paid him
$1,600.
So every way I can I cut those dollars and make them go
as far as we can to give the most service for the poor people that we
can, and that's a part of that item two -- item three. I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item three.
MS. SKINNER: Item three.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But I think those still are a
discretionary service --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- even though it's a good
service.
MS. SKINNER: Another part of that 900,000 is
prescription drugs. A lot of these people are picked up out of our
aging services program. We've got aging people that are on income of
five or $600 a month.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Hiss Skinner. I think
we've already ranked that one as D.
MS. SKINNER: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We ranked it D.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You could just go on to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's go on to emergency general
assistance. Now, I presume this is food and housing, electricity and
so forth?
MS. SKINNER: This is shelter for people that are sick
to give them a chance to recover that have been discharged from the
hospital, have broken a leg --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought Hospice did that.
MS. SKINNER: Not if they're not terminally ill.
MR. OLLIFF: Only terminal.
MS. SKINNER: Six months to live or less. But this is
to get people well enough and then out of the woods with broken legs
and so forth, get well enough so they can go back to work.
MR. OLLIFF: If that same client -- when they get out of
the hospital, if they were living paycheck to paycheck, they can't
afford to meet their rent payment, they cannot work, generally they
will either try to go back to work and aggravate and make worse the
situation that they had before. So in those cases, we will step in
and make sure that they have that one-month period in order to get
better and go back to work and so that we don't end up paying for more
hospital bills for that same client.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's got --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds like a strong D to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Strong D.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's got a 30-day maximum on it?
MS. SKINNER: Thirty days, unless it's just such a
severe case -- we might go the second month, only up to $350. Host
rent is more than that. So then we call in the help of Saint Vincent
De Paul's, Salvation Army, whoever we can to supplement what we can
do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. We're down to item
five, the enhanced client service support.
MS. SKINNER: That is the receptionist part-time
position that I would love to have so I don't have to pick up phones
and see people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What would you do with all the
free time?
MS. SKINNER: Oh, I'm telling you, I just don't know
what I'd do. I don't know what I'd do. I do social work, and I do
receptionist work, and I do social service directing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any chance of getting
our RSVP program -- MS. SKINNER: I've had an application in for two and
half years. I have not had one response, not one.
MR. DORRILL: We talked about that the other day.
MS. SKINNER: And I have pushed. I've called HRS
several times. I have not had one response.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm certainly willing to leave
that as a D.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'd like to try to fill
it, though, with an RSVP person.
MS. SKINNER: I would love to.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Skinner.
MR. DORRILL: On page 104.
MR. OLLIFF: Veteran services.
MR. SCHULZ: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Lew
Schulz, the director of veteran services. My program outcome
priorities I've defined for you is three different areas. Number one
represents the base level.
MR. OLLIFF: Just so you know, those of you who went
through this budget process last year, we did something a little odd
in his budget. We actually budgeted for his retirement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's still here.
MR. OLLIFF: He's still here and has decided that not
only is he going to be here this year but has committed to me that
he's going to be here for the following year as well. So I think
that's good news for us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's some happy veterans
out there.
MR. OLLIFF: He does a good job.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of them is sitting right
here. I've used -- I've used the department before I sat on this
board and was very pleased with the service I received.
MR. DORRILL: We have unquestionably one of the most
professional reputations in the state for meeting client service
needs, and that is due entirely to Lew's efforts. MR. SCHULZ: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we need to
spend a lot of time on one or two. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think they're both
essential, but I'm not sure what the additional item is.
MR. SCHULZ: Number three, Commissioner, represents an
expanded request for the establishment of a half-time physician that
will be comprised primarily of additional client representation as
well as to facilitate the transportation program that we have. We
have approximately 30 drivers who drive all over to provide that
transportation, but it's extremely difficult to get individuals to
commit to facilitating the program. We've augmented it by a work
study contract with the VA. We just finished the 455-hour work study
individual. But, again, trying to accommodate it with volunteer
becomes extremely cumbersome because of the responsibility and the
nature of the program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, you had not
recommended. Why?
MR. DORRILL: Same issue. It's not politically correct
to argue against veterans' programs, and this is sort of that ongoing,
"Gee, we need someone to coordinate our volunteer effort," and the
transportation program has worked very well and has benefitted -- the
volunteer support has been tremendous. Mr. Constantine has aided them
in getting some rolling stock, and as a result of that, has just --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What?
MR. DORRILL: It's just a family joke from earlier in
the week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
MR. DORRILL: They have their own van.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds like an automobile.
MR. DORRILL: This is one that I struggled with a little
bit, but the program started two years ago, was entirely volunteer,
and now asking to begin to put a part-time paid county employee there
to help coordinate the volunteer aspect of it, it -- there is one
alternative here to focus on a recap-type individual. I left it
there. It's your discretion. But, again, it's -- are we going to
have paid county staff coordinating volunteers.
MR. OLLIFF: Two other points. We've talked about this
since we've actually sat through the manager's budget review, and
primarily the bulk of the work is seasonal here. It is through that
six-month period, and we've looked at that, and I think we can
probably revise that request so that it is not only a part-time but a
part-time seasonal. So you're actually only talking about a .25 FTE
position in this case. And if you want to talk about dollars --
actually in terms of dollars, because we actually budgeted for his
retirement last year in terms of net dollars in terms of that
department's budget, you can do this and still have a reduction in
that department's budget next year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those rare
occasions where we have a department that has operated on the finesse
of shoestrings for so long. I have a difficulty in refusing this kind
of a request for that department, particularly if it's going to be
lower than what is shown here. So I can't support a not recommended.
I'd like to support a D.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can do it as a
part-time part-year and to come up with -- right here you have number
of personnel, one, and you've said you could actually do it with .25.
So that means maybe for 3,000 bucks, you know --
MR. OLLIFF: That's half the cost that's shown here. So
if it's 11 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 5,500 bucks.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hard to argue I think.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's leave it a D.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: D it is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: D it can be. Do we have
agreement on staff ranking two that it's going to be essential or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- or a D for --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- discretionary? Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: The last budget for you to look at is me.
Nothing has changed, and I am totally discretionary at your beck and
call.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How about just R for recommended?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is you and your secretary?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's an E.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's a pretty complicated
program. It would probably fall apart without somebody at the helm.
So I agree. It's an E.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
that's why we like him.
Same here.
He offered D.
I know he offered D but --
Yeah. But that's his nature, and
MR. DORRILL: We sent the environmental service people
away. I suggested maybe that they not come back until about 1:30.
I'm going to advise the transportation department that we'll
reschedule them for another day, and I'm going to suggest that you
spend the rest of the afternoon on environmental services and quickly
the Pelican Bay service district budget if that meets with your
approval.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're recommending that we
skip over transportation and do that another day?
MR. DORRILL: I just -- I think at this time the effort
to go through environmental services and Pelican Bay will probably
keep you through I would think at least three o'clock, maybe four
o'clock, and I think we'll all have had a gracious plenty by then.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When is your anticipation we get
transportation in?
MR. DORRILL: I would imagine that's what he's getting
ready to talk to me about as soon as y'all recess for lunch. We'll
let you know that later this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. You'll let us know after
lunch. Mr. Dotrill, you're saying 1:307
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or one o'clock for us.
MR. DORRILL: I'm suggesting that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's take a recess until 1:30.
(A lunch break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the budget
workshop for March 15, 1995. First on the afternoon agenda is
environmental services. Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
environmental services administrator. I'll have Dave Russell walk you
through -- and each of the department directors walk you through each
of our -- our departments.
MR. RUSSELL: At the top of the page here it shows our
base level operating --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Smykowski handed
out this solid waste department board chart, and those that have an X
through them are the ones that are going to move over to Waste
Management; is that correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's my understanding. Dave, do you
want to just comment?
MR. RUSSELL: Right. This is a post-privatization
organization chart and the areas that are X'ed out are the staff that
will be eliminated from --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other positions on
this or. chart that are currently vacant?
MR. LORENZ: The senior engineer position is not going
to Waste Management. That is currently vacant and that's basically
just eliminated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the one that's got an X in
it?
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That -- that one is
vacant? How long has that been vacant?
MR. RUSSELL: Several months.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Several. Six? Eight?
MR. RUSSELL: Four.
MR. LORENZ: November.
MR. RUSSELL: Was it November?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have the chart with me
that we had yesterday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you anticipate eliminating
that position, or do you anticipate filling it?
MR. LORENZ: No, we anticipated eliminating it as a
result of the privatization. That's why we left it vacant when it was
-- when -- when the person left. And I think it was around
November; October, November.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So that -- that one's
dropping out of the budget as well as the 18 that are moving over to
Waste Management.
MR. LORENZ: That's part of the 18 that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When I add these up, it's 19.
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. We added one position to
the -- because we're operating the scale houses, we added a fourth
customer service rep. So the net then is 18 positions as we had told
you in --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eleven, twelve, thirteen,
fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen. The boxes
with Xs in them add up to 19; is that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And there are no other
positions that are currently vacant?
MR. RUSSELL: We have some positions currently vacant.
Naples transfer station crew leader --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's vacant?
MR. RUSSELL: -- is currently vacant.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How long has that one been
vacant?
MR. RUSSELL: For approximately one year. We have been
covering that responsibility with our landfill field supervisor. Now
that that position is going to be eliminated, that -- that will
present some problem in having adequate coverage. We also used the
equipment operators at the landfill to cover for the equipment
operators at the transfer station. And we won't be able to do that in
the future, so it will be necessary to -- to fill that position. We
left it open, one of the reasons in mind, that with privatization that
potentially that could be a place for one of those people that wanted
to stay with the county, a place for them to go. And it looks like
that might indeed be the case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the two equipment operator 1
positions at the Naples transfer station are also vacant?
MR. RUSSELL: No, those are -- those are currently
filled.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, you added a fourth customer
service representative?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct, to cover the two scale
houses at Naples and Immokalee landfills for the future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's for the future. That
person's not yet working. They're not approved yet, are they?
MR. RUSSELL: I guess we had -- we had informed the
board that we were going to -- in this privatization process we had
informed the board that we were going to add a customer service rep.
to man those scale houses once the decision was made the county was
going to retain those.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has that person been hired yet?
MR. RUSSELL: No, that person has not been hired yet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's -- that's the
question is has the person been hired yet. And I presume you're going
to go through the appropriate budget amendment -- budget amendments to
create the position. Even though you've informed us, we have to go
through the process.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes. And one of the approaches that --
that could be taken there is to take the -- for instance, the
Immokalee crew leader position and downgrade that position to a
customer service rep. would be -- in the logistics of it, that would
be one of the ways to accomplish that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But that person's leaving. It's
got an X through it.
MR. RUSSELL: Right.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the proceedings.)
MR. LORENZ: What we're talking about is basically we're
talking about taking the position and moving the position over to the
scale -- as a scale house representative.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm -- is this that -- in
the privatization effort, we were talking about 18 jobs going with the
contract to WMI.
MR. RUSSELL: See, if we reclass --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're leaving 18 jobs in --
MR. RUSSELL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the current structure.
MR. RUSSELL: If we reclassify that 1 of those 19
positions, then we would, in fact, then be eliminating the 18.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, I think.
MR. RUSSELL: So either eliminate all 19 and then
authorize an additional position to cover that customer service
position or just reclass 1 of those 19.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, let's -- let's move
forward. I think we understand the process.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On the summary you had 36 adopted
employees in the adopted '95 budget. You're showing a net reduction
of 18.
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And in addition a proposed 18 for next
year's budget based on the post-privatization.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one question before we go
forward on this -- on the chart. It shows a recycling coordinator and
an assistant recycling coordinator. Is there enough work that you
have to have two people to do that?
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, there most certainly is. The phase
of recycling we're moving into is going after that commercial sector.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. RUSSELL: It is going to take continuing effort in
contacting these businesses to work with them to give them that little
nudge to get that recycling activity going. In fact, there -- there
is an enhancement that we're going to ask you for to make that
assistant recycling position -- right now it's a temporary position.
