Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/14/1995 B (Budget Workshop) BUDGET MEETING OF JUNE 14, 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 9:10 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRPERSON: following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the budget workshop for the board of commissioners for Wednesday, June 14th, 1995. MR. DORRILL: Good morning. For the -- this may be the last time that we say this, but for the benefit of the commissioners who have not gone through this type of workshop process before -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Torture. MR. DORRILL: -- we had developed along the board's direction the same type of line-item budget reviews that we have used, I'll say, for the past three years. And I think what I would like to do -- either Hike or Hiss Gansel, if we could go to whatever either the first budget is, and you explain the various elements of the cover page and the performance and service-level indicators and point that out, why we include that, and then show them the major cost center areas, personnel, operating -- operating capital, and whatnot. And let's -- let's take 3 minutes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. Under community -- in your community development section there might be a good representative example perhaps on page 5, the building plans review, permitting, and inspections. I -- on each of the pages what you'll find is an overall goal for that section. The program rankings for the programs that were outlined during your program budget workshop defined as either base level, essential, or discretionary programs. What -- what we've attempted to do this year, as well for each department, is develop performance measures. In this case some of the representative examples within the permitting section, they include number of permits issued. But in addition to that we've also attempted to put some efficiency or performance indicators associated with the issuance of those permits in terms of how quickly they are turned around. And that -- those are goals. There are, you know, a couple years' worth of history there, the anticipated activity level for fiscal year '95 as well as a proposed activity level in '96 for each of those indicators. On page 6 you'll see a representative spreadsheet. MR. DORRILL: Hang on one second. The cover page for each budget is -- is intended to then introduce and to explain those program goals that were approved by you several months ago, because it was whatever you approved that we have then used to produce the line-item budgets. Then we have a section that is expanded this year on those key performance or productivity service indicators. And we have two years' worth of history in addition to the forecast for this year and the estimated service level and performance indicators that are anticipated for next year. And we have that for every department budget that you will see before we get to any of the financial information. Go ahead. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And then page 6 is the dollars associated with each of the programs. You'll note they're summarized by major appropriation unit, those three being personal services, which is salary and benefits for the associated employees with -- within that section; operating expenses; and whether or not there's any proposed capital outlay and also identifies the number of permanent positions. There's a percentage change, and that is based on the total budget. In this case there are three expanded positions proposed for building inspectors which you approved during the program budget process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we did. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Preliminarily. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Preliminarily, that is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So take that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Those were prepared based on your policy-making direction during the program budget process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hike's going to be very serious about this, Tim. MR. DORRILL: And then at the bottom of every page are explanations and notes that are intended to assist you that have been prepared by your budget staff. And in this case they -- they were to draw your attention to the budget, for example, as it pertains to overtime expenses that have been incurred in this department that show in the forecast column for '94-'95. They have also helped to explain what, if any, increases are being represented in the current service budget, which is the nothing-changes budget. And then if they are asking for anything new, there will be a separate explanation for that summarized at the bottom of each financial page for expanded service. And so if you look, there's a separate column. You get both a current service column, and if they want something new -- and again as a result of your review under program budget -- in this case three additional building inspectors -- they are all explained and itemized. And then that will attempt to justify the expanded service column that then results in a proposed total budget for the '95-'96 year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If instead of having expanded service we had reduced service, would that just be shown as a -- MR. DORRILL: You will see it as a reduction to the current service budget, but you're going -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would it be shown under the expanded service column as a -- as a minus number? MR. DORRILL: No. It will -- it will show up as a reduction in current service, and you will see in some instances -- and in some budgets when you get to the percentage change column, you will see a minus percentage change, in this case which would be a decrease over this year's adopted budget, and that's the key. If you see minuses, it's the percentage column is this year's adopted versus next year's total. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In many instances as well, in the personal services category we have budgeted three and a half percent as the cost of living adjustment for FY '95 based on your adopted budget policy. In many instances the percentage increase will actually be below the three and a half percent due to a reduction in the dependent -- the board's cost of health insurance which is a major change. Dependent health care, the board's contribution decreased approximately $800 which in a lot of cases more than offsets the three and a half percent that you're budgeting for pay increases. MR. DORRILL: Had -- we've had tremendous savings this year in your cost for the group health insurance program for employees. I want to say the aggregate savings are $750,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Somewhere in that neighborhood, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that based on increased employee contributions, or has the cost gone down? MR. DORRILL: Both. And I think the biggest benefit being, frankly, our negotiated health management agreement with Naples Community Hospital and then the Sun Life agreement for the participating physicians, because you'll recall that we negotiated a combined agreement to reduce both in-hospital stays as well as physician office visits for those physicians that participate. And I think the vast majority of physicians in this community are participating in that. And so that is a policy issue that we may want to address at the same time that we review the human resources department budget, because that -- that poses a couple of questions. If -- if, in fact, we're -- we're seeing a reduction, a significant reduction in the overall cost of insurance, one of the policy issues I think that you need to discuss is the extent to which you want to share that proportionately with your employees. If your -- if your total costs are going down by $750,000, and you're currently paying 90 percent of that, is this board interested in also allowing 10 percent of the total to be attributed to the cost that the employees are paying for their own dependent coverage? That's one option. There are some other options. But the -- and you're going to see quite a few budgets whose overall percentage change is a decrease, and that's one of the main reasons. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to look at that, but I hope we look historically at all the years where it increased dramatically how much the county -- the county itself paid versus how much the employee paid, because I -- my understanding is for a number of years the county made up the difference there, so if -- MR. DORRILL: It's worth looking at. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to balance all that out. MR. DORRILL: We've increased employee contributions. We didn't do it this year, but there have been a number of years preceding that -- I'll say probably three or four years -- where we did increase their contribution for dependent or family coverage, and that's -- that is going to be one good budget issue for us. Another one that you're going to see -- just by way of introduction, FP&L contacted us several months ago and indicated that they had erred in the rate at which our electric bills were being accumulated. And the error, unfortunately, was in their favor, even though they made the mistake in the rate. We get a preferred electric rate per kilowatt hour because we do a number of energy saving things as a major electricity user. They miscalculated the rate, and there is increased cost in electrical usage anticipated in us resolving that. We're in the process of trying to negotiate a settlement with them because they made the mistake. I think the -- there is state law as it pertains to rate setting for electric utilities, and -- and it gives them the opportunity to back-charge us only to a certain point for their error. And we do not yet have a proposal to offer to you, because we don't think we have a good one since they made the mistake. But we are anticipating in budgeting electric consumption at a higher rate for all departments in county government. And so in some instances you are going to see operating costs go up this year. Rather than us say it over and over and over again, we allocate electric consumption based on the square footage that is occupied by the department in question. And in some instances where the square footage is not changed, you are going to see increased electrical cost because of a billing mistake upon the part of FP&L. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When will we make that -- well, when will we know or make decisions about that health insurance change? MR. DORRILL: I would -- I would say it's probably worth doing when Mr. Ochs is here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We will do support services next Wednesday. MR. DORRILL: Okay. That would be a good day for us to have that discussion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's a part of that budget? MR. SHYKOWSKI: And at that time you will see all of the self-insurance funds with Mr. Walker as well as the human resources budget. I believe that would be the appropriate time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just out of curiosity, are there other sort of umbrella issues like those two? MR. DORRILL: I have only one more, and it infers to just my introductory -- I have two more. You had specifically instructed us to notify all agency managers of your preferred -- or your required budgeting for attrition. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that you directed the chairman to advise each one of them individually. And it's my understanding that we do not have full compliance with that, and I don't even know what -- what -- the various rates, but this is going to be another issue when we begin to see constitutional officer budgets if they, in fact, budgeted attrition at 3 percent, which was your directive and your adopted fiscal policy. Can you tell -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. At this point the sheriff's office has budgeted for attrition, but only for the civilian employees. I believe it's a hundred and forty -- MS. GANSEL: 170,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 170,000. We're working through the clerk's budget right now. The supervisor of elections has not budgeted attrition. The property appraiser has not budgeted attrition. The tax collector, based on past history, typically spends the bulk of the budgeted funds and in the fiscal policy that you adopted was exempt, as were a few of the fire service, EHS where they're typically spending the bulk of that, or if they have a vacancy, they're expending overtime dollars in lieu of accruing salary savings. So the tax collector was exempt. The sheriff has budgeted only on the civilian side. MR. DORRILL: What about the clerk? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're working through the clerk's budget now. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And again, that's just introductory remark. The only other one that I had was to tell you in advance that I -- I think that you have one fine budget staff that work a lot of late evening hours and -- and do and run down lots of individual questions for you. And I think that's good testimony, not only to Mr. Smykowski, but all of his staff. And we just found out that for the year that we're in now that we have won or again been recognized by the Government Financial Officer's Association of America for having met their requirements for designation of having an outstanding budget format and presentation document and it being easily understood by -- by the public. And that's a special recognition that they strive for every year, and I think it's at least noteworthy today to laud them for their efforts to again been recognized. There are very few budgets that meet the certification requirements of that organization, and I think it's testimony of their hard work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. SHYKOWSKI: By way of introduction -- I just have one last comment. When you all changed the schedule -- initially we were supposed to start on Friday. Basically what I've scheduled today is the bulk of the enterprise related funds. On Monday the 19th we'll have the ad valorem funds, and we'll lead off with where we see the ad valorem picture for the HSTD and the general fund. So I've attempted to schedule -- schedule like utility operations today, community development operations, those being to the extent possible, non ad valorem so that you all would know the ad valorem picture prior to reviewing ad valorem related budgets. MR. DORRILL: We will be prepared to do that Monday and tell you what the property tax situation appears to be as well as telling you what we're anticipating in the -- in the way of increased values and new construction that has been added. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I've had a number of phone calls and letters subject to public comment on the line-item budget, and we did permit line item -- and we did permit public comment on the program priority budgeting. And my preference would be that at the end of this budget process also we -- we allow public comment, but we ask the public to confine that comment to the budget items that we are talking about and not going back and revisiting programs that we've already said that we're not going to fund. And if -- if this board's in agreement with that, perhaps Wednesday just before the wrap-up, what have you, we can have public comment. MR. DORRILL: Excellent suggestion, and we'll defer to what the board would like for us to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll do that then. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: We will schedule then and show public comment on any line-item budget then next Wednesday as -- as part of wrap-up issues? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. But we are -- we are not going to reopen -- MR. DORRILL: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- programs that we have decided not to fund. MR. DORRILL: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we get started then. MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, page 1 is the Board of County Commissioners' budget. And in this budget the salaries, your salaries, are set by state statutes. The salaries for your staff have been increased by the 3.5 percent. Operating expenses do show an increase. As Mr. Dotrill mentioned, electricity is one of the main items there. In addition, the Tallahassee lobbying effort is included, both in the forecast budget and for next year's budget. The $1,100 that we have in there for capital outlay is for a replacement printer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions regarding the board's budget? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How much will we save if we cut Miss Filson's salary? Just kidding, Sue. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wouldn't answer that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it will take two people to replace her. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A quick question. We have the -- is it 26,000 set aside for various travel and dues? What is that 26,000? MS. FILSON: The 26,000 includes $5,400 for the lobbying efforts; $10,000 for travel, that allocates each commissioner $2,000 each; and organizational development, and that's $500 for staff members to participate in classes, county-offered classes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we want that all in a lump sum? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Don't we have 10,000 in dues? MS. FILSON: $10,800 for FAC dues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought there was. Do we -- do we want what lumped together? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering if the Tallahassee thing -- is it -- maybe it is, but is it appropriate to have that lumped into the same, or should that be lined out? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The twenty-six -- I think it is lined out. MS. FILSON: Yeah, on -- on the line-item budget I have it -- part of it's under rent, $5,000, and the other portion of it is rent for your computer equipment while you're there. Even though they actually take it out of my line item on the -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard to hear you, Sue. MS. FILSON: Sorry. Even though they take it out of my line item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, she's shaking her head. She's not hearing you. MS. FILSON: Even though they take it out of my line item on my printouts that I get from finance, on my little travel reports here they have separated out into a different -- so that I don't have to include that in your travel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did that amount cover us for this year, all the expenses, comfortably? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know mine -- my -- mine personally with all the FAC travel that I do is -- is threadbare at this point in time. In fact, I've asked Commissioner MAc'Kie and Commissioner Norris to let me use some of their funds because with the FAC business, I'm out of business -- I'm out of money. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Miss Filson is asking about Tallahassee specifically. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but I was asking about Tallahassee, that point well taken. I -- I've -- I am spending my own money to travel for the county now too, so that's a good point. I was asking on Tallahassee in particular, did that 5,400 or whatever it was we allocated, did that cover us comfortably for that lobbying effort? MS. FILSON: Actually we paid for everything. We paid for the entire rent, the -- all the rental of the equipment, the airfare for the -- airfare and mail reimbursement for all the county commissioners. Even though we got reimbursed from the other two counties, it was placed in our general fund and not back in our budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The reimbursements from the other two counties went into the general fund? MS. FILSON: That's what I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And not back into our budget? Why would we do that? MR. DORRILL: You can do it either way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean I know it's all in the same pot, but I mean it's inflating our budget expense-wise if we're allo -- if we're allocating -- MR. DORRILL: It's a very minor task. We have a revenue column. If you look on page 1 of your budget, we do have the ability to show revenues and then, thus, the net cost to the general fund. And if you want to anticipate their participation next year and have us again be the sponsoring entity, we can certainly do that. That's just a minor budget issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer to my question was, yes, that adequately covered us? MS. FILSON: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say, okay, how much did we pay. How much did we get in? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually the -- the budget information that I put together for that -- that lobby effort covered a four-month period, yet we only were there for two months. But those of us who flew up -- up to Tallahassee, we prob -- we did not use the Saturday-night fares which I had planned in the four-month budget process. MS. FILSON: And there were two commissioners who didn't get to participate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who did not -- MS. FILSON: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- participate. So the $5,400, if we're going to do three months next year as in our joint meeting, we indicated that we may want to be there a month sooner. I'm not sure that it will be enough. MR. DORRILL: I made a note also on the revenue side if we need to perhaps look at that and advise you, because I think we have a meeting arranged on August the 3rd. And if we're going to entertain hiring a lobbyist as part of that proposal, then we will need to process a supplemental budget request, and that's going to raise the lobbying cost of this budget significantly. Then it's probably better off to show some reimbursing revenue from those other two counties. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why would we want to hire a lobbyist if we're -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that's what they were talking about, to bring somebody in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just to give us some ideas. MR. DORRILL: Right. And I said only in the event that it's going to further increase this budget, we would need to process a supplemental budget increase if that individual is retained or put on retainer for next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems -- well, I'm sorry. It seems to me that we would -- we would either have this effort where we have an apartment and -- and can go up there, or we would have a lobbyist and that we ought to make a choice, but not do both. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would be my feeling too. And particularly my feelings about hiring a lobbyist, I don't know if we want to pay a full-time salary, but -- I don't feel good about hiring a lobbyist who is representing other -- other counties and cities and so forth who -- who on specific issues may be diametrically opposed to what it is we're trying to get done. So who -- we could be setting ourselves up for paying money out and getting nothing for it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I suggest we leave that item as is if it was sufficient this year, that we don't really look at increasing that for next year. We'll just have to be thrifty and crafty and all that other good stuff to make sure we come in under budget on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question on that one was I know Commissioner Matthews just made the point we may go up for committee meetings next year which will be an extra month. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be an extra month. It may have to be brought up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For that month our role would be at a maximum of two weeks, because we are alternating with the other counties. So -- I mean we're not going to have a person up there every week, so it would be the two trips we didn't make this year, you know, so -- maybe we have to start planning on coming back Saturday night. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, come back Sunday. You have to stay over Saturday night. Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a boring place to be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think it's -- I don't think it's going to be a real large problem because, as I say, this $5,400 covered four months' worth of food, travel, and apartment rent plus. The only problem we run into is in the airfare where I had budgeted for Saturday night over fare -- Saturday night airfare, and we are not staying Saturday night. We're using full business coach which is almost double. But we're talking about almost double by six, six trips, seven trips. You're talking $700. So it's -- it's not really a big deal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'm comfortable staying then with your suggestion, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second item was the travel allotment for each commissioner. And I know Miss Filson has been coming around, and those of us that didn't have the demands on our schedule that require the travel this year have gladly signed off on other commissioners using the balance of those funds. But the one thing that we saw this year that was very valuable was the involvement in the Florida Association of Counties. The second thing I think we saw that was very valuable is having one of our members in either Leadership Southwest Florida or Leadership Florida. Those types of contacts proved, I think, valuable when there was some lobbying effort that we tried to -- to engage in in Tallahassee. And the two things that have resulted from that is that the two members involved, Commissioner Constantine and Commissioner Matthews, and those two things on this particular year came up woefully short in being able to -- to achieve that within a $2,000 budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually I also did Leadership of Southwest Florida, so we got three of us in here on last year's budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She did, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, although I will probably be more involved with FAC next year in lieu of Commissioner Matthews, and you will probably be more involved in, I believe, Leadership Florida you may be interested in -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've made application. I haven't heard yet. Have we heard yet? MS. FILSON: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think they make their selections this week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do they? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So we can anticipate more of the same next year. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also think we have more in the way of full-time commission than we ever had in the past, so just by the nature of that we expend -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, what are we talking about doing then? Are we talking about allocating separate travel budgets and separate conference budgets for FAC meetings as well as for various leadership programs? Is -- is that what we're -- if that's what we're talking about doing, then let's zero in on it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm trying to find what the best vehicle is because my question to Miss Filson was in the total $10,000 allotted for specific travel, did we get it all done through transfers and so forth. And the answer I got back was, well, yes and no. Yes, we did, but Commissioner Constantine has paid out of his own pocket -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've paid out of my own. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for a good portion of travel, and so has Commissioner MAtthews. These are things that I think clearly benefit the county in relationships that come in handy when we're looking for joint lobbying efforts with other counties to support a position that benefits us. So I'm kind of open to suggestions on that but obviously sensitive to, you know, commission cuts back but pads their own travel budget. You know, that -- I can see that coming, and I'm fearful of it, to be honest. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not fearful of it if -- if we're producing a valid outcome for the efforts that we're making. I'm not fearful of it at all. I have no doubt that Leadership Florida, Leadership Southwest, and Leadership Collier bring a good benefit back to Collier County, and -- and certainly our work with the FAC does also. And -- and I think I can say safely, and Miss Filson can verify that, that the bulk of the $2,000 that was allotted to me went to FAC, the bulk of it. MS. FILSON: That's true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if we want to increase our travel budget to accommodate FAC so that if you have other things that you wish to do beside FAC -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not penalized for doing FAC. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- you're not penalized for it and likewise for the various leadership programs. MS. FILSON: And one of the problems I'm encountering, whichever commissioner participates in the Leadership Florida, that's like $2,500 last year, and I don't know if it's going to increase this year. And that's already over the allotted budget, and that doesn't count airtime, motels, or extras. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it does includes hotels and meals. MS. FILSON: But not airfare. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I got a long drive, put some miles on the Buick. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we pay for these kinds of things for like senior staff? I just think we ought to leave it alone. I think there's enough money in there, and somebody can have, you know -- I'm not going to do Florida Association of Counties, so there's 2,000 bucks you can put in somebody else's Florida Association of Counties travel budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're hitting on something I was about to get to, and that is why don't we figure out what it is we're going to be involved in next year before we determine whether there's sufficient funds to achieve it. The idea that if we increase the funds that are there and they'll be used I think is not comfortable. One of us will be involved in FAC, whether it continues to be Commissioner Matthews, or it may be me. And we, I think, can put a line that's a $2,000 expense for an individual. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if I'm in FAC, I already know that if I go to American Planning Association stuff, I'm going to have to pay for it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we do this in order to try to make a suggestion? Why don't we keep the budget per commissioner the same, set aside $2,000 for FAC, and that way if one commissioner and more than one commissioner is participating, that individual isn't being penalized for participating on our behalf with the Florida Association of Counties. So just -- you'll have a $2,000 pool there to do the Florida Association of Counties, whichever commissioner or commissioners do that, and then everybody still has their own individual -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are other commissioners who may want to go to FAC meetings also even though they may not be on the board, and there's seminar fees plus whatever travel. So $2,000 probably would do it for whatever we're going to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that come in where we have the 10,800 in FAC dues? Would we add additional amounts in that line item, or would we just add it to travel budget in general? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd just add it to the travel budget in general. MS. FILSON: If we did add it to the line item for the FAC dues, when I submitted reimbursements or requisitions, they would take it out of travel if that's what it related to. And then when they issue my report, they would separate it out. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shouldn't we talk about what we're going to do? I mean somebody is going to probably do Leadership Florida, and that's $2,500. Somebody is going to go to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we don't know that Leadership Florida is -- is in the mix yet, and we won't know that for another week or ten days. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many of us applied? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure they'll love you, Bettye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, my suggestion is -- that's one of the things we've worked out in the past is what each individual one does; that's what the lump sum is for. But then to have something particularly for FAC should solve that problem. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if I'm not going to spend my -- I mean if we talk about every $2,000 today like we're talking about this, we'll be here to dark. MR. DORRILL: You have about 140 pages to go today. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. But I'm -- okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to suggest that we increase the travel budget from $10,000 to $12,000, which will adequately cover the FAC plus whatever our other travel. Is that in agreement, 10 to 127 MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. So we'll add 2,000 in travel and reflect the reimbursement revenues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Can we put that in a different line item so I can keep track? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hopefully we can move through the hundred thousand dollar items faster than the two thousand dollars ones. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Other general. MS. GANSEL: The next page is other general administration. Although this is listed under the Board of County Commissioners, actually the clerk of courts administers this budget. Essentially what it is, where we can't budget it somewhere else, it seems to -- to appear in this budget. We do have one employee who is the employee in Everglades City, and the employee kind of takes care of tax collecting, all of that sort of thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Library. MS. GANSEL: We also have an unemployment compensation so that you don't feel as though this employee makes $82,000 a year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is included in that eighty-two? MS. GANSEL: Is unemployment compensation for the county. We have 50,000 that we budget for unemployment in personnel services also so -- MR. DORRILL: This is a pooling account, if you will. This is the account that also pays for the annual external audit to be done, and you'll see some increased cost for the external audit. MS. GANSEL: Electricity for the hall, outside lighting. MR. DORRILL: Common area kind of things, just a pooling account. Overall increase is up about 1.7 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how does $32,500 come to be applied for tax deeds, a reduction for application of tax deeds? MS. GANSEL: Okay. In -- in the past couple years, like about five years ago, we started an aggressive program in applying for the tax deeds, selling the deeds. And there was a backlog. The attorney's office has continued to dwindle away at that backlog so we are not -- MR. DORRILL: Just a reduction in the advertising, in the notification process leading up to the foreclosure-type actions, if you will. And the costs are being decreased next year because the volume of tax deeds -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we're catching up with the backlog. MR. DORRILL: Yes. They've done a very good job with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions on general administration, other general? MS. GANSEL: If I could take the next four pages -- they're the tourist development funds -- together, and then we could individually look at them if you would like to. Essentially the -- the forecast budgets reflect your actions year to date in each of the funds. I put all of the anticipated additional for collections for next year and any additional money this year into reserves for next year, and that will be allocated through the TDC action and then brought to the board. In the forecast we have allocated on the percentage approved in the referendum issue the 6 million dollars from the prior tourist tax. I'm anticipating about a 5.5 percent increase in the forecast and overall budget to budget a 10.8 percent increase in tourist tax revenues to be received next year. The budget for beach renourishment does not anticipate an increase in the rate that we now charge. It is at the 2 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you tell me on these different fund numbers, one ninety-three, ninety-four, ninety-five, and ninety-six, what we genetically know them as? MS. GANSEL: Okay. 193 is the 15 percent special events. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's category C? MS. GANSEL: Category C, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Okay, 194 is category B, the 25 percent special promotion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Fund 195 is category A, beach renourishment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: And cat -- fund 196 is the disaster recovery fund that you just set up that would have a 5 percent transfer from category B and C into this fund. This fund does not directly collect the tourist tax. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: You -- just final note on that. You would have received today a memorandum, spreadsheet, and draft executive summary concerning beach renourishment, four different options, and you -- you should anticipate my office sort of encouraging you towards adding a third cent and doing a single mobilization and looking at some short-term borrowing through commercial paper. And we're going to be talking about that real soon. But you -- you -- if you don't already have -- I see Miss Matthews' so it has been delivered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have it. We can -- if we choose to put that third penny on, that's not effective until January; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I had asked you to gather some information from insurance companies on damage. Has that -- MR. DORRILL: We're attempting to do that, and we also provided you with some information concerning what current beachfront property values are in the Naples urban area. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A billion dollars I believe you told me. MR. DORRILL: A billon one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A billion ninety-six. A billion ninety-six million, a lot of money. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Roughly one-hundredth of the national debt. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One-hundredth? One-thousandth, isn't it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what percentage of our property taxes, you know, that will be a relevant computation. MR. DORRILL: Well, the total countywide values are probably nearing 16 billion, so you just figure -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big chunk. MR. DORRILL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 6 percent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need -- just have one question. What's a doughnut ad? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh. MS. GANSEL: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's a doughnut ad? MS. GANSEL: It's an ad that they have everything ready to go except the particulars. In the event of a hurricane it has, you know, come back to Naples, Florida. It would have -- the date would be filled in at the last minute and the severity of the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a doughnut because it has a hole. MS. GANSEL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It has a hole that needs to be filled in. That's why it's a doughnut. MR. DORRILL: Anything else on that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anything else on the tourist development? MR. DORRILL: Community development then which is on page 1 of the community development section. MR. SHYKOWSKI: First of all, I'd like to introduce Spiros Bamiatzis. He's joined the budget office from Escambia County and previously also worked in the City of Pensacola. He's the budget analyst for the community development division. Mr. Cautero and staff are also available. MR. DORRILL: For what it's worth, also noted in the Turkey Tribune yesterday where your son was recognized top in his class and has received a full scholarship to Yale University. Can't begin to put a value on that. Congratulations. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good parenting classes too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will help analyzing the -- MR. BAMIATZIS: God has been very good to me. MR. DORRILL: Quite an honor. Congratulations. Your son must be very smart. MR. BAMIATZIS: Thanks to his mom. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Parenting classes are in order, though, either you or his mom. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody tell me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Help us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anyway, about community development. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, welcome aboard. How lucky you are to come on board just in time for these budget hearings. MR. CAUTERO: Good timing. MR. DORRILL: Go ahead. MR. BAMIATZIS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Spiros Bamiatzis. I'm the budget analyst -- I'm budget analyst down in the OHB office. And I will try to give you a little review of the community development budget. The fund is balanced, and we have -- we were able to balance it in lieu of the fact that we took about a 15 percent fee reduction in the revenues, and we have been able basically to balance this budget with this kind of revenue adjustment. Overall the budget has increased about 3.8 percent. And continue on, on page -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just to be clear, approximately one year ago the community development administrator had suggested a review of fees would be appropriate and of the development services steering committee had also suggested a review of that. At this time staff is proposing and recommending for FY '96 a 15 percent reduction in building permit fees and the majority of building and planning related fees. The budget is based -- the revenue budgeted on page 2 assumes a 15 percent fee reduction to become effective October 1st, 1995. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume, Mike, other than that just being reflective of the cost of doing business, in addition the recent case law that said you can't basically fund one -- one element with another element had some impact in our making sure that we're in line with -- with the cost, is -- is that a fair assumption? There was a case, Mr. Dotrill, you remember where we had another county that was using one impact fee or one fund fee to fund another one, and there was a legal problem with that. Have we looked at whether that's going on or whether we're involved in all that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We've always been very cautious of that building-related functions are supported by fees, and the -- the balance of your community development is supported through the 111 MSTD general fund which is supported by property taxes, so we've always taken a very cautious view of that. And if it is building and/or planning related, it would be in fund 113, which is the budget we're discussing now. Otherwise it would be included in the unincorporated area general fund. MR. DORRILL: And specifically long range planning, growth management, the zoning code enforcement functions are all being paid through property taxes. We're not using permit related revenues. They're a separate fund, and we distinguish between the two. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the -- I -- I was under the impression that this was a percentage split. It's not a percentage split? MR. DORRILL: Well, the entire division would be a percentage split, but there are two primary funding mechanisms. One is permit-related fees that are supporting what I would call the Horseshoe Drive-type activities. And then for those three main departments that I mentioned, zoning, code enforcement, growth management, and long range planning, those really don't have anything to do with permits and, thus, are being paid for through property taxes but in the unincorporated area fund. The City of Naples is not contributing to any of those. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the City of Naples doesn't use any of these -- MR. DORRILL: No. They have their own planning function, their own zoning enforcement function and, thus, why we have that many unincorp -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those are general government-type activities. In lieu of there being a city, the county performs those functions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's some law that -- that -- is this a policy we've made, or is it something that we are required to do for case law? Because it's curious -- I mean if the cost of -- of doing business for development in Collier County has gone down by 15 percent, then let's lower the fees 15 percent. But if we could shift -- we could have the fees stay the same and shift the cost of the zoning department to -- to the enterprise fund -- MR. DORRILL: My -- my hunch is then we would have some type of taxpayer suit brought by the contractors' and builders' association because of the policy of the Board of County Commissioners which was to distinguish between those two activities any more than we would use building permits fees or rezoning application fees to help support the parks and recreation department as opposed to the zoning department. And that's -- that's been a policy decision of the board. I'm not that current with case law about commingling of activities. I won't say that you can't do it, but it has been the policy of this commission not to do it, and they are closely monitored by the building industry association to make sure that we adhere to that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a case last year I remember reading about where they were charging building permit fees far in excess of the cost of performing them and using that fund to subsidize other development funds, and that went to court, and it was determined, you know, basically pay for what it costs. And so I think we would experience some problems in trying to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other -- the other thing that seems very related to permitting activities is the county attorney's -- a portion of the county attorney's office and a portion of utilities, you know, where they review utilities dedications and -- and all of that that's -- that is in reality very related to construction of a -- of a building. MR. DORRILL: How have we budgeted the interdepartmental payments from the enterprise funds in support of the county attorney's office? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's recouped through the indirect cost allocation. MR. DORRILL: Okay. We are billing, if you will, the enterprise funds. I would say the major ones are water, wastewater, community development, solid waste, and we have an indirect cost allocation. We don't get a monthly invoice for time spent, but there is an allocation. And as Mr. Cuyler allocates his manpower planning effort over the course of the year, he does have certain attorneys who are only authorized, or in this case I know Miss Student does her preponderance, and Ms. Ashton are doing the preponderance of community development work, and he has an indirect cost allocation method. We charge them, and then there's probably a journal entry payment out of their fund into the general fund in support of those activities. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And similarly with that part of utilities that does, you know -- MR. DORRILL: They're probably the largest pair in support of the county attorney's office in terms of the support they receive. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, they are also paying a payment in lieu of taxes to the general fund of a million-dollar maximum. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was thinking of the utilities relation to the development and permitting activity. Is there some sort of a recoup for that? When a developer goes to pull a permit, he has to -- before he can do that, he's got to dedicate his utilities. He's got to get his sewer lines approved and accepted, and all that goes through utilities. MR. DORRILL: He's charged for all of that as part of the Land Development Code. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know he pays fees for that, but my question is, is there an interrelated transfer like there is with the county attorney's office between utilities and development services, or does that make sense? It seems to me it might. MR. DORRILL: For that one I'll need some help from either Mr. Cautero or Mr. Arnold in terms of how we are pro rating, if you will -- I think what Miss Mac'Kie is asking in effect is if they review the plans, subdivision plans, for the constructions and adherence to county standards and then the conveyance mechanism. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are they paying for that, or are taxes paying for that? MR. CAUTERO: It's my understanding there are two staff members that work in that nature specifically in the engineering review section of the planning department. And from what Mr. Arnold and Mr. Litsinger just told me, that there is a transfer of those funds that takes place similar to what you have with the county attorney's office for those building review and permitted-related function. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's an adequate transfer to -- to make it whole. In other words, I don't want property taxes paying for those development-related services. MR. DORRILL: No, no. They're on the fee-related side. They're in fund 113, which is the community development fund, and those engineering-related activities that would be under, I presume, Tom Kuck -- MR. CAUTERO: Correct. MR. DORRILL: -- and probably include Wes Hill -- MR. CAUTERO: And Shirley Nix. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And then they are doing all of the utility-related review as part of the fee revenues that support community development and not the property tax support of community development. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with Ms. Mac'Kie on that issue. I'd like to ask the board if we could perhaps encourage Cautero to make sure in the coming year that -- that he -- he investigates to -- to find out that we are, indeed, getting a fair cost through the enterprise fund and not through ad valorem on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with that too. In fact, my question for Mr. Dotrill is -- is that the -- the percentage relationship on the funding of this was established some years ago. And my question is, are we adequately assured that the percentage continues to hold. MR. DORRILL: Well, not only that, I think the rationale -- look -- look on page 2. And look at the amount of the carryforward that is shown under the revenue side. You'll see we've had a growing carryforward, and they are projecting a carryforward of cash on hand, if you will, of almost 3 1/2 million dollars. And I -- I understand fully your policy direction and your clear message to the community and the taxpayers that they are not supporting development service-related activities. And, in fact, what we're saying is development service-related activities are increasing at a rate higher than our expenses and, thus, we're suggesting that we roll back those permit-related fee costs by 15 percent. We've still got an adequate carryforward in reserve in this fund for next year. That's the basis -- we don't want to overcharge or gouge the development industry just for the sake of making money. We don't want to make money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But before we -- before that 15 percent is official, can we be confident that Mr. Cautero has done a review to be sure that those allocations are completely adequate? MR. DORRILL: Well, not only that, but time available between now and October the 1st, I don't know. We probably have a resolution that establishes those fees. We would probably propose a resolution to reduce those fees that would need to be done as part of a regular board item. We can have that resolution to reduce fees, and we can show you the actual cost split at that time as part of -- and we'd have to do it at a regular board meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Because I'd like some assurances if we're using percentages at all that the percentage relationship continues to hold on these services that may be split functions. Is that -- I too want to be sure that the developers are paying their fair share but that we're not overcharging them. I don't know what the mechanism is that you're using, but I just want to make sure that it's continuing to work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As part of that we're looking at a significant information technologies expense up and coming. The portion that will impact development services, what fund is that projected to be out of? MR. DORRILL: How are we budgeting the capital for the automation -- MR. CAUTERO: 113. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 113 in the centralized operating expenses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the balance that will benefit community development will come out of the operating fund in this department out of an enterprise fund and not out of ad valorem? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Will that take us then over to page 47 MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 4. MR. BAMIATZIS: Page 4, that's a blank services department. There is a point 8 percent reduction in the budget for next year. That is attributable mainly, like Mr. Smykowski said before, through the health insurance being less than it was budgeted. The month forecasted and also the permit expense about $57,000 less. Unless you have any questions where -- MR. DORRILL: In this case we've shown you the fund summary, talked about the overall fees being proposed to be decreased. Now what he's going to do is show you the individual department expense budgets for -- and this one is -- excuse me. For example, the first one here, planning services of what we call current planning activities, these are the people that appear before you on Tuesday to fezone someone's property for which they are paying the fees to do that. In just a minute you'll see the long range planning department. They're going to be on the property tax item of this division. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something that would be useful to me, if it's something anybody has and can just give me, that would be great, is -- is a list of the funds. Like I don't know that 113 is enterprise or ad valorem -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a copy of that. MR. DORRILL: Yeah, we can get that even this morning. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you even beep Sue, get her to get it for me, because that would help? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's in my agenda book. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have the same problem, keep -- all these fund numbers don't mean a thing to me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to know the titles. MR. DORRILL: That's fair. On to page 5 and 6 then. MR. SHYKOWSKI: What we've done here is shown you the overview for 113 which is the fees supported, and the pages that follow are the community development fee-supported functions. When we get to the point at which we get to the ad valorem supported, we'll make that distinction for you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 113 is fee? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. MR. BAMIATZIS: Continuing on page 5 and 6 is the building review permitting and inspections department. This presents an increase of about 15 percent that was attributable to mainly the expanded service column that there are three additional building inspectors proposed for next year, the amount of $111,500 and the associated expenses with those three positions. MR. DORRILL: So this is the first budget that we've seen where we have new programs, and that's why they're -- they're rolling up on page 6 under the expanded service column, the third one from the right. And then there has to be in every instance an explanation of that. If there is anything in that column, there must be an explanation for it immediately following that in sort of a narrative, and that's why under expanded you see all that information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question here on these three, and I know we approved these three building inspectors with the program priority. MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we have since learned -- I'm not sure how far we're going to go with this -- that the building inspectors want to slow down at the time to create a need to -- to create a perceived need for additional inspectors. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was part of Commissioner Hac'Kie's report -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure we need them now. And we have to rely on Mr. Cautero to determine whether we need them or not. MR. CAUTERO: Is there some type of a further analysis then that the board is seeking in this regard? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically, Mr. Cautero, you may want to start with a base-needs analysis on workload and capacity per employee, because the reports that we had -- and this was prior to your coming on board -- was that they wanted more inspectors. And one or two individuals that are no longer with us ordered a slowdown to make it appear and create a delay in building inspections so that the need for more inspectors was evident. MR. DORRILL: Let me do this. We'll give you a partial answer now, but we need to give you a further, more developed answer if you'll go back to page 5. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So not -- not pointing any finger or hearing an explanation, but that was the situation. And I think we need to go back and make sure we're justifying the positions properly at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's correct. MR. MAGRI: Excuse me, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Joe Hagri, the acting director of building and permitting. At the present time our inspectors are doing an average of about 20 inspections a day. That's -- that's -- and -- and better than that, 20 and higher. And that's -- that's quite a few inspections. I mean additional inspectors, I -- I do believe, are needed in that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're just asking for a need to report as to what the needs are in order -- in order to meet the inspection requirements. MR. DORRILL: We'll -- we'll begin with the base information shown on page 5, and I think the three key performance indicators there are what is the total permit-related volume. You'll see that we plan to do 15,300 permits this year. They are forecasting a little more than 17,000 permits this year. And the other indicators are the number of inspections -- excuse me, the percentage of inspection requests that are done within 24 hours, that is our service target goal. If you call us today, that we will schedule and perform the footer inspection or the tie-beam inspection, we're only doing that 85 percent of the time. And they had forecast as part of the expanded that we would increase that to 90 percent compliance for 24-hour inspections. So that's the type of information that we will give you, and we can show you the number of inspections per day per individual. And I think we'll save that then for a wrap-up issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And for a comparison I'm counting on Mr. Cantero's experience in relationship with other people in different counties to give us a baseline of where we are compared to other areas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got no problem if -- if they're needed. MR. DORRILL: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just -- from the report I read that there was an effort to create a perception of need on -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then I'm still trying to get these fine things. MR. DORRILL: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This won't take me this long all the time once I catch on. But you just said a minute ago there are some functions; zoning, code enforcement, growth management, and long-range planning that come out of unincorporated general fund. And inspectors are code enforcement, and this is fund 113 -- MR. DORRILL: As it pertains to building -- building codes and new inspection. The -- you pull a building permit, and you need the tie-beam inspected, these are the inspectors that are doing it. If you -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're going to have a separate budget for the property taxes that are also inspectors but that are inspectors for a different purpose? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Code enforcement investigation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm getting it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's move on. MR. BAMIATZIS: Okay. Let's go to the code enforcement, engineering inspections, page 7. MR. DORRILL: These would then be the folks that are doing the subdivision-type reviews, Commissioner Hac'Kie. They -- the streets, the drainage, the utility inspections review, the process to -- to record and convey any of those subdivision facilities, this is that portion and, again, all being paid for with fees. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But based on the performance measures here, construction is slowing down in Collier County? Is that what we're seeing? MR. DORRILL: This will run in a cycle, from my perspective. And, again, I might ask Mr. Cautero to give me some help. These -- these are the initial subdivision-type reviews and inspections. And they do not track then building permit activity in every case because a lot of times you will see obviously subdivision expansion and improvements for the inspections in advance of the requests for the individual building permits. There's -- there's not a good and distinct correlation between the two. And what this says is that we either have a -- a sufficient inventory of subdivision facilities, or that they are anticipating a building slowdown ^ck, 1 or =, you know, I'd say a year to 18 months from now. And, frankly, Mr. Hancock can probably shed as much light on that as anybody. But this is the development side of then what then will be building permits say a year and a half from now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 8 we have another activity code enforcement. It's called work reception and control. And for this activity there is about $24,600 associated with the hiring of one person that will be used to assist the three building inspectors that were mentioned previously. And even that, there's about a 2.5 decrease in operating expenses. MR. DORRILL: The primary activity here, contractor licensing and -- and licensing and -- and investigating contractor licensing issues, again, all fee driven. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this one person -- this one additional person also -- was that a request in the program area that was separate from the, quote, unquote, perceived slowdown? I don't -- I don't remember, and I'm relying on -- MR. DORRILL: I don't either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It says that this person is to support the three new, so it's related -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's related to the three new people. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, it's related to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that -- that one will be under examination too? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, ma'am. MR. BAMIATZIS: Page 10, like Mr. Dotrill said, this is for contractor's licensing. There is -- in the forecast section there is, again, the same issue, health insurance being less than what was being budgeted. On page 11, that's the centralizing operating expenses. There are a few items that I would like to mention to you. First thing, the expanded section, '95-'96, there are some new items over there. One of them being there is a generator that is planned to be purchased of a hundred thousand dollars, and that is part of the capital outlay in the expenditures column. There's $300,000 for the construction of a 3,000 square feet second-floor facility in the community development building. There is $80,000 for energy improvements to the building and $18,000 and about $2,200, and these two activities are associated for preventative measures in case of a hurricane. MR. DORRILL: The building is without emergency power and also some provisions anticipating the storage of irreplaceable building records and permit records that could be damaged in the event. They've got some storage plans and some backup electrical plans for the building. And, again, because this is an enterprise fund, they are providing the revenue for any of the major capital expenses in addition to the office automation, the computerization project that we already touched on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume there is still someone designated to grab the shiny book on the way out? Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Shiny book? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically if you lose the shiny book, we have no idea what's happened over the last 20 years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's an original document that's subject to loss? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically if we had to rebuild, the shiny book is what we'd rebuild from. It's the record of all the zoning and what's going on. And once we get computerized, that no longer will be the only source, but right now it is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When we go through this new IT thing, can we get some sort of a scanner or something to get it into the computer and put these books somewhere safe? I mean -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- that's a part of the IT plan is to put it on computer base. You always have to have a paper backup, but right now it's it. It's all. So that's why I asked the question. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And it's currently on the ground floor. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, yes. Category 2, storm-surge area. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is the concern. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: So this -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought you folks knew about that. I didn't mean to scare you. Let's put it in a big ziplock bag, shall we? MR. DORRILL: For all practical purposes, these are -- this is the capital and improvement budget for the fee-generated community development. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And that concludes the discussion related to the items funded by fees. Now we'll transition. On page 12, community development administration is funded through our unincorporated area general fund, and we'll proceed to identify -- identify those items. MR. DORRILL: So we're in the property taxes now. This is Mr. Cantero's administrative budget. But you will also notice, in particular for Ms. Hac'Kie, that we prorate his time as well. And so for his time and the cost and support of his office, we transfer in payments from the community development fund. And if you'll look, there is a transfer down there. And so, again, it shows net costs to this property tax fund. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: All right then. So on page 12 you have the expenses for Mr. Cantero's office, and there have been some unanticipated expenses in that office as well. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Related to the termination pay and benefits to the former administrator as well as, you know, advertising for Mr. Cantero's current position as well as some operating expenses. We incurred some additional expenses there in the recruitment effort. MR. BAMIATZIS: Okay. And proceeding on with page 14 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait. I do have a question, and this may be along Commissioner Hac'Kie's lines, the HSTD general 111. What's the source of those funds? MR. DORRILL: Property taxes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I note in here that the board approved a consultant contract to develop an integrated computer system within the division. Was that fully funded by property taxes? MR. DORRILL: No. That's why I said if you look on page 12 after the appropriation amount -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the transfer item you were discussing? MR. DORRILL: Then there's 135. It's total appropriations, and there's a transfer into this -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: -- of ninety thousand -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I was sleeping when you said that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 75 percent of the community development administration office is offset by the transfer from 113 due to the -- obviously the bulk of the employees, therefore, assume the bulk of the -- Mr. Cantero's oversight and administration are associated with community development and building-related activities. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Answers my question. Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: Okay. Proceeding on to page 14, we have the code enforcement function of the community development services that is funded by the unincorporated HSTD areas. MR. DORRILL: They're your zoning people. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gotcha, thanks. MR. BAMIATZIS: And in the expanded column there is a provision there for one position that will be a code compliance investigator associated with the purchase of a vehicle and radio equipment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Was -- is this person also a part of the perceived slowdown, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, totally different section in activity. These are the people who are out investigating zoning complaints throughout the unincorporated area. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, the -- if I remember right on the program priority, the need for this additional person came up as a result of the -- of the code enforcement patrols in the various neighborhoods; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: In part, and then I think we're probably going to hit 50,000 zoning complaints by the end of the year that need investigation, and so you've got some normal growth and activity. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a -- just for the board's information, I have a memo in to Mr. Dotrill that as soon as things kind of settle down in the division and we get things underfoot is to get these organizations, both Naples Park and Golden Gate, everyone together, get a standard operating procedure so that we're helping code enforcement and not hindering, hurting, or otherwise making their lives difficult but, in essence, are an extension arm. So when that happens, hopefully that process will become a little smoother. MR. DORRILL: If we can digress for a second, Mr. Bolgar has instituted a revised written procedure for community-based zoning, and you may just want to elaborate on that. MR. BOLGAR: Madam Chairman, I'm Bill Bolgar. I'm the acting director for code enforcement. We've initiated a program whereby we have the sub -- the homeowner's associations now meeting with us, and what we have done is we've asked them to be the -- our eyes and our ears in their community, that they report violations to us. We've supplied them with the forms. We meet with them to tell them how to go about this, and we feel that that way their -- their communities will be much, much better for them, because we -- we just with the personnel don't have the opportunity to hit every street every day. They live there. They see it, so they help us in that manner. And I -- that in itself is going to increase the workload on our department. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Would you give me a copy of that operating procedure? MR. DORRILL: He has a procedure that entails, and so they understand what they are authorized and what they are not authorized to do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see a copy of that too so maybe everybody -- it would be a good idea. And just -- you probably are already doing this, but a new group had just gotten started when Dick Clark was leaving, and that was the Bayshore area. Have you gotten hooked up to them? MR. BOLGAR: Yes, ma'am. We've got the Bayshore area, Golden Gate, North Naples, and Marco. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wasn't Naples Manor also starting such a program? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All they have to do is call their commissioner; he'll point them in the direction or she'll -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bolgar, do we have any initial interest from Naples Manor in terms of -- have you been down there with Mr. Norris at all or developed any interest in that community? MR. BOLGAR: No, I haven't. But what we do in Naples Manor is -- and we did this four weeks ago -- I took one day all of the investigators we have, which were ten in the field. We divided the Naples Manor up between the ten investigators, and we came up with about 167 violations that day. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: All right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: All right. On page 16 and 17 is a function of the planning services dealing with growth management plan, long-range planning, and transportation planning. And in that section I'll go to the expanded service column. You have $2,700 there and that will be for some equipment like cold manning press and the microfiche plotter on that. You have some savings, of course, in the personnel section due, again, to the health insurance actual cost being less than what has been budgeted. And the overall budget is decreased by 6.8 percent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's decreased. I thought you said increased. MR. BAMIATZIS: My accent gets in the way sometimes. I'm sorry. Okay. No more questions, I'll go to page 18 and 19. That's the HPO planning. For the most part this activity is funded by state grants, and there is a decrease in that activity for next year due to some of these associated costs were purchased for this year. So there will be some decrease in that activity, about 9.8 percent the amount. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Overall it's important to note here a major -- a component of the HPO budget is a contribution from the unincorporated area general fund budgeted at $24,800 in FY '95. The state has picked up the bulk of the local match requirement, so you'll see in FY '96 the county contribution is a mere $400 of a $310,000 budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we get that down to $200, Hike? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good job. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 20 you have about $75,000 there which is a contribution from general fund for the disadvantaged transportation activity, the HPO function. On page 21 is another contribution of the general fund, and that is for the county's membership with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which -- is this mandated by the state? MR. BAMIATZIS: Yes. MR. DORRILL: And just again for information, we've changed funds again. You're now in the countywide general fund, which is property taxes countywide to include the cities, because we're now in the countywide functions, HPO. Regional planning council are mandates, but mandates of a countywide nature, so we changed funds on you again. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 22 -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: 22 and 23 is the housing and urban improvement department. Overall there is a 42.7 percent increase in appropriations. That does, however, include some expanded services that were addressed during the program budget process. I will -- will note for you that under current service you'll note that there were four -- there are only three positions in current. There were four in the FY '95 adopted budget. Due to the growth in the SHIP -- SHIP program, there's an allocation for administrative services. So for FY '96 Mr. Hihalic has proposed transferring a senior planner position from the general fund, which is ad valorem supported, to fund 191, which is the SHIP -- SHIP grants program. We'll see that on the following pages. That's approximately $60,000 shifted from ad valorem to the SHIP grant programs. In the expanded services there are basically two items. There was an economic development coordinator position for approximately $50,000, and that was approved during program budgets and $25,000 for a contractual position to rewrite the housing element of the comprehensive plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski. Thank you, Commissioner Matthews. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The economic development coordinator position was discretionary -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Smykowski. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was rolling right along there, Mike. For Mr. Hihalic, that 49,800 for economic coordinator, if we don't get the grant and the program that doesn't happen, that position doesn't happen? MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, we cut the cost back from the 65,000 we talked about, and we brought that down to under 50,000, which was from your comments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HIHALIC: At the same time you asked me to front load to try to get the grant before I had the person. It is impossible to do that so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have to create the position in order to qualify for the grant? MR. HIHALIC: -- you are creating the person. You are front loading the cost, and if we find economic development grants in the companies who can utilize them, we will then hopefully have enough administrative costs to offset completely the cost that we have for that position. In discussions that I've had, other than for Immokalee and Everglades City, we are going to try to diversify the job base any way we can. The attraction and expansion effort that we'll have in the urban area will be high-wage jobs, jobs that will pay at least 10.50 an hour and be in industries that are essentially high-wage paying. We will not be facilitating retail or service facilities that we will not be contributing to a higher wage diversified tax base. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's your personal feeling about the -- being able to obtain the grants necessary to fund a portion or all of this salary? I mean, I'm asking for an opinion here. I understand we can't hold you to it because you don't control the grants. MR. HIHALIC: My opinion is that with a proper outreach and marketing effort, we will be able to find at least $750,000 in economic development grants which would offset $50,000 of administrative expenses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little bit, yes. MR. HIHALIC: I think we can cover it. Because we've never done the grants outreach before, it's going to take a while for companies to understand that we do have these services available. And we do have this outreach available to help them expand their companies. That's going to take some time. I -- I want to be sure that we can do that within the next fiscal year, and that's -- that's really the -- what we're trying to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's going to be the litmus test when we sit here next year looking at the same dollar amount to be able to justify the position and find out how it was funded. It's going to be a very important question. MR. HIHALIC: I understand that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At the same time I think it's one of the most exciting and innovative and one of the best leadership opportunities we have as a commission to do something significant for the community. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. MR. HIHALIC: Let me just speak for a moment to -- I was also asked about the Council of Economic Advisors, and I've had several meetings with the chairman of the council. The Council of Economic Advisors right now is gathering data, and they're gathering data to do a plan, and they want to do an economic development plan. However, they then want to vision that plan to the community before they end up writing and making program recommendations. I think that's an excellent thing to do, and I think it makes good sense. However, the enterprise zone in Immokalee is now. The foreign trade zone is within the next few months. The certified development corporation that's being formed regionally is happening right now. In my opinion, we don't have the luxury of waiting a year to participate in those activities, and that's another reason why this position is needed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it -- is it possible that we can ask our Council of Economic Advisors to participate in the focus project that's currently going on and will be going on over the next 10 to 12 months -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that whatever it is that we put into place now, the certified development community or -- or the enterprise or -- or anything, certainly they're not cast in stone, and we can certainly alter them as time goes on. MR. MIHALIC: We have to take these economic development tools and bring them together in the plan, whatever the plan is. And there will be a number of diverse tools that we have to look at, the enterprise zone and the certified development corporation, the foreign trade zone. Whatever they happen to be, they do have to be brought together in a total plan, and that has to be done eventually for an economic development effort. And that's the direction that we have to head for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got no problem heading for the direction. I just want to make sure that we're not taking a step now that casts the -- the formation of these groups and the planning mechanism available to them. I don't want to cast that into stone. I want it flexible. MR. MIHALIC: In my discussions with the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, they will not. They are not in a position to say this is what they want to do, this is the direction they want to go in and say this is what they need. They are not in that position at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had similar conversations with the chairman, and I'm very impressed with their community outreach and -- and how meticulous and careful they're being. Slow, but that's because they're being meticulous and careful. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. I just want to make sure we're being flexible enough that as their plan and program develops, that we can make adjustments in what we're doing here. MR. HIHALIC: Absolutely, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. That's all I want to be sure of. Want to move on? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. On page 24 and 25 is a budget proposed for the SHIP program fund 191. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is a what? MR. SHYKOWSKI: This is grant supported through SHIP funds. MR. HIHALIC: That's the affordable housing trust fund MR. DORRILL: Doc. stamps. MR. HIHALIC: -- which we will receive more than a million dollars this coming year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 25 there is under the SHIP program -- Greg received an initial allocation and then a supplemental allocation of $250,000. That is forecast under the SHIP program expenses as broken out on page 25 for basically impact fee assistance, residential rehab, and down payment assistance. Under current service there is one position, and that is the senior planner that was transferred from the general fund and paid for through the administrative funds. In FY '96 the department -- the housing department is anticipating receipt of $1,035,200 in SHIP funds of which 10 percent is available for administrative overhead. That will fund the planner position as well as the proposed expanded service request, which is a planner II requested to assist in the administration of the SHIP program. Obviously we're going from quarter million dollars, half million dollars to an ongoing allocation of over a million dollars. So obviously administration is a more daunting task in terms of being able to administer the program and provide its intended relief and assistance in residential rehabilitation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question for Mr. Mihalic. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we go back to page 22, we look at the performance measures, the planned new affordable housing dwelling units for '96 are only 800? MR. MIHALIC: Well, I tried to break it up by the general fund. And these -- these -- this will be the negotiation that I would be doing with multifamily developers as well as some of the single-family stuff that they we do that's non-SHIP related. That's an 800 number figure there. What we do on top of that from SHIP is -- is on page 24, impact fee relief, housing rehabilitation, down payment assistance, and land acquisition. It is difficult to quantify how much affordable housing we are assisting, but we know that we're -- we're doing about twenty-six hundred houses under $80,000 right now in the community. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty-six hundred? MR. MIHALIC: Twenty-six hundred houses and condominiums which are affordable to people with low or very low income. We've had a more difficult problem with very low income families, those families that are earning $20,000 and getting them ownership housing, and that will continue to be difficult. With the SHIP funds for 1996, we have set aside approximately $250,000 for impact fee relief for very low income rental units. We will be trying to leverage that with as much of the interest on the impact fee funds. We will revisit that issue and try to leverage that SHIP money with interest on the impact fee funds to try to maximize the amount of assistance we can give to produce very low income rental units at your direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the SHIP funds are limited to -- what is it -- 30 percent for rental? MR. MIHALIC: Actually 25 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 25 percent? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any hope of the state altering that? MR. MIHALIC: No. If anything, it's moving the other direction. So they've asked us to be cautious with our expenditures to be sure that we don't go over the requirements as they're -- as they're mandated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Moving on to page 26 is the pollution control department. Prior to the county manager's reorganization this year, this was under the environmental services division for FY '96. This will be under -- under the umbrella of the community development division and Mr. Cautero. Mr. Yilmaz is the department director. On page 26 is the estuarine water quality monitoring which is performed by pollution control staff and reimbursed by the general fund in this case. It's noted that a portion of these funds will be utilized for monitoring in the Clam Bay NRPA. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have trouble understanding the performance measures, units and talks about stations and publications. And since -- and do I understand that -- that the -- this is a $50,000 expense for operating, but no personnel or anything is related to this? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. It's administered by the pollution control staff, which was a separate referendum and/or a separate taxing entity that we'll review. It begins on page 30. And estuarine water quality monitoring is not allowed under the provision of that ordinance, so that component of the program that is administered by the pollution control staff has to be reimbursed through the general fund as it is not allowed under the pollution control ordinance. Is that a fair statement, George? MR. YILMAZ: Yes. George Yilmaz with pollution control. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is this $50,000 for some water monitoring stations, including some at Clam Bay? MR. YILHAZ: Yes, ma'am. MR. DORRILL: Saltwater monitoring is the easiest way to CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this particular one is saltwater monitoring for the NRPA? MR. DORRILL: In part. MR. YILMAZ: Well, actually one month forward was designed to address pollution issues that deals with what we call noncoastal zone pollution issues, so referendum has constraints upon us that we cannot spend monies from fund 114. Therefore, work decide at one point for us to be in compliance with growth management requirements that deals with countywide estuarine monitoring, and we established this $50,000 fund. Within this fiscal year, creation of first NRPA, some of these funds were incorporated into that NRPA monitoring. So we will still continue to do our countywide estuarine monitoring and incorporate Clam Bay portion of monitoring as a part of our countywide estuarine monitoring. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this related to -- we know that I think it's Florida Wildlife or somebody is -- is bringing some sort of action saying that this is Westinghouse's responsibility to do this monitoring. So if it's established that this is a private developer's responsibility, would the cost associated with our -- our services -- I mean could this go away if it's Westinghouse's job? MR. DORRILL: The way that I understood the news story was that it had a little less to do with monitoring, but actually mitigation and restoration of the mangrove forest in the northwest corner of Clam Bay. Now, if it's all one and the same -- and maybe, Mr. Lorenz, you can shed some light on that. But I think the cause and claim of action is to restore the degraded portions of upper Clam Bay, the northwest corner in particular. MR. LORENZ: That's part of it. In terms of -- for the record Bill Lorenz, environmental services administrator. For -- that's part of what that -- that effort was. There's also discussion in terms of -- and you'll see in the natural resources budget -- for exotics removal. There is a certain re -- requirement on the developer for exotics removal. However, there is also a county need for exotics removal in the conservation easement area. With regard to the water quality effort, the developer through, I believe, the -- the DRI was responsible or is responsible for a certain amount of water quality monitoring, which they are currently doing through Pelican Bay Improvement District. We will supplement that data gathering activity with the money from the general fund to expand that monitoring effort to go to accomplish the objectives that we need to accomplish. So -- MR. DORRILL: Specifically, though, does the Florida Wildlife claim, lawsuit, request that Westinghouse Communities participate in the funding of water quality? MR. LORENZ: I just, frankly, don't know. I think it's geared more towards the mitigation, the mangroves. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the distinction here is that the NRPA itself is a county function and a county program. So what commitments Westinghouse made or didn't make, the county did establish a NRPA to meet our growth management plan requirement, and we're going to have to proceed with the minimum level that we determined we could do within that NRPA regardless of what occurs between Westinghouse and Florida Wildlife Federation. So that -- that's my opinion, and I'm not an attorney, but I do believe the distinction there is the NRPA was placed and assessed by the county, and the county will follow through on that. But that NRPA will change year to year. As the conditions change, our application will change. But I don't think Mr. Stallings' action is going to affect the NRPA itself or the water quality testing we've proposed in Clam Bay. MR. LORENZ: I think we need to be sensitive as staff to make sure that we don't step in what Westinghouse commitments are, that we don't do their commitments for them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we don't want to do that. MR. LORENZ: And we are through the exotics removal program making sure that we understand where the county's responsibilities lie and where the -- the developer's responsibilities lie. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I encourage you to maintain that vigilance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 27 is the -- or what was the hazardous waste management fund. You'll recall in FY '94 the small quantity hazardous waste generator program was funded through a surcharge on occupational licenses. In FY '94 -- or FY '95, excuse me, the board made the policy decision to fund that program through ad valorem taxes in the pollution control fund. What you see here was the residual cash that was available in this fund as transferred to the pollution control fund which offset of the program a portion of the program expenses in FY '95. For FY '96 obviously this fund would be closed out, and the program would be fully budgeted for in the pollution control fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my question on this is why does that money go into the pollution control fund instead of general fund or something related -- I mean, this was cash that was paid by businesses for their occupational license surcharge? MR. DORRILL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since we decided that was inappropriate, shouldn't that money be transferred to something related to occupational licenses or at least a general fund instead of remaining in pollution? MR. SHYKOWSKI: It remained in pollution control because pollution control was the department that was administering the program. That's where all the program expenses -- MR. DORRILL: The board changed the revenues to support the program. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the money that -- this is money that we said should not be used to support the program -- MR. DORRILL: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but we moved it into the fund that supports the program. MR. DORRILL: You moved it from a surcharge on occupational licenses, a user fee, if you will that was debatable, to property taxes. And the board, I presume, made a fully conscious decision when they said that they wanted in the rationale for the small quantity generator program, having countywide implications, if you will, and, thus, using countywide property taxes to support it in lieu of a surcharge on occupational licenses. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't that a dedicated property tax, though? I mean it -- it's a specific fund that was voter approved? MR. DORRILL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- MR. DORRILL: That referendum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What we did essentially, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is we have the same program. And one year we funded it with the surcharges, and we said that may not be the fairest way to do it. And we've -- we've gone to the voter-approved surcharge. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was just the residual cash that was collected in FY '94, and we used that to offset a portion of the program expenses in FY '95. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We collected this money for the purpose of small generator hazardous control, and all we've done is move it to the same program funded from a different mechanism. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, before -- in FY '94 there were actual positions budgeted within this fund shown on page -- you see there were six positions. Those positions have now been transferred -- or in FY '95 were transferred -- to the pollution control fund where that program is now administered. MR. YILMAZ: To further clarify, original question in terms of why these funds couldn't be used elsewhere. Florida Statutes 1663-3202 is very specific to how these funds can be spent, and they can only be spent for hazardous waste management for local programs. Therefore, the transfer had some legal constraints attached to it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. That was the question I was looking for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykowski, what's the fund number that this money was transferred to? MR. SHYKOWSKI: 114. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 1147 Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. And that is -- the actual budget spreadsheet is on page 33. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Hove forward. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're falling way behind our schedule already. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 28 and 29 is the cleanup and restoration fund. The pollution control department receives money from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to facilitate petroleum site cleanup activities. In FY '96 we anticipate receipts of $1,015,000 for this program. A million dollars would be used for contracted site cleanup work. And over time the administrative allotment has decreased. The balance or -- of $15,000 is, again, transferred to the pollution control fund where this program is administered. Staff expenses are included within the pollution control fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Available interest earnings anticipated at 45,000 under this program are required to be remitted back to the state. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's state money? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 30 through 34 is the pollution control fund 114. Again, this is a special tax that was implemented through a voter referendum. There's -- page 33 is the -- is the actual spreadsheet. There's a -- there's a number of comments here. Under operating expenses under forecasts they include some additional expenses through grants that have been received this year of Florida Department -- FDEP grant to facilitate proper handling of hazardous wastes, the swimming pool water sampling activity that was approved this year, as well as water sampling services provided to and reimbursed through the public health unit. And those were offset by additional state grant funds. In addition, there is a $50,000 grant for the bilingual program, management and disposal of hazardous waste. In FY '96 overall the position count, the full-time position count, remains at 20. The board direction during the program budgets -- the last highlight on page 34, Mr. Yilmaz has, in accordance with the board direction, proposed some staff reductions in FY '96. Those include an environmental specialist II from the surface water management program, a pollution control specialist through the small quantity generator program, which was a component of Mr. Yilmaz's base-level service that the board specifically requested him to reduce staffing in that regard. And he's also reduced four part-time positions associated with the storage tanks program, again the small quantity generator program, and the pollution, cleanup, and remediation programs. Total cost of these positions is $186,200. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically it looks like you eliminated four by eliminating two full time and four half time and added three, isn't it? MR. YILMAZ: Yes. To further clarify, board has given us three primary challenges during our program budget hearings. One was reduce our base by one FTE. We have reduced it by 1.5 FTE, mostly deals with STG program. Second challenge was given to us if we can reduce our operating cost by 50,000. We have done that. And the third challenge was if you could go and look at other essential programs where we don't have significant impact on our environmental results, which we have done that, and we have reduced some temporaries associated with those programs. To further clarify your comment, Commissioner, is that the difference between reductions and additions is that reductions came from tax base, which is kind of why ad valorem taxes. Additions came from additional revenues. So we have added employees who generate revenues in the laboratory. So in terms of financial accounting, we could define that we have -- we have basically reduced our shareholder's equity by 2.9 percent, but we have increased our intangible assets and cash flow by 5.9 percent. That's how I would read page 33. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Overall you will note there is a proposed reduction in ad valorem taxes of 2.9 percent. MR. LORENZ: I would like to add there is an urgent issue, especially as we go through the growth management plan issue with the EAR which we'll all be monitoring. You know one of the positions here is taken out of surface water quality monitoring program. We intend to try to maintain the level of activity there with consolidating the surface water quality monitoring folks with the groundwater quality monitoring folks. But, indeed, one of the -- one of the vacant positions that we recommended for reduction came from that particular program. And as we go through the EAR and the growth management plan update, this will be an issue as to how much we should be conducting water quality monitoring in the county and what the cost of that would be. Monitoring programs can be a bottomless pit. You could spend a terrific amount of money on monitoring and not get a lot out for it. So this is a discussion and a good debate that's going to happen, but we do want to let you understand what the consequences of these staffing reductions are. We think certainly for next year we can -- we can work together with this consolidated group and maintain the level that we're currently monitoring with the exception of some Benthic monitoring. But then as the evaluation goes forward through the growth management plan, a discussion -- and we could look at the decision next budget year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this where our canal problems -- is this who should be doing the canal monitoring? MR. LORENZ: This -- this would be part of the -- this one individual in one position was doing the water quality monitoring in the canals; that is correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have anybody that does that anymore? MR. LORENZ: We will have three positions. MR. YILMAZ: Yeah. To further clarify, basically the position is being cut as one FTE, not as functions of that position used to do. So we have dispersed positions. The major and primary portion that we will not be doing in terms of impact, which is estuarine Benthic monitoring. That deals with crustaceans, mollusks, and polychaetes which are basically small creatures living in the sediments which deals with biological integrity. And, frankly, we're the only county that I know of that have such comprehensive monitoring program. Since we're doing sediment drain size, sediment chemistry and water-column studies, that labor intensive portion of the monitoring program appears to be not as effective as other programs we're doing. Therefore, based on senior staff judgment, we thought that is one portion of the program we would reduce without significant impact in terms of a system will suffer. And we will continue with our sediments in terms of chemistry. We will continue with our water quality monitoring with no reduction in stations as well as parameter lists in both estuarine and inland water systems. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two quick comments. The first is maybe the question, well, how do you do that. If you look, most of the positions they eliminated were open currently with the exception of one. MR. YILMAZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's not a physical reduction per se but an elimination of open positions. And in addition, some of the problems that were experienced weren't so much was the test being done, but was the line of communication there and was the correct help called in, and Mr. Lorenz has been directed to specifically address that. So water quality -- as I understand it -- monitoring, but the lines of communication will be more open and expedient than they may have been in the past. And that seemed to be the root of the problem that we're dealing with now regarding the Coco Palm River and that canal area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, George, is someone from your department participating in this committee, this pollution committee? MR. DORRILL: George is our designee. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lorenz, a question that I have. And I don't know whether this is specifically George's department or what, but it's kind of a broad question, and I'm going to throw it out. Has Collier County developed a water quality goal that we would -- that we would like to achieve over time? I mean we -- we know that the water quality in the canals may not -- may not be in some instances what we want it to be. But have we designated what that goal is and the milestones along the way to achieve it? MR. LORENZ: We have two objectives in the growth management plan that deal with the estuarine system and deal with the inland system. Those two objectives basically state that all of the waters in Collier County should meet all of the state's water quality standards. That is not being obtained. Our monitoring efforts show that that's -- that's not the case for a variety of reasons, natural conditions or other conditions. One of the things through the EAR process we need to -- we either accept that as the objective of which case we have -- have not been able to attain, or we modify that objective to make it more realistic. I think that's a discussion that can be developed through the EAR process. Now, the next -- the next question about that is -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sir, let me just '- MR. LORENZ: -- how do we monitor for that effectively. And then the debate becomes how much resources and how should we structure our monitoring programs to try to make measurement toward that goal. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds to me like -- well, one comment is I -- I'm not interested in entertaining a discussion of lowering our standards to something less than state, for God's sake. But -- but it -- for -- from an ignorant person's ear, from somebody who acknowledges I don't know anything about this science, it sounds like we're spending a lot of money on monitoring and not doing anything about the information that we garner as a result of the monitoring and that maybe we need -- if we have -- if we have a monitoring program -- at least we had; you're scaling back -- but we have one that's more sophisticated than counties typically have, we should shift some of our money away from monitoring into reacting to the results. So propose something to us along those lines is my request. I don't know if the whole board agrees, but -- MR. DORRILL: The easy answer is that we did, and that it is just not approved, and it manifested itself in a stormwater utility concept for not only water quality issues, but drainage and -- and flood control issues, and it was soundly defeated -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you say lead balloon? MR. DORRILL: -- by the county commission. And at the moment we have -- other than a small canal maintenance function that is in the water management department and Mr. Boldt's activities, we do not have a comprehensive water quality, flood control, or drainage program. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe with the board we should be talking about it again. MR. DORRILL: We'd be more than happy to at least explain the parameters of that and what people could get from that. But at the moment the proposal that was part of the original growth management plan was not approved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how long ago was that? MR. DORRILL: Two years ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the -- what the board wanted to do was because of the cost of this program, which I think my -- if my memory serves me correct, is like 170 million over a 20-year period, we elected to ask the voters if they really want to do that. And I believe it's going to be on the '96 ballot, is that correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that's what we directed. MR. LORENZ: That was the -- that was the settlement agreement, proposed settlement agreement. MR. DORRILL: You're correct. In the interim we would take petitions to do assessment-type drainage-related improvement projects within various segments of the community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And surely -- again, speaking from our position of ignorance, but surely it isn't all or nothing. I mean surely there are things we can do less that are -- that are less expensive. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we do that, Commissioner Mac'Kie. What we have elected to do is like the manager just said, is an area that feels they need drainage work performed is certainly welcome, and we've done this. We just did it with Naples Park. You know, they can set up their district and do it themselves. But the proposal that was presented to the county commission was $80 million bonded out for 20 years making it $175 million. You know, that's -- that's just not going to go. And most of the people -- most of the citizens wanted to discuss that issue from the standpoint of drainage, not water quality, had nothing to do in the mind of the public particularly with water quality. It was drainage. And the problem with the whole discussion is that these older areas of the county which are prone to flood, you can put drainage in from now until doomsday, it's not going to help. It's just they're too low, they're too flat, and they weren't engineered properly in the first place, and it's just not going to do any good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, when we have -- when we have information that's the highest chlordane levels in the state or something, we can't -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, how do we know that sample wasn't taken immediately after some pesticide applying firm had just dumped a little bit into the canal? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, chlordane -- but chlordane hasn't been used in a number of years. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's certainly open to debate. MR. DORRILL: As -- as part of the monitoring effort, though, and as part of our participation in this pesticide working group, monitoring is important to look for trends or hot spots that then warrant further analysis or testing. And that's the -- that is the thrust behind this working group, is multiple jurisdiction working group. And I think we do have an improved protocol and an improved peer review group to bring individual attention areas or individual problem areas back to the county commission to seek remedial improvements, but on a -- a spot-specific type basis, because otherwise we don't have a comprehensive approach for water quality issues at the moment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this does go back to something Mr. Lorenz said. This is a situation that enough is never enough. I mean, no matter what we do, no matter how many tests we do or how few we do, if we don't communicate the information properly, then what we are doing is a failure, and we understand that at this point. The other thing is this pollution control group is going to spread the responsibility to those entities that should share in it. South Florida Water Management District should have a big role in this, both funding and participation. So for the county to pick up an area that other people are, indeed, responsible for in the permitting end is probably a bad idea. And I think the county taxpayers would -- would object at that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then my question becomes, if we're not going to do anything about it, why do we have such a sophisticated monitoring? Why are we spending so much money on monitoring? Why isn't that also somebody else's job? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't answer why we didn't do something about it. But I can tell you that that won't be the case again. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm not saying that. I'm not talking about that particular communication -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- problem. I'm saying if we have one of the most sophisticated monitoring systems for a county in the state, and we have decided as a board that we're not -- why are we monitoring if we're not -- why do we have such a sophisticated and expensive monitoring program? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you proposing a slush fund to handle problems? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But doing nothing about it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Back to her -- she didn't finish it, but doing nothing about what we're monitoring. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, show me the problems. I mean, you know, before you can devise a solution to address it, don't the problems have to be presented to you and the solutions made available? You're asking me why aren't we doing something about it. My response is, Mr. Lorenz, what -- give me the problems, and give me the solutions, and give me the cost to them. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they did, and it was a stormwater -- we're going in a circle here. MR. LORENZ: I would suggest again that as we go through the EAR process, which this will come to the board, that some of these issues could come through your advisory committee, and we could kind of design where our -- where our direction should be or at least provide the board some options through that -- that assessment. I mean, we do have a list of problems there -- that was that Visa program that we brought to the board through the -- through the program budget before. Obviously it had a lot of dollars. There's a mixture of some kind of private lands and public lands on it. But I think an overall -- more of an overall approach now. We've got some sensitivity to it, can work through the EAR process and, as I said, bring to the board then more of a comprehensive strategy that can address all of the questions and concerns that we are kind of raising right here in the budget context of the budget preparation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. Mr. Hancock, I must not be communicating clearly, because what I'm intending to say is maybe we should not have the most sophisticated monitoring system in the county -- in the state, but have a decent monitoring system and spend some of this budget money on solutions instead of monitoring. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I -- I agree in concept. The problem is the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm asking them to tell me what that would be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pare this down and take that money and look at how it addresses a problem, it would be a drop in the bucket. MR. YILHAZ: I can further clarify the original question why we do, growth management requires us to do groundwater and surface-water monitoring and estuarine monitoring under 9-G-5 as general requirements. And I think we have scaled it down to what -- we can say we're in compliance with growth management requirements in terms of mandate. What we do with that information -- I think you brought up very important point where I do see continuous improvement towards excellence, and under our county manager's outstanding customer policy last five years we established publication series. Every time we have a data generated, that goes to state agencies as well as public library system so that general public can have access to it as well as state agencies have access to it. As an example I'll use the chlordane issue. That was reported to Big Cypress Basin Board, and there was a $35,000 follow-up proposal to the Big Cypress Basin Board to follow up with that study, but that was not funded and same data in '90, '91 was provided to state agency at DEP in Tallahassee as well. So there is an improvement in terms of public information towards excellence, but I think we do need to monitor to see what our water quality conditions are, surface water, recharging our groundwater, and see the relationship and have a comprehensive approach and handle as a board for your local resources. MR. DORRILL: Let me ask sort of maybe an oversimplified question. The Pollution Control Trust Fund established through referendum was up to one-tenth of a mill, and it's capped at one-tenth of a mill. So for the coming year we do not have the ability to spend more than $1,600,000. Did the enabling legislation say that that was predominantly or entirely for monitoring, or could we reduce -- do $1,200,000 in monitoring related activity and then spend $400,000 on capital improvements to do cleanup? I mean just -- I don't know this is good or not, but theoretically we would remove some of the sediments within the Coco Palm Canal. I think the easiest question to Ms. Mac'Kie's -- or answer to her question is, is that a probability, or could that be done under the current legislation. MR. YILMAZ: From technical standpoint I would interpret that referendum and ordinance, yes. MR. DORRILL: Okay. So then the answer to your question is that if the board was interested in getting a priority list from the monitoring history that we have to date and then beginning to at least whittle away and do some capital improvements to improve water quality, the answer is yes, you have the discretion to do that but no, this budget is not yet predicated on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's where we may not be in opposition, but I was saying show me the list of things that need to be done and a cost so we can make those decisions rather than making them arbitrarily up front. So I don't think we were as far apart as initially thought. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is that something that -- that if the board had an interest in doing it, now's the time to say it or MR. DORRILL: Well, in fact, I'd say yeah. Maybe we ought to make that a regular executive summary item upon your return from recess. And if you wanted to then see a little philosophical shift and begin to reduce -- because we cannot -- unless we go back to the polls, we're limited at tenth of a mill. And so maybe we ought to show you his top-ten list of potential monitoring areas where we've got some degradation in water quality. And if you wanted to begin to get an idea of what it would cost to do some cleanup -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we could use this fund to do some of that. MR. YILMAZ: I think two points I would like further to clarify. During our program budgeting we did bring Visa program before you which was designed to not only monitor intensively problem areas, but remediate, and that was proposed to be financed through 114, and currently we're using about 75 percent. Basically we're using about less than a million dollars of 1.6 million dollars we can raise too. So there are some potential there at board discretion. We can increase further our pollution control millage up to one-tenth of mill and basically design a local Visa program as it was presented to you by the county manager during our program budgeting. MR. DORRILL: My suggestion at this point would be to leave it the way that it is and that upon your return we will show you some -- we will readdress capital improvements to let you begin to see what the cost of remediation -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When did the trim notices go out where we can't really raise this; all we can do is reduce this? MR. DORRILL: The trim notices go out -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: In August. MR. DORRILL: You'll be all right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the referendum -- we're not currently assessing all that the voters agreed to pay? MR. DORRILL: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That seems dumb to me. MR. DORRILL: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Typically you approve a proposed millage rate based on the tentative budget in late July. At that point, obviously, if we're interested in increasing the pollution control fund millage to reflect some sort of -- MR. DORRILL: I'll look at the information, and if I think that we can deal with it effectively as a wrap-up issue, we'll do it before you go on recess. Otherwise if it needs a little better proposal, I don't want us to come whipping through here with a half-million dollar program and, pow, we've got another half million in taxes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's see if we need it in improvements before we start talking about raising any -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see this list. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Through that Visa program George did have a prioritized list of group one proposed remediation sites and estimated costs of remediation for each of those sites so -- MR. DORRILL: We'll take a look at that, and I make sure it will be even as part of the record. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just want to say one more time, we're only talking about, Tim, using the money that was referendum approved for this purpose. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I just heard you say something about we're only charging half what the voters approved, and that's silly. And I didn't want us to jump on the bandwagon. Okay, here we go. Let's raise some taxes. I wasn't going to agree with that on the front end. MR. DORRILL: I need to do just a little damage control because other departments are beginning to -- to arrive. My -- my suggestion to you, if you would like, would be to finish this -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Shut up and get on. MR. DORRILL: -- this section. No, I didn't say that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did. MR. DORRILL: I would offer to accommodate Ms. Morgan while she's here, and I don't think her budget -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By then you're going to be at about 11:30. MR. DORRILL: And I know your recorder is going to need to take a break. But if you want to break for lunch at 11:30, then we'll come back, do the airport authority first as part of the public works budget, and that will keep you on schedule as best as I know how. That will give you about an hour and a half to return some phone calls or eat lunch or whatever it is that you want to do. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aren't the airport authority people here too, though? MR. DORRILL: I see two of them here already. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couldn't we do them before lunch? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We only have 15 minutes, though, between now and 11:30. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go to lunch at one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on. I -- I have to leave here at about 25 after. I do have an 11:30 appointment that I need to -- so -- but there's three of us. That's all we need to continue with. MR. DORRILL: Would you like to do Ms. Morgan and the airport authority and then try to go to lunch? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we try to do that. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Where are we at then, Mike? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 35 and 36 is the natural resources department. Overall there is a 29.6 percent increase. There is a proposed expanded service, $45,000 for removal of exotic species such as Brazilian pepper from the Clam Bay NRPA. In addition, under current service -- actually under forecast as well as current, the board and/or the TDC had approved an expanded scope of sea turtle monitoring with additional beaches being monitored for sea turtles, and they are offsetting that with revenue. Basically there is a hundred thousand dollars in forecast and current for sea turtle monitoring. In addition, due to the reorganization, Mr. Lorenz is filling the natural resources director position. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was last year's budget for the sea turtle monitoring program? I just -- I know that we have a lot of -- I say a lot of, but at least one other group, maybe two other groups out there, that do sea turtle monitoring. MR. LORENZ: $61,000 was the adopted budget for the -- the turtle monitoring for the temporary employees with the turtle monitoring program. The Conservancy does receive about no more than $10,000 of this monitoring, so they are actually monitoring the Naples beach, but they receive -- we -- they receive monies through the TDC as well, and our discussion with -- with Dave Addison is that's about the amount that it -- the extent that they're interested in performing. We do have -- we have offset our budget. We have about four or five volunteers now that are helping us to extend our -- our efforts without having to pay staff. But we -- we do -- we are working as much as possible with the other groups to try to reduce the amount of money that is used to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have four volunteers, and we still spend a hundred thousand dollars? I need to know what we spend it on. MR. LORENZ: We have basically -- you have basically three staff members -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Full time? MR. LORENZ: Full time and two part time. You have a lot of -- about -- I think the operational budget is around -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 22,000. 75 percent of the cost of the hundred thousand dollars is associated with staff actually physically being out on the beach monitoring for sea turtles. MR. LORENZ: Right. Now, this -- this -- I don't -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: And that is reimbursed -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all of that money comes from where, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: From the beach renourishment funds through the TDC. They approved an expanded scope upping the sea turtle monitoring to $100,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because I look at the top, and I see general fund. And I went, wait a minute. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. But there is an offsetting revenue. You will note that revenues under current service are up to $132,000. So in spite of the increases in current service, you'll note that the net cost to the general fund in the adopted budget was 369,200. Under current service it is three sixty-nine. So it is basically a wash in terms of the net cost to ad valorem. Then, of course, there is the expanded service request for $45,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So the 12.1 percent general revenue increase is pretty much attributable to the NRPA, the clearing and the NRPA? MR. DORRILL: 45,000, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The -- the sea turtle monitoring program are conditions and requirements of our permits and -- for both Marco and what will be the Naples beach renourishment project, and it's a seven-day-per-week requirement during sea turtle nesting season. I wish we had a little more discretion there, but unfortunately we do not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't looking to pare back, just increase volunteer efforts. MR. DORRILL: In fact, even in those instances were Mr. Lorenz has volunteers, it's my understanding that you now must be certified by the state as a -- MR. LORENZ: Well, we have -- we have to have the permit. MR. DORRILL: Right. MR. LORENZ: -- so our staff -- and we do train our staff. And there is a couple of staff members that we train for what's called an index beach, that we have to make sure that we have the certification there. So to the degree we can use volunteers where we don't have those requirements, we -- we have been doing that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 37 is the natural resources grant fund 117. What you have here is -- this is for the artificial reef program. Typically the county receives an annual grant of approximately $25,000 to fund construction of artificial reefs. Overall appropriations, there was a small carryforward of $5,700, and that will be used for -- reserved for maintenance of existing artificial reefs. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Finally on page 38 was the Environmental Services Administration. As we indicated earlier as part of county manager's reorganization during this fiscal year, that division is being consolidated into the public works division and/or the community development division. Therefore, there are no appropriations in FY '96. MR. DORRILL: So a $150,000 reduction in the general fund. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that will be picked up where? MR. DORRILL: Not picked up anywhere. The two individuals -- Mr. Lorenz is being transferred and was a technical demotion down to fill the vacant natural resource director's spot. And the secretary was -- we're attempting to place between now and the end of this fiscal year, but this -- this is an actual expense reduction in the general fund of $148,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the community development division. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next scheduled item is Mary Morgan, the supervisor of elections. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There goes 150,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is a separate section in your binder for the elections budget. Sheila Leith is our recap employee in the budget office, joined us recently, and she is the budget analyst for the supervisor of elections. So she'll walk you through the proposed budget for the supervisor. MS. LEITH: Okay. The first page of the supervisor of elections budget is a summary of the total fund. FY '96 budgeted appropriations have been increased by 18.9 percent resulting in a corresponding increase in transfer from the general fund. The forecast transfer from the general fund reflects an additional $54,000 over the adopted budget due to budget amendments approved by the BCC during FY '95. These included $30,000 for supplies associated with the Gordon River ballot and a $24,000 capital outlay for voting machines. The supervisor of elections is, again, requesting a 10 percent reserve for contingency in the FY '96 budget to enable flexibility in meeting this year's requirements of the National Voter Registration Act relative to the presidential election. It should be noted that according to FY '96 adopted budget policy reserves for constitutional officers fund shall be appropriated within the county general fund, so this is a deviation from that. Also included in the reserve is a 1 percent merit increase, and the supervisor of election does not anticipate any attrition during FY '96 and, therefore, has not made a provision for a 3 percent attrition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say merit pay -- MS. LEITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is included in reserve? MS. LEITH: In this reserve figure, yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We've budgeted that as a reserve, 1 percent per the adopted budget policy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why reserves? I mean does that make sense? Is somebody getting a 1 percent raise? And if so, why isn't it just in personnel or whatever you call it, personal services? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It was done due to like -- it's a little more complicated in the general fund which has a multitude of departments, so it is budgeted at the fund level for ease of administration. Obviously raises may not be uniform throughout a department. There may be more or less in one department versus another, so budgeting them specifically in one department does not work. MS. MORGAN: As I understand it, your merit increase material funds you put into a contingency in your contingency fund. And this was the basis, I believe, for the budget office request. That's where we put that amount. MS. SMYKOWSKI: This is also a mechanism to identify how much there is within each fund associated with the merit pay, the one -- what the 1 percent amounts to, like in the general fund you have a multitude of departments, so it is budgeted at the fund level. MS. MORGAN: If they don't earn it next year, they won't get it. However, next year's the presidential election year. We did find, after we turned that -- the initial prepared budget in to you, that we had a mathematical error which would -- on the material that we had prepared. I think we showed an 18 point -- you have to give me a minute to find my -- we showed an 18.1 percent increase. And we find after going back and reviewing it that it's only a 14.5 percent increase, had to do with something Sheila pointed out to us, I believe. MS. LEITH: There was a double count on the health insurance -- MS. MORGAN: Right. On the overtime or something. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If we look at it again, can we get it to 117 MS. MORGAN: No. MS. LEITH: We can try. MS. MORGAN: I cut it down from four three, four years ago. I thought I was doing marvelous. MR. SMYKOWSKI: What the board is seeing today is reflected -- MS. MORGAN: Right, she prepared it -- reflects that, I believe, right. MS. LEITH: Yes. Something that should be noted is that two positions which initially had been left vacant when resignations occurred during FY '94 were filled midyear '95, and this is why, although it appears to be an increase in positions from adopted budget to forecast, it was just the filling of those vacant positions. Initially Mary had budgeted to leave those positions open. MS. MORGAN: Actually it goes back a year before that. You remember when the economy was down and everybody was preaching cut -- cut back, cut back. And so when we prepared the current budget, we did not put those positions in. The problem is with the workload that we've had with implementing the National Voter Registration Act, I'm going to have to come back to you with a budget amendment for that, because we have had a 205 percent increase so far this calendar year over last year, which was an election year, and a 269 percent increase over corresponding odd-numbered year in workload. And to be honest, to have your mail-ballot election, I'm not quite sure how we're going to pull that off. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You'll just have to start working 26 hours a day, Mary, instead of the 24 that you have. MS. MORGAN: Well, I think we need to lengthen the day, that's true. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did anyone have any more questions on the supervisor of elections budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We will -- there are some expanded services. This is the fund summary on page 1. Sheila will walk you through the detailed pages, and we can identify what those expanded services are. MS. MORGAN: Primarily we have an extra election that you have to finance. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Why don't you go ahead. MS. LEITH: Okay. There are two cost centers in this fund. On page 2 is the administration cost center. The interesting points, I guess, would be the increase over budget and forecast in personal services are due to the filling, which we just discussed, of two vacant positions which the supervisor initially attempted to operate without during FY '95. Expanded personnel services reflect the addition of one employee needed to administer presidential election applications, so this results in an increase of 17 percent in total appropriations. Additional forecasts, capital outlay of 73,200 is for the acquisition of data processing equipment. And in the expanded category reflected in the expanded capital outlay are two additional workstations and an expansion to document scanning capabilities to facilitate storage of correspondence. Now if we flip to page 5, this is the budget for the elections cost center. And the total increase in appropriations is 22.3 percent. In forecast there's an additional $30,000 forecast in operating expenses for supplies associated with Gordon River Bridge mail ballot, and these were -- these expenses have been approved. Forecast capital outlays exceed the adopted budget by 24,000 due to the acquisition of voting equipment. Current FY '96, the personal services include poll-worker salaries for two elections reflecting the increase in workload and man-hours experienced during an -- a presidential election year. Additional voting equipment is also included in the capital outlay. The expanded category, personal services, include one additional position to provide election support. And operating expenses have been expanded due to the costs associated with the four elections during the calendar year '96. Supplies for all four elections will be purchased during FY '96. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not much we can do about that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: One question in terms of policy -- the adopted budget policy talked about having reserves for the constitutional officers as they are funded by transfers from the general fund having the reserves budgeted within the general fund as -- as Mrs. Leith identified, the supervisor of elections is requesting a 10 percent reserve for contingency within her fund. If MS. MORGAN: That's in 129, Florida Statutes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That allows for that. MS. MORGAN: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. My only point would be that if the board wants to leave the reserve within her fund, I will just make an adjustment and not include the supervisor as part of the 5 percent reserve within the general fund, so will not be, in effect, double budgeting reserves. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That makes sense. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. The next -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next, do we have the airport authority members here? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, we do have the -- scheduled first is the property appraiser. There's only one page. I think Miss Gansel can get us through that fairly quickly. MS. MORGAN: Could I ask one thing? I realized by sitting through part of the other material that we have a ballot question next year having to do with stormwater drainage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MS. MORGAN: What election date is that scheduled for? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: November. MS. MORGAN: It's for the November election? And are there any others that are sitting out there that I'm not aware of yet? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not aware of any. MS. MORGAN: What about -- okay. And you guys won't surprise me like in five to six weeks before the election and say, oh, can we add such and such to the ballot at this point? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not guaranteeing anything, Mary. MS. MORGAN: Well, we have a problem if you try to do that, because we're under court order to get absentees to the military and overseas, and so you have to make some provisions more than two months in advance or more than six weeks in advance of an election is what I'm saying. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We understand your time constraints. We're in discussion with DCA on this entire matter, so it's not really settled yet. When it is, we'll alert you with months to spare. MS. MORGAN: Thank you. Thanks. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, you say that the property appraiser's fund is going to go very quickly. Excuse me. We don't need any of his representatives here? MS. GANSEL: They were unable to make it this morning. If I could present some of their comments to you, and if you had additional need to see them, they would be here at wrap-up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Why don't you walk us right through it; then we'll do the airport authority. MS. GANSEL: The one comment that was made this morning about the property appraiser not budgeting for the 3 percent attrition, they wanted me to pass on to you that they have maintained the same level of staffing for about four or five years. They have rarely had vacancies. When they do, they're filled immediately. Additionally, their revenue comes from transfers from all the governmental agencies that levy taxes. They do not have any reserve in their budget, nor do they have a way of increasing the revenues that come into their fund. So they had requested that their budget remain as it is without budgeting the 3 percent attrition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I won't spend a great deal of time on this. But whether they have the same number of positions doesn't address the problem, so that's -- that's moot. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that each position that's ever come vacant is -- somebody leaves on Friday, it's full on Monday, and -- and maybe you can help me out. Historically have they spent 100 percent of all that was budgeted for personnel purposes? And if not, then that's what we're talking about in attrition. MS. GANSEL: I would say that they have not spent 100 percent, that there are some -- some savings that accrue each year, but I would also say going over some of their history, probably 3 percent would be excessive for them to budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be appropriate? MS. GANSEL: I don't have that figure right here, but I will come back with that for you, maybe do an average. As I said, the difficulty that they have is that without having any reserves in their fund nor having any ability to increase their revenues, if they don't hit that average in the upcoming year, they would have to reduce some payments in salaries that they have. Overall they've returned to the county about $25,000 over what they're budgeted, between 25,000 and 50,000, and that's on an almost $3 million budget, so that's the only flexibility they have there. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It was less than 1 percent -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- last year. They spent roughly 2 million dollars of 2,052,000, so there's not a whole lot of margin there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is charges, I guess, paid by BCC, 49.3 percent? What is that? MS. GANSEL: Okay. That's for electricity, water, and sewer. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Allocated insurance premiums and principal. MS. GANSEL: Yes. Essentially that's not in their budget. We pay it out of the general fund. We show it both as an expense, and then we show it as a revenue coming in. And the big increase there is the electricity with some increase in insurance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they've got a new twenty -- they're going to spend $25,000 more on lawyers than they did in the past; is that what this is telling us? MS. GANSEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy, you want to talk about money, throwing it in a drain. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you know if they're adding a staff attorney, or does '- MS. GANSEL: They have a contract and -- their budget is approved by the state. But if the board should have some questions about it, we receive notification from the state to forward those comments to them. But officially it is adopted by the state with comments from you if that's appropriate. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If there's nothing further with the appraiser, we'll go to the airport authority. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we're exactly on schedule. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not bad. We're not doing bad. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And who's going to tell Bettye that it happened right after she left? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Airport authority members, I hope we're not going to get into a long sales pitch here. I mean we're here to discuss the budget, not to sell the airport authority. We've already bought. MR. DRURY: We just wanted to show you the new terminal buildings and what they're going to look like, that's all. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: For the record my name is Spiro Bamiatzis. What you have before you is the airport budget, and you are going to see some new items that they have been in the budget, that's because of the airport has a very ambitious, I would say, program of enhancing their operations with the end result of becoming a self-sufficient operation. And as you see, the expanded service on page 1, the cost for the new programs is $334,500. This is most of the bulk of the increase for next year's budget. Out of this -- and that's because of they're planning new operations at Immokalee, Everglades, and Marco Island Airports. The overall objective of this operations is to make the airport fund self-sufficient, so there won't be any money from the general fund to support the operations. Based on this, the general fund will be required to fund this extended services. The amount from the general fund is $222,300, and that is the -- overall general fund support for the airport operations, though, is 351,600. That's the overview of the airport budget. MR. DRURY: With -- with me today -- just so you know who -- who's here is the vice-chairman, Ernest Spinelli; the secretary, Monte Lazarus; and Neno Spagna, a member of the airport authority. And my name is John Drury, executive director for the record. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. And all we wanted to do today was -- the reason we have these things up is to show you what the new terminal buildings at Immokalee and Everglades would look like. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like just getting to see these performance measures and the top one being the federal trade zone -- foreign trade zone and Immokalee. And I was just curious on the federal and state grants, forecast '95 was 21, and planned '96 is 3. That means you're matching out on grants and going to start slowing down; is that what that means? MR. DRURY: Yeah. It took an infusion of capital to build -- turning landing strips into airports. We're going to effectively do that by December of this year. Next year we're going to need to focus on the Marco Island Airport, which we just acquired two months ago. And we have a couple of programs there that we'll be getting airport grants for. I should just point out too that the general fund transfer that was referenced before is an advance. We are, as you know, paying -- going to be paying that back with interest, and we have an agreement that will be going before you in the next several weeks to solidify that agreement between the authority and the board of commissioners that identifies your interest rate and how we're going to pay you back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, when do you anticipate the start of what you would deem significant revenue collections? MR. DRURY: I suggest that when the fuel farms are active, which we're looking at December or January time frame for a completion of construction, that we will be marketing those things in October, if the budget is approved as submitted. And hopefully our marketing program will -- will outreach users. The fuel farm gets on board. That's when we start selling fuel, which is our big revenue producer at all three airports. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: Okay. We are on page 3. That deals with airport authority administration budget. In this page there are a few programs that are administered by the administration of the airport. And if you look at the expanded service column for fiscal year '95-'96 there is a $25,000 budget there for marketing program, and the focus of this program will be to market the airport to high-tech industry and to the aviation industry for the overall objective of actually creating new jobs in the community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's under a general instead of a particular airport budget because it's going to be a general promotion? MR. DRURY: All three airports. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: Also in that expansion there is $10,000 to develop a foreign trade zone at the Immokalee Regional Airport. And that will require, of course, the retention of a professional that will be familiar with foreign trade zone regulations so they can help them write the program for that. In addition to that there is $6,800 for lease commission program, and that will be used as an incentive to real estate agents so they can bring clients at the Immokalee Regional Airport. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just on the -- on the foreign trade zone, I don't know much about this discussion, but I know that there's some negotiations going on with us and the Lee County Port Authority and that there's a possibility -- I mean they, anyway, want us to pay some significant sums for participating, or the last I heard they did. Would -- could we have sort of an update? MR. DRURY: The airport authority at its last regular board meeting, which was yesterday, recommended that the board of county commission create a foreign trade zone board of Collier County to adequately represent the citizens of Collier County in the foreign trade zone process. They will be recommending that to two of those members -- it's a five-member board -- two of those members be members of the authority and the other three be members that the Board of County Commissioners feels is most appropriate. That was being chaired by Mike Williams, who is the chairman of the committee of the authority that deals with foreign trade zones, and he is proposing and drafting a letter to each and every one of you that defines that process. I know that Commissioner Constantine has been involved in the foreign trade zone's negotiations, EDC, Valetie Void (phonetic) has been involved. But, in essence, the -- the update is that negotiations continue to go forward with Lee County to better define what reasonable access at a reasonable cost really means to Collier County business. And in order to effect that properly, we -- we, the airport authority, made a recommendation or will be making a recommendation that Collier County needs to be represented in a -- in an organized fashion. And that will be coming forward in the next week or so from the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it reasonable to think that this only -- this is going to cost us $10,000 to participate, or will that be another cost we see coming down the road? MR. DRURY: It's -- it was very hard to identify the exact cost, because we don't know all of the rules right now, because they're being developed. The foreign trade zone for Charlotte, Collier, and Lee is in the final application process and will be issued probably this September to Lee County. We're trying to negotiate extended sites at Immokalee Airport and Charlotte County Airport. What a lot of foreign trade zones do is try to pass on some of those costs to the end user which is the business that's involved in international trade. We haven't been able to quantify those costs or quantify exactly our costs, because the negotiations continue on what the cost to Collier County is going to be to have access to that foreign trade zone. But I feel comfortable having been involved in foreign trade zones in the Boston area and familiar enough with them that I think $10,000 is a reasonable figure to get one going for Collier County and the Immokalee Airport. And I guess that's -- that's -- that's pretty much where I'm at right now as far as -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the important thing to remember is all these discussions are going on at the staff level. Ultimately the decision is with the Lee port authority, which is the Lee commission, and I suspect we'll be talking -- I'll be talking one on one to some of the others. We'll be talking with them prior to any final decision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 4, it's the Everglades airport. And as you can see on page 4, all of the increase in Everglades budget is related to the expanded services. The expanded services include two positions, one full time, the other one part time, as well as purchases of gas and oil, which in this case, it will be used for reselling. And that would be the biggest part of the revenue associated with activities of the airport. Okay? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hope this is the only department we have with a 1,300 percent increase. I understand why, John. Don't worry. MR. DRURY: You meant a 3,000 increase in revenues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. Well, in that case I want a lot of departments with a 3,000 -- my question, John, is I notice under expanded service you have the airport would initially be open ten months of the year. Just real briefly can you tell me why -- MR. DRURY: The terminal building won't be on line until November or December. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: And proceeding on with page 6, Immokalee Regional Airport, basically we got the same case, the ten-month -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: -- issue on that one. Again, the expanded services include capital equipment as well as purchases for gas and oil that will be used for resale. And you have only 213 percent increase. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 311. MR. BAMIATZIS: And 311 in revenues. Okay. On page 8 and 9 deals with the Marco Island Executive Airport. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me just one second. On page 7, Mr. Drury, $5,000 for a lawn mower? MR. DRURY: What is it for? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just $5,000 for a lawn mower. It must be more than just a lawn mower. MR. DRURY: Yeah. It's a riding tractor type of mower that would be used for mowing all of the safety areas of the runway, particularly around the runway lights. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. DRURY: And it's a riding type that you would see sort of -- it's a little larger than you would see a residential riding type of mower that would handle that, but it's not a -- it's not a push mower. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. DRURY: It will do the whole 5,000 foot runway both sides of the runways. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Please continue. MR. BAMIATZIS: Thank you, sir. We are on page 8 and page 9 is for the Marco Island Executive Airport, and that additional has been the main -- the main vehicle of the airport operations. And that's why most of the revenues are in this particular airport. Expanded includes reclassification, personnel reclassification, a maintenance worker -- from a maintenance work I to maintenance worker II, an office assistant I to office assistant II. Operating expenses include some motor-pool charges and also again another $30,000 for increasing purchase of fuel. The revenue, again, is an increase because of the purchase of fuel that will be used for resell back to the public. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're continuing to show these discretionary items on here. I know there was a lot of discussion back in the program portion of our budget hearings about the van, for example. At what point, Mr. Smykowski, do we need to make our final decision on these discretionary items? MR. SMYKOWSKI: By wrap-up. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next week? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next week. If you want to flag an issue, we would bring it back with supplemental information and/or -- or you can make decisions immediately. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The computer, Mr. Drury, is to do what? MR. DRURY: Basically to manage all of our revenues and expenses. We're going to -- we're probably going to tie in the automated system from Immokalee and the automated system from Everglades, which is a new automated fueling system where the credit cards and things of that nature -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. DRURY: -- via phone modem into the Marco Island operations center so that all fuel purchases are conducted from one site, and all of the revenues and accounting for those revenues will be conducted there. And we will need a computer primarily for the new airport manager that will be arriving on -- on July the 10th for him to set up a new fiscal program to -- to manage this -- all these airports. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And the pickup truck? MR. DRURY: Right now the employees are using their own vehicles to do daily bank runs down -- we -- we have to do daily bank runs because of the federal excise tax laws that says when we collect fuel, we have to pay the tax within 48 hours, and that tax has to be deposited. Therefore, we do almost daily bank runs, and we have a cash amount we can't keep. It's been a big concern of mine that employees have been using their own vehicles for doing that, so the truck would be used for that. Employees have also been using their own vehicles for purchasing small equipment like light bulbs and things of that nature, and when they're running out on the -- doing runway inspections or fixing a broken light, again, they're either using this huge field truck or using their own employee's vehicles. And it's just appropriate to have a maintenance pickup truck to do this kind of a thing. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: You would expect that this would be a small-sized pickup rather than a full size? MR. DRURY: Probably a very light pickup truck; that's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Off an American manufacturer, of course. MR. DRURY: We will follow your purchasing policy. I'm sure that includes that in there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If it doesn't, it should. I'm going to go ahead and broach the courtesy van issue, because it's something we talked about last time, and let me see if I can put it in a nutshell. The courtesy van is nothing more than a perk for a pilot to choose to come into Marco to purchase fuel instead of another airport. I mean that's really the focus? MR. DRURY: That would be one of the -- the main items in there is that a -- we are trying to act like a businessman. You have appointed sort of a business board, and we have to compete with other airports in Florida. And I would say just about every airport in the State of Florida, including the Naples airport, have courtesy vans and courtesy vehicles for corporate pilots so that they can go -- while their CEOs are conducting business, they can go into town and have lunch or take care of their own personal appointments. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is, how much, you know, from the Marco Island airport are we expecting that type of business? And if so -- if they're doing business, and they have to come into Marco anyway, and the courtesy van is no longer an enticement. It's just something while they're there. I want to draw the distinction, because I don't see this courtesy van as being a draw. I think you're just trying to put yourself in the same class as other facilities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I'm going to jump in here and just say I think when you say how much do you think we'd use it, if we don't have it, I think we'll be -- we'll be penalized for not having it. I think it will be used. If we don't have it, you will see a decrease in traffic and, thusly, a decrease in fuel sales. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't asking you how much it will be used. I was asking for basically what you just said, is tell me the difference here. Tell me what I'm going to see differently if we don't have it. MR. DRURY: A decrease in fuel sales. MR. SPINELLI: Hay I say something? Corporate pilots usually pick the airports where they would like to refuel. And if we don't have that van there, they may just go to Naples or Fort Myers on their way down from, say, Maine instead of stopping at Marco Island. So the corporate pilots have a great influence on where their fuel stops are. It's not the CEO so much making that type of decision. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understand I'm not opposed to it. I'm just looking for the basis behind it to make sure it's sound and makes sense. MR. DRURY: Sure, it's a good question. It's a legitimate one, because we're kind of doing private sector things which is, you know, in a public environment. And it's a very legitimate question, but I think the vice-chairman summarized it in your -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine's been involved in that industry before, knows it much better than I do and certainly as do you and so forth. But, again, I have to ask the layman question because that's pretty much what I am. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- that's true. And I have had some experience in this industry myself as a commercial pilot. It's hard for me to imagine that somebody's going to drop a Gulfstream into Naples to fuel it up and then hook it on down to Marco Island. I mean that's just not going to happen and certainly not because of a van. MR. SPINELLI: That's not what I was implying, you know, rather than land here, refuel, go to Marco on their way down to Key West or maybe down to the Cayman Islands, that type of thing. Certainly they're not going to land in Naples and refuel in Marco. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would say that the same thing applies to any destination in peninsular Florida. I mean, why would somebody stop in Orlando, for example, because they have a courtesy van to fuel up this corporate jet and then fly on down to the Marco Island airport? It's just not going to happen. MR. LAZARUS: Monte Lazarus, secretary of the airport authority. Commissioner Norris, we had an example just within the last week or two of somebody who was at Marco who took his aircraft over to Naples to refuel, then brought it back to Marco. It does happen. It's not frequent. I don't mean to imply -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was a very expensive refuel. MR. LAZARUS: It was an expensive refuel, but it was done, and I can document it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wasn't his charge card. MR. LAZARUS: The most important point I think is the point that Mr. Spinelli made, and that is that corporate pilots make the choice. And if they have a choice between a place that has a van so they can get into town, have lunch or dinner, whatever, they'll do that rather than go to a place that -- where they have to sit around in the terminal building for five, six hours or so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm having a tough time seeing how that works, and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think the point is, Commissioner Norris, not only those whose destination is Marco, but somebody who's doing a pass-through trip is going to fuel up somewhere and take a break somewhere. And just like you do with any business, you try to toss in enough to make it convenient and make it desirable for them to choose you as the stop. And I think we really would see some people make that choice if they're stuck in that little airport and can't go anywhere else. Oftentimes they land, they fuel, they don't immediately hop back in the plane and drive away -- fly away the way you do in your car. You'll fuel up, they'll stop, get something to eat, spend some time in the area, and then go again. So I think it will easily pay for itself. MR. DRURY: Yeah, the -- I think the bottom line is in business, as you all know, the person has a choice. They can -- and we're trying to make the choice Marco Island Executive Airport to increase our fuel sales. When we do our brochures and our marketing or advertising, we're going to advertise a world-class, first-class facility that represents what the Marco Island community is all about and that we are the front door of that community, and we represent that community the way the community represents itself, which is world-class, first-class. That means red carpet; that means courtesy vans; that means a courtesy smile, things of that nature. If you in the advertising promotions take out things like courtesy vans or other -- other types of things, when you go up against the choice, which would be Naples or Fort Myers in our case, we're just now becoming one step below world class, and then I see it as affecting our fuel sales. The last thing I should say is that every airport in the State of Florida that serves jets has a courtesy van. We would be the only airport in the State of Florida without a courtesy van. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That would make us unique. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't understand how it worked, because I was picturing somebody -- you know, you're a pilot. You're flying with somebody in the back. You're going to Cayman. You stop. You're not going to spend a few hours there because you're trying to get somebody somewhere. But Commissioner Constantine explained to me that when that person has to be picked up, and many times the pilot has a much more flexible schedule or has to