We'd like to make it full time and show the community we're making
that commitment to develop a good commercial business recycling
program.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What will that assistant be
doing 40 hours a week? He or she comes in on Tuesday at 8 a.m., and
what do they sit down and do?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If we're going to jump to that, why
don't we just go right into program package 6 which is a discussion of
that effort if that's all right with everyone.
MR. RUSSELL: This person is going to be spending the
majority of their time out there actually meeting with individual
businesses, and we're going to try to minimize the time that they're
actually at a desk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page is this in the packet?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 10.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, I mean, describe for me
Wednesday then they don't come to their desk. But what do they do?
They get out of bed. They shower. They shave. They get dressed.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They might be women.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They might be shaving their
legs. They drive to wherever they're going, and what is it they do
for eight hours?
MR. RUSSELL: They are going to meet with that
individual business and show them how they can recycle and possibly
make some cost avoidance and actually save some money by reducing
their disposal fees and, you know, help the county improve our
recycling numbers. I think in a lot of cases, private business
sector, the people are very busy. And that's just that one more thing
that they never quite seem to get around to doing. And if we can just
take a little bit of their time and -- and discuss the issues with
them and demonstrate what the possibilities are that we can build
those numbers.
MR. LORENZ: The person currently is working 40 hours a
week, so it's a full-time temporary. She also works on -- with the
school systems to bring on various classrooms and school systems in
the recycling program. She works on a lot of the presentations,
public awareness brochures, these types of things. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The difficulty there due to the fact
that that's been a temporary position is in the middle of the page it
identifies over the last four years it's been filled with three
different people or been vacant. And that's been -- a major component
of that has been the lack of benefits. People have -- we lost an
assistant recycling coordinator who went to the city for a job with
full-time benefits.
MR. RUSSELL: I think there's -- there's quite a
learning curve as an individual works for us in recycling out in the
community to find out who out there is interested and to -- and to
kind of network out there in the community and build working
relationships with people. And if we have kind of a revolving door
situation, I think that position is much less effective if you're
constantly having a new person that's starting from ground zero and --
and -- and learning to contact these same people and so on and so
forth. I just -- I just think it demonstrates our commitment to -- to
-- to make those numbers grow.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On our stated goal of
reaching 30 percent recycling, we're at what? Twenty-eight? MR. RUSSELL: Twenty-eight.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How important is this
position toward reaching that final 2 -- reaching and maintaining that
final 2 percent?
MR. RUSSELL: I think it's essential because that --
that commercial business area is one of the areas where the numbers
are. And I think the state -- in very short order we're going to be
hearing 40 percent and not 30 percent. They're going to move the
target up.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are any bills pending right
now with that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No.
MR. RUSSELL: I'm not aware of the details of that.
MR. LORENZ: No, not yet.
MR. RUSSELL: But that's -- that's been the discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you compared the cost of,
you know, some brochures, some advertising, something -- I mean, this
seems to me that it might not be the most cost effective way to -- as
a person in private business, it's not hard. You call up and say, I
want one of those bins, and they bring it to you. And people are
pretty much -- it's hard not to be aware every time you throw away a
piece of paper. I don't know who's not aware of the need to recycle
in the business enterprise, private enterprise. It seems we could
spend money better than hiring somebody to -- to say, did you know
recycling's a good idea and it can save you money and it's good for
the environment? Surely there's a better way to spend our money than
that.
MR. LORENZ: Well, what we're working -- what this
person will be actually doing is working with the business to try to
hook the -- and other services that are out there providing a limited
recycling service to try to almost be a broker between that service
and the businesses, find out which businesses are interested, what
quantities of materials particular businesses have so that the
businesses can then get hooked up with a recycling service that
currently is not -- has not penetrated very much in Collier County's
market because there's not a lot of businesses that are subscribing to
the service. And that's -- that's basically been our strategy on the
business side is to try to hook that up, and this person's going to be
working with them very closely.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 3, Bill, you've -- you've got
some activity measures related to the business recycling component
that, you know, estimate this year 5 percent of businesses
participating, so that's pretty much an untapped resource in terms of
getting us over the hump toward meeting that goal.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what would it cost just to
send the -- the recycling materials to businesses? I mean, this is
too -- too much of a Mickey Mouse -- I mean, I don't need to get into
business that -- in that much detail. But it seems to me that this is
an example of one where you could accomplish the same goal a lot more
effectively than hiring another person, being sure they get full-time
benefits.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, we -- we already have that staff
person here, and this is about adding an increment to make sure that
we get the quality there that we need and the continuing commitment
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you've got one person and
we're at two -- what were the numbers? One person is getting us two
percent last year in business recycling, but two people or one and a
half persons are --
MR. LORENZ: No, no, no, no. We currently have two
people dedicated to the recycling program. One is a permanent --
coordinator is permanent. The assistant is temporary, basically a
40-hour temporary person. She doesn't receive any full-time
benefits. It's like a RECAP position. But in the past, we've had --
we've had at least -- well, we had one person who left the position
because of -- it wasn't a full-time position with benefits. So the
increment that we're asking for is budgetary cost of around $6,500 to
put the -- to put the existing person on -- on board full time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm more likely to see that
position as one that can be cut instead of one that should be added
to.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Me too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my vote is going to be D at
best on that one. If you guys want to make it an NR, I can go for
that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Bill, you already have a pretty
comprehensive in terms of brochures, advertising. Why don't you
discuss a little bit already the marketing efforts that you've done in
the recycling area. The recycling program itself is funded by
recycling grants that are received from the state of Florida and --
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct, and there is -- we do have
quite an extensive advertising dimension to our current recycling
program. And I think it's -- it's -- we're going to have to maintain
that, and we're going to have to always supplement that and get out in
the community to actually -- like I say, there's always those people
that will go out of their way to recycle, but there's a majority of
the people that are very busy and they need a little bit of
encouragement.
So I think it's a combination of what -- what kind of
literature and advertising you can get out into the community plus
some -- some one-on-one interaction to get the people to take that
next step to actually get involved.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is this position funded?
Sorry.
MR. RUSSELL: It's state grant. State recycling grant
funds have funded both these positions since we put the positions in
place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The state won't pay the health
benefits?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. They'll pay -- they pay
the full salary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They pay the full boat.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then I don't see that we should
necessarily --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd say leave it discretionary
and let's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on. Base level of
operation is -- how is this viewed by you, Mr. -- Mr. Russell?
MR. RUSSELL: Basically the solid waste administration
role would be one of contract administration. There will be five
positions in administration, four position manning the scale houses
and, of course, those two recycling position. It shows you where
those 11 full-time equivalents exist.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do -- do you -- is this mandated
by state or federal government, maintaining the base level? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is mandated?
MR. RUSSELL: It falls to the county to provide basic
solid waste services, you know, whether we do it by private contract
or -- or '-
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It falls under base under a health and
safety component of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it's not mandated, but it is
essential.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Mandated means there's a
law that says thou shalt do this.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: State or federal law.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: But the definition of base level also
includes components for health and safety or maintenance of a capital
asset.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we -- and we also -- we also
have a county ordinance requiring mandatory pickup by the county
contracted service.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, and you will note that
in prior years the mandatory component was included in base because
your previous definition had been local ordinances being inclusive in
the base level service. This year you opted to segregate those. And
you see program number 3 is the mandatory garbage collection
component.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Do we have a suggestion
from the board?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question. You said
primarily this -- these 11 people are for contract management?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the scale house and the
recycling --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I understand, there are four
people in the scale houses, and there's two for recycling. I guess
I'm asking how much contract management do we really need?
MR. RUSSELL: Well, we have the franchise collection
contracts. We'll have the landfill and operating contracts. We'll
have to be aware of all the processing contracts that will eventually
turn into subcontracts with Waste Management. We're going to have to
continually monitor those and -- and be involved because the county
will continue to set the rates and have to evaluate that activity.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to me it sounds like a lot
of people for contract management.
MR. LORENZ: Two of those positions are the recycling
positions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. RUSSELL: Right. And four are to run -- four are to
run the scale houses. We still have a -- a finance supervisor because
the county's responsible to track all the fiscal activities and make
the disbursements to the contractors for both franchise activity and
the disposal activities. Administration will also have to be involved
in the siting of the new landfill --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's try to approach --
MR. RUSSELL: -- and the development of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me try to approach it this
way. These five people that you've identified in contract
administration on your or. chart, who are they?
(Mr. Dotrill entered the proceedings.)
MR. RUSSELL: Okay. That's the solid waste director,
the senior secretary, a superintendent position downgraded to a
coordinator position, the recycling coordinator, assistant recycling
coordinator, and finance supervisor.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, just the administration
people.
MR. RUSSELL: Okay. Strike the two recycling positions
and plus the customer service reps. at the scale houses. Those
people --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We knew there were four at the
scale house. We knew there were two in the recycle, so there's five
other people. Who are they? What are their positions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are they on this chart?
MR. RUSSELL: The director, the senior secretary, the
coordinator, finance supervisor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The coordinator you're talking
about is the recycling coordinator?
MR. RUSSELL: No, this is the current superintendent
position.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Downgrade to coordinator.
MR. RUSSELL: It shows downgraded to a coordinator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's number three.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's three. The solid waste finance
supervisor is four. There's four scale house operators. That's
eight.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
MR. RUSSELL: And there's an office assistant 2 down
here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's number five.
MR. RUSSELL: -- at the bottom that's the fifth that you
asked about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we have a solid waste
director who supervises a senior secretary, a contract coordinator,
and a solid waste finance supervisor. It's an awfully small chain of
command.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's supervising an office
assistant?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. They're supervising the
scale house.
MR. LORENZ: The director's also supervising the
recycling coordinator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's too many people in here
in addition to not needing two recycling coordinators. If you ask me,
there's too many people here.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any suggestions that we want them
to try to do?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I -- I guess the only
thing to do is what we've been doing so far for the past couple days,
and that is say it's discretionary. Prove it to us whatever month
this summer we're going to be sitting here again unless you want me to
just start lopping off who I think.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't you make some
suggestions because I tend to agree there's a couple too many
positions here. If we can get them out of the way now, that will save
our staff from throwing that into the budget in the meantime.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, looks like we have a
superintendent downgrade to coordinator on the same level as a solid
waste finance supervisor. I could see that we need a director. We
need a secretary. We need one person perhaps under there. Why do we
need two people there? What are they going to be doing that one
person can't do?
MR. RUSSELL: We also still have three transfer station
sites and people in the field in those positions.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the superintendent
downgrade to coordinator? What's this person's job?
MR. RUSSELL: That person is going to assist the
director in all his duties and also oversee the activity of all these
transfer stations.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then what does the solid
waste finance supervisor do?
MR. RUSSELL: That finance supervisor is going to have
to track all the finances of all the contract activities and make
those disbursements, be responsible for those scale house activities,
plus the transfer station fiscal activities that occur plus any
procurements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might -- might I suggest rather
than us going through all this today that we tell you there's at least
one person on this chart that looks unnecessary and possibly two, and
we would expect when it comes back that it won't be the same? I mean,
is that a consensus?
MR. DORRILL: What's the second one? I understand the
superintendent. What's the other one that's a concern?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie has listed
the assistant recycling coordinator, currently a temporary position.
That -- to me that's my -- my -- that or the coordinator, one of the
two, just seems to -- to be a lot in there.
And I know we've talked about this before, Neil, that,
you know, we could go into any organizational chart, pick one person
out, and say, this doesn't look right. But I think in light of all
the discussions we've had on solid waste and the contract and that
kind of thing, I think I have a little more familiarity with this. So
it's the board's decision, but I think this needs to come back in a
different form.
MR. DORRILL: We'll take a little different crack at it
and see if we can't --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, and I think that once the
privatization contract is up and active we may have an entirely
different perspective on -- on what the functionality of these people
is going to be.
MR. DORRILL: And I think they've made a best effort
here in a vacuum to try and anticipate what it's going to be like next
year when they're in contract administration and compliance as opposed
to, hey, we gotta get the garbage buried today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The senior engineer, though, I
would like to see that position eliminated. And if you do need -- MR. RUSSELL: It has been.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And if you do need a
fourth customer service rep., I'd like to see you go through the
process of creating a position and not downgrading a position to
create that one.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see a clean process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this will come back to us
with at least one less person than we're showing right now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully two.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would expect that. If not, I
would expect one heck of a good reason why.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'd like to see --
let me see if we have consensus -- one less person. And I'd like to
know what the lowest priority one of the rest is because it seems to
me we have a question whether or not there might be availability to
cut two places here.
MR. RUSSELL: And I think too we're --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that pretty much what the
board has said?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I say.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. If you need a fourth
customer service person, I would prefer to see you come and get
authorization for that body rather than downgrading a position and
creating it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like for that to be a
directive instead of a preference. That has to be that way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
level operating then?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Okay.
Consider it a directive.
Consider it.
Does that put us a D on base
A D? No. I think the -- what we
probably have here is a preference for only ten personnel, but we
don't know how they're going to operate it.
MR. LORENZ: I would consider it based upon the base
level as what Mike said is mandatory because this is necessary to
protect the health and safety of Collier County. This is overseeing
your -- whether we're privatized or not, we still have to oversee the
disposal of garbage.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with it
being mandatory, but I want to see 11 cut to 10.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
least essential --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
And minus two.
Or one.
You want to see two?
So it's M.
It's an H.
New site evaluation.
New site evaluation, that's at
Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- because we've -- we've
promised -- we've -- we've not mandated, but we've promised to do
that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's essential.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MAndatory garbage collection, we
have ordinances that establish that. Why are there two people in
that, though?
MR. RUSSELL: These position are to answer, provide
customer service support for -- for all our 50,000 customers that call
in with questions and concerns.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that going to go to department
of revenue then, Neil?
MR. DORRILL: I've already got a question there because,
you know, my hammer has been all along that this has got to be a
holistic process to include customer account coordination and
complaint tracking. And I don't -- I don't have an answer for that.
I don't know if they can help me on that, but I put a huge question
mark.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to make -- I'd like to
make the program essential but the personnel attached to it
discretionary based on what you come up with.
MR. RUSSELL: The -- the service provided here is more
related to the day-to-day logistics and the performance of our
franchisee as far as what -- the quality and what gets collected and
when. And I think the public would be better served if -- if this --
these kinds of problems came into the solid waste department because
it's the solid waste director that has the close relationship with the
service provider to make sure it gets done right in the right -- with
the right quality at the right time.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm suggesting you ought to talk
to your manager because he's telling us just the opposite.
MR. DORRILL: I want to make sure we haven't double
counted those on both the DOR slate and then we're leaving two out
here, and that's the question.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do.
MR. RUSSELL: I think that's going to lead to a lot of
duplication where the DOR people are going to right around and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would suggest that we do this
one way or another. Either we do it through the DOR and their
complaint tracking system or if that fails to work, that you downgrade
-- your superintendent downgraded to a coordinator may be able to
handle whatever coordination coming from the DOR may be necessary. I
just don't see a -- I don't see a need for a duplication.
MR. RUSSELL: We -- we did intend to have terminals tied
to that DOR system to use that customer service module as a way to
automate what we're doing now. We did have tentative plans to do
that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we'll see this in a
clearer form next time.
MR. DORRILL: We'll -- we'll check and verify that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we making the mandatory
garbage collection program then mandatory but the personnel, are we
going to reduce that to zero or at the manager's call?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's reduce it to zero.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And have him justify it?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Consensus?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough for me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Personnel's reduced to zero on
mandatory garbage collection. The program itself is mandatory. So in
either your department or the DOR we have to handle it, but we don't
know where yet.
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's up to the manager.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Transfer stations, you've got --
tell us about that one, mandatory or essential, and the five people
you have assigned to it.
MR. RUSSELL: We -- this is a discretionary program.
Basically the customers that are using these transfer stations at
Naples and Marco, a lot of small businesses use the transfer stations
and our -- even our residential mandatory customers. There are a lot
of times when you need to dispose of something and your regular
collection service just doesn't provide that -- the service you need
when you need it. And on that basis we've supported these transfer
stations for quite some time now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds discretionary to me. I
mean, it's a good program, but it's not one we have to have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's not one we have to
have, and it's not one that we're likely to -- to get rid of, but I
agree it's definitely discretionary.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's five FTEs.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five FTEs. That's -- we have
what? Three or will have -- well, we have three transfer stations
now.
MR. RUSSELL: We have three sites. One site in
Carnestown is only covered one day a week, and we eliminated a half
FTE on that some time ago. We brought that as a separate issue to the
board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. RUSSELL: So we covered that site with the -- with
the Marco Island staff.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what do five people do?
MR. RUSSELL: Basically one person is on site receiving
customers and taking care of the transactions, and we have drivers
that actually haul the waste from the transfer stations to the
landfill.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a couple of those or more
than that? How many drivers?
MR. RUSSELL: We -- at the present time we have one
individual that covers the driving duties essentially.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the one on site equals two
FTEs, right, because we've got two sites?
MR. RUSSELL: Right, we have --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then one driver. So now I'm
up to three FTEs. What are the other two?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: You've got a vacant --
MR. RUSSELL: We have one vacant position right now.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Refer to your or. chart. The crew
leader position at Naples transfer, Mr. Russell indicated --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You forgot to ask that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's been vacant for a
year.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: For a year. You have two equipment
operator positions at each -- covering each of the transfer stations.
MR. RUSSELL: Right. At times when we have people if
they're on vacation or out sick and -- and we need a driver, we can --
we have in the past drawn on the landfill employees to cover those
positions. And we didn't -- we did not fill that position because we
felt possibly that one of our landfill employees would go there
eventually. With the landfills privatized, there's virtually no
back-up whatsoever.
MR. DORRILL: But we were in some preliminary
discussions about privatizing the transfer stations. We already
privatized collection. We will now privatize landfill operations.
And for us to only keep this much of the solid waste equation and have
five employees running three transfer stations is just sort of a --
you know, a barely minimal effort there. And I don't know why we need
to keep five operating employees, so we -- I've already had some
preliminary discussions with Mr. Lorenz about considering privatizing
those.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems like impending the
privatization it ought to have three instead of five.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, if you --
MR. DORRILL: You're not going to be able to cover it
then in the event that somebody's sick.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't they come out of some other
department where people drive trucks, out of some other place where
they know how to drive --
MR. DORRILL: I wish it were that easy.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: There are cash transactions, too, that
go on. They're doing roughly 14,000 transactions a year at these --
at these stations and either come in with a punch card or pay cash to
drop off waste at these sites as opposed to the landfill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about the one vacancy that's
been vacant for a year? Could we cut down to four?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see that not filled
until we get a firmer grip on privatization of the transfer stations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see it not only
not filled but not budgeted.
MR. DORRILL: I thought he said that that was one of the
positions that we're keeping for one of your landfill people that you
told me that you wanted to be able to protect and -- and offer slots
for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if you're going to privatize
it, how are we going to keep it?
MR. DORRILL: It wouldn't be a permanent solution. I
didn't say that we were going to privatize it. I said that we were in
the process of evaluating taking bids to privatize it. It would only
be a temporary stopping point. I don't mind leaving it frozen. But
in the event that I need to move someone just prior to Hay to save
their vested status, I'll come back and just tell you that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. And -- and I
know that we have -- we have one person and possibly two there that
are -- that are close to vesting but not quite. MR. DORRILL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we did agree in the
privatization concept to -- to retain them if they so choose until
they were vested.
MR. DORRILL: I'll -- I'll advise you separately if we
need to do that. Otherwise, we will keep it vacant for the intended
individual that may be at the landfill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I don't mind it
staying vacant. Does that mean that -- yeah, that means that we have
to budget it in case he has to fill it.
MR. DORRILL: For the time being we should.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We may drop it in September.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will we know by the time
September rolls around?
MR. DORRILL: Sure, because the effective date of
privatization is Hay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. DORRILL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Hazardous waste?
We'll know in June --
If we'll know in June --
-- when the line budget comes.
Okay.
So that's a D?
Yeah.
Transfer stations are a D.
HR. RUSSELL: We've had a hazardous waste collection
program in the county now since 1989.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Is it required by
statute?
MR. RUSSELL: It's not required.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's discretionary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There goes mandatory.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Do we consider this
essential or -- I think it's essential.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's Waste Management going to
do, though, for their -- weren't they going to do this for 25 thou.?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're going to manage it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're going to manage it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're going to manage it.
MR. LORENZ: This is -- this is the actual disposal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would propose essential on
this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I would be afraid if we
did anything less than that we'd start seeing hazardous waste show up
in our creeks and woods and stuff again.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Meetings.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Meetings? Item 6, do you want to
tell us about your enhanced recycling staffing? Or have we already
addressed that?
MR. RUSSELL: That was the issue we already covered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a D or an NR?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was an NR on my vote.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
discussion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
NR -- NR too. What do we have?
I had D.
I wrote down D after our
ND?
No, D.
Why don't we leave it at D, and
we're going to ask you in June to absolutely prove it because we got
two NRs and three Ds, and that's -- but they're -- I don't think
they're real strong Ds.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, you'll flag
that accordingly?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: (Mr. Smykowski nodded head.)
MR. LORENZ: Just for clarification, are you speaking of
the -- proving the position itself or the enhancement?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if the position goes away,
so goes the $6,500 enhancement.
MR. LORENZ: Okay. So you're speaking about the
position itself?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think so, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I am. And -- and -- and
just to be clear, too, my -- my -- proving the position to me means
translating the cost into --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Benefit.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not here are some great programs
we can do with this person but here's how doing these great programs
with this person is going to translate into results; okay? I mean,
that's proving it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Russell, is there more?
MR. RUSSELL: I guess we've covered them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for getting your annual
beating.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lorenz, what's next on the --
on your program?
MR. LORENZ: Pollution control, George Yilmaz, pollution
control director.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Page 127
MR. LORENZ: Yes, page 12, and the organizational chart
is on page 11.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Yilmaz, how many positions in
here are currently vacant? You've marked them all that are vacant?
MR. YILMAZ: All positions are being advertised, and
some have been interviewed, and some have been hired. So there isn't
a position I would call vacant. They are all being advertised
currently and being filled.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So no -- no position has been
vacant more than six months right now? MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am, no -- yes, ma'am,
none have been vacant or yes, ma'am, some have been vacant that long?
MR. YILMAZ: First one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. None have been vacant more
than six months.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. All right.
Tell us about the base level, and let's start moving through ranking.
MR. YILMAZ: Base level assessment is simply based upon
-- either by Florida Statutes or by rule through DCA or FDEP based on
Florida Administrative Code requirements.
So we have hazardous waste management program pursuant
Florida Statutes 403 which is unfunded mandate. There is a specific
requirement in the law as well as Florida Administrative Code that
each county government needs to have local hazardous waste management
program as indicated in Florida Administrative Code. And as well as
9J5 as administered under DCA requires Collier -- let me see, county
governments to have a comprehensive groundwater protection ordinance,
a special well health wellfields and also natural/prime ground water
recharge area protection and management program.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: I -- I certainly agree with the
programs and -- and donwt want anything -- you know, we do have the
groundwater protection ordinance. We do have those -- those
protections in place. But Iwm at a -- questioning eleven and a half
people again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I agree with that. I'm
seeing on -- on page 13 at the top description of base level of
service, small quantity generator local hazardous waste management
program is eight FTEs.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What do they do?
MR. YILMAZ: They are planned to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Put together brochures in
Spanish and send them to random -- sorry.
MR. YILMAZ: They are planned to conduct about 3,000
inspections per year based on Florida Statutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So these people are doing actual
inspections?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am, about 3,000, and they are
scheduled to do inspections from three to five per day per person.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what -- do they inspect for
some sort of -- for permits or for compliance? What's the triggering
mechanism for the inspection?
MR. YILMAZ: Basically inspection is simply in this case
not regulatory or enforcement but it is advisory. Inspectors goes to
businesses, identifies non-compliance cases and documents to
businesses what it would take to be in compliance and also inform FDEP
of our findings.
At FDEP's discretion, then some enforcement action may
be taken against these businesses. But the intent is simply to advise
businesses as well as obtain information on what we're dealing with
out there. And we're talking about 11,000 businesses on our roll.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The initial mechanism, though, I believe
is a -- a standard industrial classification coding, classification of
the business and that --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, that is --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And that would potential generators of
hazardous waste.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many of those do we have
because we're not a very industrialized county as far as --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they include things
like speech therapists in that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I know. I mean, I've got
the book. That's why I'm wondering why we need eight people doing
three to five inspections a day in this county when we don't have
waste producers unless you count the Whiteout.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're saying speech --
they're saying speech therapists and others that generate -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 30,000 to 11,000.
MR. YILHAZ: Basically there are about eighteen to
twenty thousand businesses in Collier County and about ten to eleven
thousand of those businesses falls into a category of what we call
high risk industrial code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like what? What's an example?
MR. YILMAZ: Such as construction contractors, shutters,
painters, jewelers. They deal with cyanide and cleaners, painters.
And you're dealing with small shops, all gas stations, machine shops.
Any small business that you wouldn't expect in some cases, indeed they
do generate hazardous waste.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have any control over that
list, or if it's on that list, it has to be inspected? Who makes that
call? You or the state or --
MR. YILMAZ: State provides us basically a list of
businesses that we have to put in our rolls, and we simply follow
their guidelines. And they have -- they have endorsement process
through which they have to accept our roll.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the state -- I think what
he's talking is that standard industrial code book.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, I know the SIC code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- and that the state
has probably said here's a list of the dangerous ones including in
there travel agents or something and then it's our obligation to be
sure that they don't violate state laws. But I don't hear you saying
that the state says these are the list of businesses you must inspect
and each one of these has to be inspected every year and, you know,
that three to five a week have to be done.
I think that's where we have to be real careful that we
don't get tripped up on unfunded mandates. Yes, we have to have a
program. Yes, we have to protect the county's health, safety. But --
but do we need actually three to five, you know, environmental cops
going around?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: George, you did work with the state in
reducing the list from 18,000 to 11,000; is that correct?
MR. YILMAZ: Actually we did go before the state about
three times and reduced roll from 18,000 to 11,000. Now we're dealing
with about 10,000. And our list we shared with the board, and we did
also request it from the state to take some of the SIC codes as
category out based on our experience, so we're not blind about it.
But on the other hand, we're trying to make best out of this mandate.
It's an opportunity for us to help our businesses.
You need to realize that hazardous waste code, when you
have violations, it bankrupts the business. I don't want to have
scare tactics here, but these are the realities we're dealing on a
daily basis.
So basically this board is providing significant support
services to small businesses by providing modern planning,
engineering, consulting at very minimal fee. Used to be now at no
cost since it is under ad valorem taxes.
So please look at the program not as an environmental
enforcement or environmental cap but it's more environmental
engineering, consulting small businesses most of them cannot afford.
Very complicated. We have very much compliments. We got very good TV
coverage if you were following. And most businesses out there has
good intentions. They simply don't know how to do it. I would say 99
percent of the businesses out there, they welcome us. They are happy
to see us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't question that. I don't
question that. I just think we might not can afford this much of a
service.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to go back to these 3,000
inspections.
MR. YILHAZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that 3,000 inspections per FTE
or 3,000 inspections for the program for the entire year?
MR. YILMAZ: For entire program for the year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And each FTE is going to do five
inspections per day?
MR. YILMAZ: The eight FTE includes part-time
professional engineer to do engineering assessment if there is a
improper disposal and processes. And there is one senior
environmental specialist. Also he does inspections. Remaining staff
members simply do inspections. And there's also one senior clerk
takes care of about 10,000 customer base which deals with filing,
keeping up with paperwork, and data entries.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there's five inspectors who do
pure inspecting? There is one data person. There was -- MR. YILMAZ: We have -- we have five inspectors, one of
five being part time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Part time, half time?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you have four and a half
FTEs.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you have four and a half FTEs
who are doing 3,000 inspections.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. That's our goal for next year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At -- at -- well, I've been
through the arithmetic of it. At five per day -- MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for 52 weeks allowing for 10
days vacation, 11 days holiday, and even 10 days sick leave for
personal time or what have you, each inspector should be able to do
1,220 inspections at 5 per day. So you should be doing a little over
5,000, not 3,000.
MR. YILMAZ: I indicated three to five depending on the
businesses. Personally I went to outside and visited about five
businesses just to see what the feedback is. There was one inspection
that took about five hours because of the fact that when you go to a
machine shop, our -- our number one priority as directed by our county
manager, customer service. We don't want to be a burden to the
businesses. So we kind of try to work with the business owner and
their schedule. So sometimes there are inspections will take one
hour. There are inspections that will take five hours.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And there are inspections that
will take five minutes.
MR. YILMAZ: I would say at minimum two hours including
travel time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- am not, you know, ready to --
to try to -- one more time, I'm not ready to say how many people ought
to be in this department or how many people we ought to have
inspecting. I am -- however, I want to say that this base is
mandatory but that the number of personnel, I need to see significant
justification for the -- the number of FTEs. I don't think it should
be close to eleven and a half and --
MR. YILMAZ: Eleven and a half, ma'am, includes not only
small quantity generators program but also groundwater protection
ordinance, implementation, natural recharge area development. And
they are -- they are pretty much time consuming processes through
which you will be going through with us. It demands public hearings.
It demands significant research and data base analysis. We simply
cannot draw a line on the map and says, this is our high recharge
area. It has to be competent and defined.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I understand. And I'm not
going to say any more because I think I've made my point clearly. But
I -- I know the program is mandatory. I am not interested in funding
it to this extent. And -- and somebody to get my vote of support will
have to find a way to get it done with less money.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other members of the board?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Ditto.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ditto?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: (Commissioner nodded head.)
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. YILMAZ: We will be happy to provide you more
information and more detailed justification for each position. That's
-- that's already there that we have provided for small quantity
generators number of times, and we can provide you that because at
that time you were not on board, so there are significant amount of
information that you don't have we can share with you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank God that will be the --
this is the last -- I'm sure I'll learn everything in one year so I
won't have to hear that anymore.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, do you see any
particular problem in trying to scale -- scale back not the program
but the personnel doing it?
MR. DORRILL: Don't know yet. I need to spend a little
more time. It's just too easy to sit here and make a decision today
and just try and say, oh, yeah, we'll do it with nine or something
like that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. But Mr.
Yilmaz has clearly started out saying that their goal is to do 3,000
inspections and they have four and a half FTEs to do it. And -- and
at five per day which is his stated goal he ought to be able to do
5,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there's too many bodies.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that tells me there's at least
one body too many. Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Someone answer this. How is the
funding for this entire department? What's the source of this? Is
this all ad valorem supported?
MR. DORRILL: No. It's split between grants where we're
doing work under contract for the DEP in addition to the one-tenth
environmental pollution millage that we have. Those are the two main
sources of revenue.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Program -- program 5 is essentially
grant funded through the state for the clean-up and restoration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the clean-up and
restoration?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You get a million and a half dollars
from the state to actually do petroleum clean-up of petroleum sites
that have petroleum.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So that -- that portion is
a grant.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The rest of --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The balance is ad valorem.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The balance is ad valorem. And
what about -- maybe I'm skipping ahead here. I'm sure we're going to
talk about this one but number 11, VISA.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is that?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Eleven and twelve are new proposed
programs, and they were proposed to be funded by ad valorem.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, I'll wait till we get
into that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- the small quantity
generator is funded purely from ad valorem, Mr. Dotrill?
HR. DORRILL: Partly.
occupational licenses.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
remember that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Formerly funded by a surcharge on
Oh, yeah.
All right. Okay. We -- we
Been there.
Okay. I -- I think that what
I've heard this board say is that we -- we want you to find a way to
reduce the base level to ten and a half and not eleven and a half.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To at least ten and a half.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At least ten and a half because
based on your own numbers, you've got at least one too many people
working there.
Item -- staff rank 2, the laboratory pollution analysis
program, the base level on this -- are we -- are we agreeing -- is
essentially mandatory?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that asterisk --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's Florida -- it's Florida
Statute driven.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as far as personnel, with
that asterisk.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. Ten and a half
personnel. Staff rank 2.
MR. YILMAZ: That is basically a program which provides
general support services to our monitoring programs. Also the program
self generates $80,000 revenues from HRS, and we just had two
executive summaries approved by the board about $30,000. That brings
our revenue stream to $120,000. So out of $228,000, we're able to
bring about $120,000 into the cost center.
And also pollution control laboratory does internal
as-needed quality assurance, quote, controls, analyzes and services to
utility department and solid waste department. In addition to that,
as we have indicated under work load, we have metals, environmental
samples, organic samples, and microbiology samples scheduled to be
done next year at those numbers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you decide what to sample
and what to check?
MR. YILMAZ: In terms of groundwater, surface water, or
general?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In general.
MR. YILMAZ: Basically we look at the background data,
what's available in the past. And professional staff use their best
professional judgment call in terms of what the trends are and what
parameters needs to be analyzed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I guess what I mean is how
do you decide -- do we have monitoring wells, and you check them on a
regular basis?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and if you -- based on
those monitorings, then you decide if you need to do more intensive
testing?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you don't just like spot test
for whatever this north -- North Naples canal? If somebody calls in
with a complaint, says, the fish are floating in my canal, then that's
somewhere you would check? Is that -- how do you decide where to
spend the money?
MR. YILHAZ: There are -- there are three different
investment areas, one being what we call county-wide monitoring
programs. As you indicated, there are stationary locations, either
monitoring wells or surface water stations, that every year we go and
test for which tells us what the trends are.
Secondly, we have a random program which we go out there
and randomly take samples, basically have a better spacial coverage
and identify what the background conditions are in terms of water
quality.
Thirdly, as you indicated, if you have a complaint
investigation and if the complaint is significant threat to public
health or environment, then we have very limited budget which is about
$3,500. We do take samples, mostly microbiology. We just did have to
take samples, for instance, two days ago. Cost about $1,000. But
we're very -- we're very selective in terms of where those dollars go
since it is very limited. Although we receive 300 complaints per
year, we can only take one or two probably complaints sampled.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: George --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- how do we discern between what
is HRS's responsibility in the area of analyzing, you know, samples
and -- and -- and pollution analysis and what is the county's
responsibility because in essence we are funding a portion of HRS and
the state additionally funds there? I want to make sure we aren't
double funding. What is the line of differentiation between HRS
responsibility and Collier County?
MR. YILMAZ: My understanding is that HRS mostly has
jurisdiction over septic tanks, permitting, enforcement, swimming
pools as well as cemetery conditions that businesses deal with.
their sampling is more toward microbiology and -- and public health
related. But they don't get into what we call classification under
Florida Administrative Code which FDEP administers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're telling me there is
really no overlap whatsoever between their pollution sampling and
ours. Can I be assured of that?
MR. YILMAZ: No. It might appear to be. There's a
duplication of program, but there's no duplication of effort.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On your chart of accounts, Mr. --
Mr. Yilmaz, you have one that's a PC specialist -- this says open --
and one that says PTT, slash, open, and a lab tech that says PTT,
slash, open. What does that mean?
MR. YILMAZ: PTT means part-time temporary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Temporary part time.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many hours a year are they
working?
MR. YILMAZ: Part-time temporary usual scheduled
averaging 20 hour per year -- I mean 20 hour per week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty hours per week. And what
does the PC spec. just open after that mean?
MR. YILMAZ: That means that is another position that's
being advertised, and I think that position has been already
recommended for -- for --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's a vacant pollution control
specialist.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So what's marked here as vacant,
there are others that are also vacant meaning this word open means
vacant too, also?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of these positions
are vacant right now?
MR. YILMAZ: There's one recommendation pending in
pollution control laboratory team, and there is one in hazardous waste
management team part-time temporary. Everything else is, as far as I
know, recommendation pending. Means interviews have been conducted
and recommendation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many vacant right now,
though, including -- including those that are interviews pending?
MR. YILMAZ: Okay. There is one part time, one full
time in hazardous waste management team, and there is one part-time
laboratory team.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One full and two part.
MR. YILMAZ: And there is one full time in office
management team, office assistant 2.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So two full times and two part
times presently vacant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any idea how long those have
been vacant? And I realize some of them are pending now, but any idea
how long they've been vacant?
MR. YILMAZ: Laboratory has been about less than two
months. Office management team actually being filled right now by
temporary through office management pool. So it has not been vacant
as position. We have a -- we have a FTE there working for us. We
just not been able to fill the position on a permanent basis. And
also there is another vacant position which has been vacant less than
a month that is under ground and surface water management team.
That's environmental specialist 2 position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Recommendation from the board? This is the laboratory. I don't -- I
certainly think that it's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was leaning towards essential
on this one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- E. I would think essential.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd say discretionary. But
if you get three votes the other way, I wouldn't raise a stink.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm the say way. I'd say
discretionary but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it's a strong
discretionary. I don't think we can get rid of the lab, so I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I think essential is
more appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. E.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: E. Hazardous products management
program/storage tanks, is this the replacement program?
MR. YILMAZ: Can you further explain your question?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Program 3, George.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Program 3.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Outline program 3.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes. That's a -- that's a program mandated
-- it's mandated by growth management plan but not mandated by 9J5 or
Florida Statutes. That means it's a program through which there is a
requirement in growth management plan but there isn't specific
requirement by Florida Statutes or 9J5.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if we wanted to, we as a
board could yank that out. So it's not mandated by someone that --
MR. YILMAZ: Right. However --
MR. DORRILL: You're under contract and receiving state
money to do this program, so you'd have to -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: And you would have to amend the growth
management plan?
MR. YILMAZ: However, we do have -- we do have contract
with Florida Department of Environment Protection. On behalf of them
we do manage the program. And this is one area personally I'd like to
share with this board that there is a specific requirement in Florida
Administrative Code that local governments cannot regulate underground
fuel storage tanks.
Because of that, we could not have any protection
measures to deal with groundwater underground storage tanks within our
well head protection zones as well as county-wide. So this is one
program we tapped into, if you wish, in terms of having state to do
more enforcement within well head protection zones since state
legislature preempted local governments to regulate underground and
aboveground petroleum storage facilities.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why can't we -- this is a
$200,000 program. Why can't we do -- accomplish the goal with the
130,000 we get from the state? What do we spend the extra 70 county
money on?
MR. YILMAZ: State reimburses human resources cost.
Other cost is associated with what we call indirect or direct overhead
from our expenditures, office space to electricity, indirect costs
associated with the fund. Then we prepare a program budget. We try
to reflect the actual cost to you. In terms of human resources, human
resources associated with this program, hundred percent reimbursed by
the state.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the state -- will the state
continue to give us that $130,000 if we don't spend $70,000 of our
money?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They -- they would give it to us
anyway?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question. How long does
it take to do a standard inspection?
MR. YILMAZ: For storage tanks we're talking about two
and a half hours to five hours.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two and a half to five hours of
one person; is that correct?
MR. YILMAZ: Per inspection, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So on the average one person
could do two a day on the average.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes. Of course, there's a lot of
significant data entry associated with this program, very tedious.
We're talking about four pages of standard form needs to be entered
into state computer data base in Tallahassee. So usually they take
one or two days out of week to catch up with the paperwork.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see us do this -- I
think this program's essential, but I would like to see us do it with
the $130,000 from the state and not any local money. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: George, the state doesn't pay your
overhead costs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he said the state would give
us the 130,000 even if we didn't spend the 70.
MR. LORENZ: I think what George is saying is reflecting
that there is overhead costs that we would be responsible for. So
you're seeing that as the $200,000, and the state is just reimbursing
us $130,000, that we would still -- we would still incur that overhead
cost.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you put that -- any of
that 130 toward the overhead? Are you prohibited by law from doing
that?
MR. YILMAZ: We have been negotiating with the state in
terms of our cost multipliers, but they have county-wide standards.
For instance, although our overhead cost multiplier is 1.99 meaning
for one dollar we have to spend 99 cents, state only accepts, let's
say, 85 or 75 percent. So there is a loss associated with overhead
because of the fact that there isn't 100 percent reimbursement for
overhead, but there's 100 percent reimbursement for human resources.
And what we wanted to do is reflect that difference to the board so
that we can give you the big picture how the program runs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I appreciate that. My vote
on this one is going to be that it's a discretionary program, and it
goes with the challenge to you to see if you can do it with $150,000
instead of $200,000.
MR. YILMAZ: That's a good challenge. We'll accept it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My reason for that is that if 1
person can do one and a half inspections per day or even 1 inspection
per day plus all the paperwork, 2 people can do 524 inspections a
year. That's two-thirds of the program cost right there. So just
based on the inspections of 524 a year on the fact that a person can
at least do one a day --
MR. YILMAZ: That's -- that's well understood, and I
think it's well taken. However, three FTE includes everyone's time
including clerk's support and my time and supervisory time. Again,
FTEs reflected here not actual inspection time but total FTE
associated with the program.
In terms of inspectors, we have one full-time, one
part-time inspectors doing actual inspections. And we have one FTE
doing enforcement inspections which goes beyond what we talked about.
Enforcement inspections, about five hours to ten hours. We have to do
case reports and sometimes testify before district court.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just have to go on what's
in front of me.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. I just want to make sure that
three FTE doesn't give you the impression that that's hundred percent
inspection.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. YILMAZ: So it's total -- total program FTE.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the call on that one?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got a D.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: D with 150,000.
MR. YILMAZ: One point I want to make in terms of
groundwater pollution, most if not all contaminated sites we have been
dealing with and spending significant amount of dollars have been
underground petroleum storage tanks.
So in terms of environmental risk and environmental
hazard, this is a program, as technical staff, we will put in front of
this board to be addressed as much as possible because indeed we have
about five clean-up sites currently being conducted in Golden Gate.
And you can see the well field and well head and clean-up sites
hundreds of feet away from where hundreds of thousands of people get
their water supply. So it is -- indeed directly deals with public
health when it comes down to remediation, non-compliance, and how it
relates to well head protection zones and groundwater.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about the fourth
program now?
MR. YILMAZ: I'm still talking about 3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The third one?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're done with 3.
MR. YILMAZ: So our recommendation would be essential
because of the fact that 90 percent of our groundwater supply is our
drinking water supply. And we have about 50 drinking water wells
being permitted every -- every month. So it's essential program for
us to address.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to be sure. Are we
talking about staff ranked program number 4, groundwater monitoring
and investigations, 82,000?
MR. LORENZ: Let me clarify. The board has ranked
program number 3 as discretionary?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Discretionary and cut to $150,000.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: D, 150. And then number 4 was
the one you were just discussing about groundwater and the --
MR. LORENZ: No. We just -- we'll start on 4 now.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually if I could intervene, 4
doesn't look -- as I read through it doesn't look to have a lot of fat
in it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I agree.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: One FTE and 82,000 for monitoring
76 sites of wells.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Although we get 62,000 of those
$82,000 from somewhere else; right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got my same question about the
20,000 bucks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's a D; right?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's get an answer.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Groundwater?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Groundwater's a D?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll go with that. And the
reason for these Ds is typically because we're getting money from
somewhere else and the additional monies that the county's expending
we want a more clear answer on; correct?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's certainly not a statement
about the value of the program. Gotta have it. Absolutely must have
it. No question about it. It's essential from a programmatic
standpoint. But what we've been doing as we've gone through this
process is said, yes, we love the program, but show us how you can do
it with less money. And that makes it a D.
MR. YILMAZ: Just a note, however, that program 4,
groundwater investigations, also required by growth management plan
for us to monitor.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood.
MR. YILMAZ: That is not part of 9J5. However, it's
part of growth management plan, and it needs to be amended. If board
wishes to eliminate this program, we need to amend the growth
management plan as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it does not have to be
amended if we wish to modify the way in which we monitor.
MR. DORRILL: Your specific question, as I understand
it, is how are we allocating our overhead -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. DORRILL: -- expense and what is the rationale for
the state in not reimbursing us for our overhead because otherwise
we're just recovering our personnel costs.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And to be perfectly blunt,
something that's in my -- in my mind a lot -- and I'd hate for
somebody to do this to me -- but to put your words back out to you is
I'm looking at this like if we were privatizing it and you were doing
a competitive bid where would you cut. You already told me you can.
So where is it? I'm looking for it.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. But a little more globally you
recognize that the primary benefit of this program is that this is
something that we've either been compelled or elected to do, and we're
fortunate enough in this case to also get some state money to help do
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do -- do we have to match those
state grants?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So it's just -- we get --
we get the grants as long as we manage a program.
MR. DORRILL: We may get some credit for in-kind type,
and I don't know what the individual contract allocations are. But
no, there's no cash match here.
MR. LORENZ: If you may, let me piggyback on a little
bit what Neil said is this particular department is funded through the
water pollution control fund which was approved by the voters in '84
and there again in '88 to raise one-tenth of the mill to develop a
water pollution control program. And what we have -- what we have
attempted do with a lot of these programs is to work the -- work this
department using monies as much as we can get from the state and then
supplementing those monies with the water pollution control fund.
So what George is showing you, again, is that -- is that
what -- to the degree we can get monies from the state for the
programs, then we're showing that. But then we're also obviously
taking that -- that tax -- tax money to put into the program as well.
So that's why you get a variance there from it's not being 100 percent
funded from the state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please don't -- don't think that
I don't appreciate your forthrightness. You're doing absolutely the
right thing to tell us the truth to how much this actually costs and
how much of it is out of state money and how much of it's out of
county money. I don't want to be seen as discouraging that. You're
doing the right thing.
I'm just going about this from the perspective of
there's -- we -- we pretty much globally think we could do it for
less. That's my perspective. We could do a good job for less, so I'm
looking for places.
So is that a D, groundwater monitoring and
investigation, number 47
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I already got it marked a
D.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say number 5 was 100
percent grant monies?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Million and a half, huh?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, the 45,000, that covers
administrative overhead. Million and a half goes toward private
contracting and clean-up of petroleum sites that have petroleum
waste.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we leave that one --
it's 100 percent grant money, and this is the change-out on the
underground storage tanks or the recovery of them? Or is that what
that is?
MR. YILMAZ: This is a different program. The storage
tanks program deals with compliance inspections. This is a program
deals with clean-up and remediation and enforcement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: These are existing problems that
are already identified and some of them significantly close to well
field areas so that these are identified problems. We've got some
money to clean them up. That makes sense to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to leave this one at
essential.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is waste water sludge
management program.
MR. YILMAZ: We do have waste water specific operating
agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Under
operating agreement we do inspect package sewage treatment plants once
a year as needed quarterly depending on the non-compliance cases. And
also we do have sludge transportation and disposal ordinance that we
have to manage.
So basically .5 FTE here is to take care of all those
requirements and obligations under SOP contract as well as our sludge
disposal and transportation licensing program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who pays the sludge licenses
permits, 800 bucks a year? Where -- who pays for those permits? I
mean, could we -- my -- my motivation being if this is a $35,000
program, could we charge more for those permits to make this a self
funded --
MR. YILMAZ: Actually 800 total, is total.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I mean. Could we
charge more for those permits?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, that's board's discretion indeed. We
can come up with new fee resolution, and you can increase the fees at
your discretion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who pays those fees?
MR. YILMAZ: Usually for sludge transportation licensee
pays the license fees. Sludge transport -- sludge disposal permittee
pays the sludge disposal permit fees.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to look at making that a
self-funded program instead -- I mean, instead of $800. I mean, maybe
we can't jump all the way to 35,000, but it seems like --
MR. YILMAZ: It might be cost prohibitive since we're
dealing with some small numbers. So maybe you should look into
industry itself so that we don't come up with fees so that it's a
burden upon --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right, the licenses -- there's 45
licenses for transportation issued annually and 12 disposal permits
so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have a total of 57.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Fifty-seven total licenses or permits
issued.
MR. LORENZ: You'd be looking at what? A 40-fold
increase to try to make it self funded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, and it truly does take a
half a FTE to manage the program?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why?
MR. YILMAZ: Basically we're talking about each truck to
be inspected personally by the pollution control specialist. And
license has to be prepared annually, and sludge disposal sites needs
to be inspected, especially in wet season. We do have a lot of
complaints coming from pipers pasture and other areas, and -- so there
is -- there is significant amount of work involved as well as
paperwork associated with it.
MR. LORENZ: Also part of this program is the inspection
of the package plants twice a year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The packing plants?
MR. LORENZ: Small -- small package, small sewage
treatment plants.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. The small package
plants.
MR. LORENZ: Privately owned facilities.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we charge them for that?
MR. LORENZ: No, we don't.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seems like maybe we could charge
them for those inspections. And if we charged a couple hundred bucks
for the licenses, that couple hundred bucks for the licenses is
$11,000 instead of $800.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How -- how often do we inspect
the vehicles once -- once the transporter is licensed?
MR. YILMAZ: My understanding is once a year unless
there's a non-compliance case. We do an inspection.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we charge them for the
reinspection?
MR. YILHAZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do not.
MR. YILMAZ: We do not.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me it's a -- user
related and we ought to find a way to -- to instead of general
taxes --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to find a way to -- to
tie the -- the inspection, reinspection, the license fees, and the
inspection of package plants and increase this into a -- we may not be
able to reach 100 percent self funded. But I'd like to see it much
closer.
MR. YILMAZ: Just to clarify further, we don't have a
specific ordinance for waste water package sewage treatment plants.
So not having a specific ordinance, since we are operating under
agreement with FDEP, we may wish to address that with our county
attorney's office how feasible for us to charge for our inspections
where we don't have local ordinance and local authority to do
inspections unless board wishes to look into --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How are we doing inspections now
if we don't have the authority?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Wouldn't this be under the auspice of a
pollution control ordinance?
MR. LORENZ: No, no. We're doing inspections under the
-- under the umbrella of the state through a specific operating
agreement with the state DEP. We actually do the inspections --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, then the state should be
paying for the inspections.
MR. LORENZ: That would be -- that could be an option as
well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, I'm --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can move that from
option into desired requirement category.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, it's --
MR. LORENZ: Typically -- typically they -- they haven't
on these types of programs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What precipitated the
agreement with the state?
MR. LORENZ: The adoption of the water pollution control
fund back in 1984. This was one way for us to start the program and
develop it. At that particular point it was envisioned that the
program would be -- the ad valorem taxes would be funding the
program.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a state program that we have
chosen to mandate -- nevermind.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Upon ourselves. Perhaps we'd
like to go back and look at the DEP contract that we have with the DEP
to see if the DEP wants to work with its own PSC or whoever it is that
oversees these package plants. Certainly if the PSC is part of the
picture, they're getting a 4 percent franchise fee. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it'd be nice that we get paid
for the inspections. Somebody else is getting paid. We should. So
let's look at that. And also I guess we need to get some direction
from our legal staff as to what our ordinances will allow us to do and
if we need to amend them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's a D?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a D. Item 7, hazardous
waste collection disposal management.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's different from 3 how?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this is the -- what we
had just this past weekend which is the general collection.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Amnesty program?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, the amnesty program which
we've had discussions on previously. Does this represent any change
from the previous year's allocation?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. This is the funding -- this is just
a funding issue where solid waste contracts with pollution control to
perform this function because they are better equipped and have better
knowledge based on the staff to handle those types of problems.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the same thing we've been
doing for the last couple of years. Is this dollar value any more
than what it was last year?
MR. YILMAZ: I'm sorry?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It's the same amount?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's essential.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that one for me is
essential.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Yeah. We don't want our
householders disposing of it otherwise.
Pollution complaints, investigations, and enforcement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this is different from all of
the other inspections and monitoring how?
MR. YILMAZ: This is basically direct service to
citizens who have concerns or complaints about specific pollution, so
we do receive most of the pollution complaints in county and respond
to it based on the categories outlined. So this goes, as you
indicated, above and beyond regular inspections. These are what we
call as-needed, as-requested investigations rather than inspections.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This is like a fish kill in a canal.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's fund 1147
MR. YILMAZ: Or illegal dumps.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is fund 1147
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is the pollution control fund.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so what else do we spend
fund 114 money on?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Virtually all the programs we've been
talking about here with the exception of number 5. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't say that.
MR. LORENZ: Well, that's where all your administrative
overhead's coming out of.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. It seems to me this would
be something that we ought to be able to absorb with the other people
we already have. I think this is discretionary for $56,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's got one FTE associated to
it? I -- yeah, I'm not convinced of how this is differing --
different from other investigative programs that we have and if --
yeah, I'm just not convinced.
MR. YILMAZ: Let me give you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the likelihood that
you could have someone from one of the other areas, one of the other
investigation programs, in a vehicle in the same area at the same
time?
MR. YILMAZ: That's pretty much -- I think we're on the
same wave length, but I don't know if we're on the same frequency, so
I'll try to clarify the frequency.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's megahertz.
MR. YILMAZ: Basically we do have about .5 -- .5 FTE
what I call primary first responder to complaint investigations. This
person goes out there for a complaint. If there's a groundwater
issue, then he goes back to groundwater section and pulls resources
from groundwater section to do further investigations.
But there's a significant efficiency associated with not
creating 300 brush fires for regular programs because you can imagine
our response time to our customers within 24 hours so we have this .5
FTE dedicated to respond to complaints within 24 hour without creating
brush fire to allotted programs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This says it's one FTE.
MR. YILMAZ: The remaining is coming from the other
programs.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's our question.
MR. YILMAZ: One FTE is not one person if you wish.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. We understand that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We know. It's -- it's one man
year.
MR. YILMAZ: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we ought to be able to do
this with the .5 from the others. That's my vote which makes this
discretionary for me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually non-recommended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or NR. What a concept.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Number 8, pollution complaint
investigations and enforcements. We're a little bit -- not a little
bit. I'd say quite much -- quite a bit concerned that these man hours
can be absorbed in some other inspection process. And I think that's
what I'm hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The best I can give it would be a
D.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, do you have any --
anything that we may be able to -- MR. DORRILL: No. I'm a little perplexed on -- on this
one '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- because of what Mr. Yilmaz has already
said. But what you want to see is that in effect the cost attendant
to this absorbed as part of some preexisting or the function here
absorbed as one of the other inspection programs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, that's what I'm saying.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think so. Commissioner
Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I was going to save this comment
till the end, Mr. Dotrill, but since they've already asked you to get
involved here, what I'm seeing as we go down through here is a -- a
department that's very heavily ad valorem dependent and seems to have,
looking at the organizational chart, some fairly heavy staffing for
what's being accomplished. And I think this may be one of those
departments where your office needs to go in and have a -- a really
hard look at what's being done in here and give us some help, give us
some advice before we come back in June.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. The only thing that I think that we
can't hear today is it's too easy to -- just to say, well, you got 5
people and you're doing 500 inspections.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I mean. I think we
need some analysis here.
MR. DORRILL: And the main point that Mr. Yilmaz has
made is that there's -- there's more time necessary to complete the
in-office work as opposed to just the field work of pulling samples or
inspecting, you know, part shops and those types of things.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We understand that and --
and -- and in relationship to the small quantity generator, I -- I
would assume if he -- if he's saying that the FTE can do five a day
that he has incorporated into his five a day all of the paperwork and
so forth resulting from the inspection. If that's not so, then he
needs to correct that impression.
MR. DORRILL: I don't know about that particular one,
but he indicated as part of the underground fuel storage tank program
that the time just to build in the analysis of the field investigation
is like four complete screens into a state data base. And so -- and I
don't know. But that -- that evaluation needs to be done. For every
hour in the field, how much back at the office time is there, and what
is the reasonable expectation then for the fewest number of people
that we can do that with?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and what you're hearing
from us is these programs are good programs, and that's what -- I've
got my marching orders now. I know that's what we're supposed to be
here doing today, saying that these programs are good or not, and they
are. But we can't help but notice in this department that it just
seems to be staffed to death and perhaps it needs -- you need to
approach it as if it were -- we were going to privatize it tomorrow
and you're going to make us your best bid.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to make the
suggestion back on number 4 that we put Ds all the way down and ask
Mr. Dotrill to come back to us with -- with the information Mr. Norris
has asked for so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Works for me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That works for me for the rest of
these because I think we've picked the majority of it apart. I would
just as soon go all the way to 11, and let's hear about why VISA
requires three FTEs and 1.5 million.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how much of it is our money
and how much of it is grant money?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's all our money.
MR. DORRILL: This is all your money, and I can -- I can
save you a lot of time and effort. For all of the -- the areas that
preliminarily appear to have more substantial contamination, this
would be a program to go back in and take essentially the top ten or I
believe the top six to eight of the very worst contamination sites
county-wide and then do very indepth analysis to the nature of the
contamination or a projection of the costs.
This would take you -- a good example would be the
Cocohatchee canal issue and Palm River and that you would then fund
the follow-up contamination analysis of those worst sites that are
identified on an annual basis where currently the only thing that
you're doing is monitoring to establish trend analysis. And the
program that you have is to monitor that trend analysis. And in the
event that we find a very severe problem area, this would then fund
the additional scientific chemical or laboratory analysis to determine
the extent of the problem or the clean-up or abatement of the site
that would be necessary. This would be essentially your own sort of
superfund interim step to determine what the extent of the
contamination is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How is the goal here different
from item 5, clean-up and restoration program, meaning if the state is
already doing these through a grant program, why can't we identify
these sites and include them in the state program?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Number 5 is purely petroleum
contamination --
MR. DORRILL: Gasoline storage facilities.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This is any number of pesticides.
George, help me out here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we -- we can't often identify
the source of the pesticides to go back to the contaminator and ask
them to clean it up?
MR. LORENZ: In some cases we might be able to. Other
cases we wouldn't.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to certainly have a hard
time being talked into spending a new million and a half dollars that
we've never spent before.
MR. DORRILL: And the rationale for even proposing this
was the recent concern expressed about, well, great, we're out
routinely or periodically monitoring, but then what are we going to do
when we find these larger scale site contaminations? And you're
either going to have to evaluate those on a site-by-site or
conditional basis or begin to fund money in here to chase after what
-- what is ranked as, you know, the top six environmental pollution
sites or contaminant sites.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think my preference would be to
-- if we already have sites in this kind of condition that they need
to be identified and we need to address them on a one-by-one basis
because I certainly wouldn't want the public to have a perception that
we've agreed to put three full-time equivalents to work and go out and
clean up a million and a half dollars worth of, quote, unquote, mini
superfund sites and -- and the citizens who live around it not
necessarily know that's what's going on. I'd like it addressed on a
site by site.
MR. DORRILL: There are -- there are 22 sites, and
there's a schedule that I had seen that shows where the staff feels
that rather extensive additional laboratory testing and analysis are
probably warranted before we sound the panic button.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: They're included in the packet starting
on page 25. Mr. Yilmaz had provided a comprehensive list. Mr.
Dotrill had requested that for the board Mr. Yilmaz break those out
into priority 1, 2, 3. That begins on page 25.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I went to and I saw
this item. And group 1, basically if the Gordon River extension has
got problems, I don't think there's enough money in our county budget
to fix it. If Naples Bay has problems, where does the money come from
to fix it? We go to the next group. These are businesses for God's
sake. Golf Balls Galore? We're going to spend $27,000 fixing
something Golf Balls Galore did?
MR. DORRILL:
not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
better get a lawyer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I guess the contention is that they're
Well, the contention is they
Why -- why --
I mean, if -- I don't understand
Why don't we put some --
something in place to make these businesses address what they've
done?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's plenty of federal laws in
place.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not recommended.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean -- I mean, I'm asking why
-- why don't we? Why aren't we doing something with the federal and
state laws to -- to have these companies address the problem?
MR. DORRILL: I'll get some help here from the staff. I
think the -- the contention is that you have only done some
preliminary analysis that would seem to indicate that there are
problems on these sites that are mentioned here. And they go from
farms to golf courses to any number of businesses in industrial
parks.
But aside from an indication that there's a problem, the
costs that are identified here are the costs to determine the extent
or the chemical analysis of the contamination. My understanding is
that there are no -- there are no abatement costs as -- as part of
this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The -- excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The industrial park, Pine Ridge
industrial park, that land in there is privately owned by someone?
MR. DORRILL: Outside of the platted streets or drainage
easements that you own.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the -- and the businesses
that are in the park have generated pollution that it appears our
staff says is going to cost approximately $175,000 to clean up? MR. DORRILL: Where are you at?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm on page 27 at the top. It
seems to me that that's -- that's a good place for an HSTU to clean up
their own mess. I mean, it just makes sense to me. If they made the
mess, they should clean it up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It certainly shouldn't be all of
us.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If I might --
MR. DORRILL: You might get a difference there -- excuse
me -- between, you know, the guy that owns the doughnut shop versus
the guy that -- that owns the -- you know, the auto parts junkyard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, but the guy who owns the
doughnut shop is feeding the guys who work in the junkyard who were
putting the stuff in the ground.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And certainly it's not the people
who live over on the beach that are causing it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's the principle. We're
asking the ad valorem taxpayer to clean up somebody's mess that they
made in the conduct of their business. And that's just not right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think maybe as part of our
civic duty we should turn this information, if we think there are
problems here, over to the state or federal agencies and allow them to
pursue it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there can be criminal
penalties for failing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can finish this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let them pursue it against
those private landowners. But for us to fund that I think s quite
outrageous.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would not recommend it.
MR. DORRILL: Well, remember the rationale was as a
result of the recent --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We understand.
MR. DORRILL: -- don't-eat-the-fish scare that we had in
Palm River and, you know, why isn't the county commission doing
something about this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, while it may seem
politically correct, I think clearly 1.6 million is a little steep way
of answering that old cry.
MR. DORRILL: I do not disagree with that at all.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Report them.
MR. DORRILL: And that's my final recommendation on
which I just took a firm not recommended stand because this is
something that has never been discussed nor is there an indication
that there is even a problem which is air quality monitored.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Say no more, Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Lord knows we were doing enough monitoring
without getting into the air quality business. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So we've got a pair of NRs on the
bottom?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a pair of -- pair of NRs
on the bottom. Can I on the VISA program ask this board if we want to
direct our county attorney to take a look at what's available for the
county government to do in -- in the way of our enforcing the federal
and state regulations and establishing a mode of getting it into
operation? What do we have to do?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to have a method
by which we direct this information to the agencies that put the rules
in place, to spend local dollars enforcing those rules.
MR. DORRILL: And we probably are already doing that.
So what I'll suggest there is that when we even have any evidence that
there may be a problem, we are always referring that onto the DEP or
the South Florida Water Management District, whoever's applicable.
And maybe we ought to give you a little board agenda executive summary
about what -- what our current enforcement level is and then how we
refer those off.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And besides referring them off,
are we following up on them because these are often health and safety
issues? And we want them taken care of. And I guess that's my
concern is that the county has some sort of leverage.
MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- I think that's -- that's
where the gap is. We certainly refer these to the agencies. We
maintain an open file. We -- we periodically contact the agency. But
we canwt get them down to do anything that they donwt want to do.
There perhaps could be a mechanism whereby instead of
staff forwarding the information that we may -- may -- may bring it to
a higher level, perhaps even at the board level, to then take
something to the -- to the -- to the state and say, this is -- we
understand this is a problem in Collier County. We would like to see
some -- some additional action. That can be some -- some level
ratcheted up a little bit that -- that we could take that we may get
some more attention from the state agencies.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Even to ask our -- our attorney
if we canwt have an ordinance incorporating the federal and state laws
and -- and making them subject to the code enforcement procedure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
on that one over here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Oh, don't have a vote of support
Negative.
No, negative on that one.
Okay.
Just say no.
No. I think we can -- we can
transmit any violations we find to the proper agencies, and that's the
procedure that should be followed at all times. But our poor little
old county isn't big enough to get into the environmental clean-up
business. And that's the end of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not looking to get into the
business.
MR. YILMAZ: Just to share a piece information with you,
under Flare (phonetic) membership which is all the local pollution
control agencies, Collier County and this board has least amount of
regulation in place with highest compliance rates in package sewage
treatment plants as well as storage tanks above and underground.
So I think that the direction our county manager has
given to us indeed was to be the best in the state of Florida. And
definition of that was with minimum amount of regulation create
maximum amount of compliance and regulatory burden on the local
businesses.
So we only have two pollution ordinances, sludge
disposal and transportation. Host of the counties have local program
have hazardous waste ordinance, waste water ordinance, air pollution
control ordinance, groundwater protection ordinance that goes beyond
and above what we have put in place. I just want to share that with
you.
Good news is we're one of the -- one of the least
polluted counties in state of Florida. Bad news is we still have to
address some of the issues out there. So it's not -- it's not as bad
as it appears to be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. Done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. So we have a couple
of NRs at the bottom with direction that we pursue the state and
federal agencies to handle this to the maximum that we can. I'm not
convinced that's the strongest way to do it but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can -- if we want to
come back and develop a formal process down the road to make sure that
happens, we can do that. But the point made here today is we are not
going to spend local tax dollars enforcing state and federal
regulations in this particular area. And I think that's what I'm
hearing from at least three plus myself up here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just since I've been so -- so
mean, I want to be sure Emma gets one of these. This is wonderful.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's well done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This program is -- is just
wonderful. I mean, it's amazing in ten years the growth and what a
great job you're doing on this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The amount that went up in '95 is
because I found a lot of paint at my house when I bought it.
MR. DORRILL: Me too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Yilmaz.
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Page 32. We only have three more
departments here that are relatively small. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Storm water management.
MR. DORRILL: And then we're going to try and do Pelican
Bay this afternoon as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt takes his coat off
ready to justify his department's existence, huh?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While he's preparing to do that,
this is one of those departments -- I don't know about the rest of
you, but I get more calls on storm water management than anything
else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you represent district
5 for a while and see how many you get?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I -- you know, I'm looking at
someone requesting no increases in a service that -- that I get more
calls on than anything else. So if we need clarification on these, so
be it. But I look at the FTEs for base level, and I don't really have
a question on them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I get more calls on this than
anything else, and they all live in your district.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, on your organization
chart, are there any vacancies?
MR. BOLDT: No, ma'am, all positions are filled.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're asking for no increase it
shows, same budget as last year? MR. BOLDT: That's correct.
MR. DORRILL: And no new programs.
MR. BOLDT: Correct.
MR. DORRILL: This is a minimum level department as a
result of transitioning the majority of the major drainage system
several years ago from the Board of County Commissioners to the Big
Cypress Basin Board. We only now maintain secondary and some limited
roadside type facilities.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All Es.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
statute?
MR. BOLDT: No, ma'am.
assets.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Route 29 canal?
MR. BOLDT:
Es? Is this mandatory by
It's a protection of our
All Es.
Es.
All Es.
Thank you, Mr. Boldt.
Mr. Boldt, who -- who handles the
Collier County does. That canal --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it ours, or is it the
state's?
MR. BOLDT: Actually it's in private property.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh.
MR. BOLDT: There are no -- there are no drainage
easements there. The state is not willing to accept it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The state won't accept it, and we
manage it. We maintain it.
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am, although at the present time we
have a severe problem down there that the Big Cypress Basin Water
Management District has bailed us out because they had some special
equipment. Just for what it's worth, when they put those wildlife
crossings in, they blocked our access. They also put ten-foot high
fences to keep the panthers off the road, but it's keeping us from
getting into the canal. So it's -- it's a problem we're working with,
but we're going to solve it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are cougars, Mr. Boldt, not
panthers --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- these days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next on our list is natural
resources?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, on page 35.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got a headless department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Forty-one.
MR. LORENZ: The organizational's chart on 41.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other than the director who's
been vacant for quite some time now, what else is vacant? Anything?
MR. LORENZ: That's it, just the director position.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we look at that? I mean,
what does -- how does a department go without a director for -- how
long have they?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say Dr. Stallings has probably been
gone at least six months.
MR. LORENZ: Oh, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, no. A year.
MR. LORENZ: February, a year.
MR. DORRILL: Has it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: I'll reserve further comment.
MR. LORENZ: Just a little bit more gray hair in the
beard is the answer to your question here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the answer?
MR. DORRILL: Some of that's probably my fault because
we've otherwise had very capable staff. Bill has been able to direct
this particular staff without spending the time. But he has recently
gone through the selection process and is very near making a
recommendation as part of -- we're also looking at some larger
organizational issues. And I have asked Bill to wait until the end of
this month before we do anything with that position.
And frankly, before this I told him that I thought the
priority was to get the landfill privatization through the bid and
contract negotiation phase and not spend a lot of time trying to
replace the NR director.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't help but wonder if it's
been empty for a year if it couldn't be merged with -- with Mr.
Lorenz's '-
MR. DORRILL: That's one of the things we're
contemplating. And so before we extend an invitation to anyone, I --
I wanted to contemplate some organizational consolidations.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah. I was thinking the
same thing. If it's been vacant for a year and seems to be
functioning fairly well and that maybe it's time to elevate one of the
environmental specialists to a supervisory position?
MR. DORRILL: We're -- we're contemplating a couple of
options, and so at this point you all need to know that Bill could
have moved forward probably 60 days earlier. I have asked him to wait
while we're looking at some organizational consolidations here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So by June we'll -- we'll
get --
MR. DORRILL: Before then.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So shall we just put one big D on
this department then until then?
MR. DORRILL: Well, overall here again you get some
growth management-related activity as it pertains to everything from
the natural resource protection area projects to the original manatee
protection plan and the ongoing effort there with respect to marinas,
technical assistance to chase permits and prepare mitigation plans
under contract, other county departments, whether it's roads, water
and sewer, or solid waste or OCPH. They -- they do a lot of our
environmental permitting work for us as sort of in-house staff.
The artificial reef speaks for itself. It's separately
grant funded. And then here again they had proposed an expanded sea
turtle nesting monitoring program. And I'm not recommending that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Lorenz, level 1,
is that mandated or essential?
MR. LORENZ: Last year was listed as essential. The --
the level 1 programs basically are -- satisfy a lot of the growth
management plan requirements that we have a comprehensive
environmental program in place. And so, therefore, I'm recommending
it as essential. You have to realize that you don't necessarily have
a state mandate for it, so it's not mandated.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since that element as it is is
essentially created by this board and monitored by this board, are you
telling me that four people or $187,000 is the absolute minimum which
it takes to meet the requirements set forth in that element?
MR. LORENZ: That's -- that basically reflects your
director, a senior secretary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are mostly personnel
costs?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, oh, yes. The operating budget for
this -- for this department I think is like about thirty some thousand
dollars, so it's all personnel.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
did this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
NR on that?
So I agree with E.
E on 1.
On 2, the NRPA, we basically just
Anybody interested in putting an
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: E.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Got two NRs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: D.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I think it's an E.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
D. That averages out to --
It's a growth management issue.
E. You want D down there?
I -- I think it's a D.
We have two Es, two NRs, and a
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: NR.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to change the
growth management plan.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think it would be
accepted if we tried to. I don't -- I don't mind a D as long as I
know that we're not going to revisit it because it's not -- you know,
we --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. D.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three of us may not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three -- three of us may not want
to revisit it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Strong NR. That's what
natural -- natural resources -- the N and the R are for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have two Es -- two Es, a D,
and two NRs. So I think that makes it a strong D.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
essential?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
same old.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
A D plus.
And you see level 1 as being
Does this board agree?
Yes, but four people? Same old
Same old. What programs are you
doing on -- on level 17 Are they essentially growth management
related?
(Commissioner Constantine exited the proceedings.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's what you had said.
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, there's a variety of different
things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Habitat inventory.
MR. LORENZ: The habitat inventory, up -- continuing to
update our maps which is a -- basically it's a -- it's a limited GIS
system that we have all of our natural resources in place. That's one
of the requirements in the growth management plan. Taking care of
public inquiries, public assistance, developing the management
guidelines for endangered species. This is a multi-year project that
we have. Those are pretty much the basic fare, if you will, of that
-- of that level 1 service.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In addition, level 1 includes
presentations to community groups?
that?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
takes four people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
though.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
And --
Didn't we already assign E to
I thought so.
Yeah.
I just said I don't think it
We're questioning the FTEs,
Oh, I see.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not the -- not the programs.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's E, but -- but I hope that we
will see some strong justification for $187,000. I don't see why we
need that much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, Mr. Lorenz, I guess you can
say we're going to be looking real hard at the line item budget on
your personal services. MR. LORENZ: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got an E minus and a D plus.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is technical
assistance.
MR. DORRILL: I'll tell you what. The ground must be
shaking up at the Conservancy. The environmentalists are flying out
the window.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can guarantee if this were
televised this room would be a little more full right now than it was
an hour ago.
MR. LORENZ: The technical assistance, basically the
majority of that is the sea turtle program where we have requirements
that are placed upon the county as a result of beach nourishment or
the beaches that we -- that we wish to rake. We have to have a sea
turtle monitoring program in place. That's a large portion of the --
at least two and a half FTEs of that technical assistance. The
other --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's $140,000, and it's mostly
for -- didn't -- I mean, part of my -- my -- part of this is a
Conservancy issue as far as I'm concerned. The Conservancy does
this. Why are we spending $140,000 on this?
MR. LORENZ: The Conservancy has agreed to do the -- the
Naples segment of the beaches. That's all they're interested in
doing. At least that's the -- the -- the feedback that we've gotten
from them. So our staff does -- does the rest of the beaches.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Aren't there other groups that
would do the other beaches, or have we investigated that yet?
MR. LORENZ: We -- we have looked at the possibility of
volunteers. However, they have to operate -- you have to operate
under a permit that the state issues. They have to have -- they have
to have training. And to the degree that we can get volunteers to
help us, we are.
Next year or this upcoming season -- actually we're kind
of in mid -- mid budget with -- because the TDC has just authorized I
think it was $100,000 for this program. I'm not sure whether the
board has -- has seen that request yet or not. But we would be also
adding on two part-time people probably from RECAP to -- to do the
Marco Island beaches. We're able to save some money there, but we're
adding some beaches for this year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last year didn't we have one of
the most successful nesting seasons on record? MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And line item 5 is -- is you want
to enhance the monitoring of one of the most successful seasons we've
ever had?
MR. LORENZ: The enhancement there is the two people
that basically do most of the work are -- this is similar to the
recycling -- assistant recycling coordinator. They are full time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know what we did with that.
MR. LORENZ: They are full-time temporaries. And,
therefore, they do not receive full-time benefits, holiday pay, but
yet they are working full time.
The reason why these positions were put on board as a --
as a part-time or temporary -- I should say temporary status was
because I wasn't sure exactly where this program was going to go, to
what degree, how long we were actually going to be working in the
program.
But with regard to the beach nourishment and the
requirements of the state, Collier County in some way, shape, or form
will have to do the turtle monitoring for at least the next seven to
eight years. And, therefore, that's why I've recommended that we
consider these employees as -- as full time or permanent -- I should
say permanent employees as opposed to temporary employees.
Same rationale for the assistant recycling coordinator.
Of course, this one -- where the recycling coordinator was recommended
by the manager, this is not recommended by the manager.
MR. DORRILL: I think that we've got an internal
management issue here concerning what will be a lot of increasing
comp. time accrual, and we need to evaluate what is the -- the least
intensive way of having the ongoing monitoring done without accruing
huge amounts of -- of comp. time at the staff level.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because these people are coming
in during the day, and then they're out at night monitoring nests.
MR. DORRILL: And that's -- we're trying to evaluate,
you know, maybe having them have their normal workday start at -- and
pick a time and then take them through rather than working eight to
five and then accruing comp. time in the evening.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say many -- many
businesses and governments went to flexible hours.
MR. DORRILL: We do that in other divisions now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we did.
MR. DORRILL: We have other departments that do a flex
staff.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: D?
MR. LORENZ: We try to do that as much as possible here,
although last year it was -- it was difficult to do it completely.
There are -- there is another way of -- of looking at it, and that is
pulling in some RECAP people that would work just for four hours. And
then it would take the load off of these -- these individuals so that
they won't have the comp. time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What do we see for number 3
there?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I -- I think we have
to do the program. I'm not -- I don't know whether it's essential or
not. I have to rely on Mr. Lorenz to tell me that, but I think it's
at least a D.
MR. LORENZ: Well, to the degree that your beach
nourishment program -- how ever you want to rate your beach
nourishment program, that may be a way of thinking about how to rank
this program from natural resources.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I guess it's an E then.
We talking about item 37
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
E? Artificial reef, I find that,
too, fairly important.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Just for your information,
no real change on the June 1 delivery date of material from the school
board. They're still -- I'm still hearing the same thing after making
a pitch to them. So plan B, I'm going to start working on it one on
one with some people. And -- and we'll try and move that ahead to
make sure it becomes a reality.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
doesn't --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
Have you become a lobbyist?
I'm a lobbyist for the county.
I know.
We all are now.
We're giving that a D, I assume.
Artificial reef?
Well, it's grant money. It
It's grant money.
We're giving that a E, I assume.
And I think in light of this past
year, I have to agree with the county manager's recommendation on
number 5.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I do too. I think we had
a very successful year for what we had.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: More of the same, NR.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Final one here is just the administrative
section which is Mr. Lorenz and his department. And that's going to
factor into our -- our organizational scenarios for how we may want to
organize the division next year, but there's -- there's otherwise no
change here. But it's -- it's essential from my perspective to have
some overriding administration for a division that is so complex and
in so many different areas.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: E?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: E.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Do you want to take a short break, or do
you want to keep plugging away?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's skip over to Pelican Bay
services.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's just keep moving.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill asked if we wanted to
take a short break. I think Jim's been sitting here long enough.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, this shouldn't take long.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This one shouldn't take long
because we see this one separately. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In a special meeting at Pelican
Bay; right?
MR. WARD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Ward, same question. We're
talking about your organization chart and vacancies. Do you want to
tell us which positions are currently vacant?
MR. WARD: I think there's four positions that are
currently vacant, three maintenance workers and one crew leader
positions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three maintenance workers?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ward, could I get you to talk
into the microphone a little more? I'm having trouble hearing you.
MR. WARD: Sure. There is three maintenance worker
positions that are vacant and one of the crew leaders positions that
is vacant.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which -- you only have one of the
landscape crew leaders?
MR. WARD: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You also relied, though, this year on --
heavier on contract labor as a result. Correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. WARD: Well, yeah. To the extent we have vacant
positions, they have to be filled, so we fill them with contract day
laborers essentially while the position's vacant.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who is supervising them?
MR. WARD: The day laborers? We have to split the crews
all apart so that we actually have on-staff employees supervising
those day laborers at that juncture.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you -- are you finding that
that's working well?
MR. WARD: I wouldn't want to get it any higher than it
actually is, quite frankly, because it means a one -- it almost is a
one-on-one relationship at this juncture. And that's -- I'd really
like to fill that crew leader's position, but we just haven't found a
qualified individual to do that.
And I'd like to have those maintenance worker positions
filled because in the summer what happens, we actually have to split
the crews again. And we use those more contract day laborers because
the mowing time increases -- it actually doubles in the summer months,
so we actually double our mowing crews. So I'd really like to have
the positions filled, but it's just not been in the cards recently.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take it from someone who worked
in day labor pools as one of my many jobs in college. You don't want
day labor on a regular basis.
MR. WARD: No, it's not fun.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Been there. Seen it. Done it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. This is a taxing district,
separate taxing district?
MR. WARD: Yes. Yes, ma'am. All of the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And is fully funded --
MR. WARD: By the residents.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- by the residents of Pelican
Bay.
MR. WARD: Right. Either through a special assessment,
or the street lighting is funded through ad valorem taxes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are they happy with the services
they're providing?
MR. WARD: To my knowledge, yes, ma'am. I haven't heard
any moans and groans recently.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I notice that you're not asking
for any increases. I presume they don't want any increases.
MR. WARD: No, not at this level. We are talking at the
-- your advisory board level about some additional items that they
want to consider in their budget this year, and they I think will
consider that probably at their next board meeting, maybe the one
thereafter.
So you might see some changes come along as this budget
gets developed, but at this juncture I think the same services are
contemplated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Same programs, but they may just
be expanded services.
MR. WARD: Right, uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, I think since the
citizens pay for it, I don't have a lot of problem with any of it.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS:
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. WARD: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
I don't either. E, E, E them?
All Es.
Looks good to me.
Thank you.
Well worth the wait, huh, Jim?
MR. WARD: Well worth the wait.
MR. DORRILL: Can you touch on the possibility of the
enhanced security issue coming back in some different context?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you sure we want to get into
that today?
MR. DORRILL: I don't. I just want to make sure that
the board is aware of the possibility of that. And I think that that
has huge incorporation ramifications to it, and it's going to be a
very delicate issue. We just need to be careful how we respond.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're -- we're -- you know, we're
aware of the force, and I would presume when your line item budget
comes that we look at that, that we will be addressing the enhanced
security program.
MR. WARD: Yes. Currently the advisory board is
actually going through a review of that advanced security program, and
that will come back to you if they decide to bring it back to you at
one of your budget hearings in the future. But it is an interesting
issue, and we have a lot of work to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just -- since you brought it up,
just to give the board a complete heads-up on this, I've been at the
last, I guess, three or four HSTBU meetings. And there seems to be,
even among the -- the group, a little bit of a split as to which route
to go on this, whether to try and do a separate district for Pelican
Bay, you know, that -- that has its limits or whether or not to do
additional security similar to what they have now.
So I think it's still in the forming stages, but I would
guess you're going to run the gamut on this one. And you might see
something as complex as an individual community policing approach for
Pelican Bay as a request.
So I want to put that up as a -- as a caution of
something you may see. I'm continually trying to tell them what I
think has a better -- better chance of survival than others. But
anyway, you may see that at one end of the spectrum.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WARD: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
MR. DORRILL: I wanted to suggest for purposes of
tomorrow that we begin with transportation I'm going to suggest about
nine o'clock because I think tomorrow's schedule is fairly
manageable.
And since you asked us to come back in real short order
with a proposed -- request for proposal and bid specification for
utilities that rather than reviewing what is essentially this year's
program budget for utilities and then 30 days from now looking at a
very detailed program specification, I'm going to suggest that we just
forego a utilities program review now because all bets are off at this
point, and it's going to be based on your review and approval of the
spec.
So I'm just going to suggest we do transportation
tomorrow morning from -- beginning at nine o'clock. The management
offices, the -- including the board and the county attorney, should
not take that much longer. We'll have time for lunch, community
development in the afternoon, some wrap-up issues. I don't know
whether those are best served for Friday at this point as part of the
public input.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds fine to me. So we don't
need to be here till nine o'clock. You can tell everyone except
Commissioner Constantine that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's probably in the back and
listening.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's listening.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, darn. Thought I was going to
get away with that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: As you snicker.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So wink, wink, 8:30, wink, wink.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're done?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. See you in the
morning.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:42 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Christine Whitfield and Shelly Semmler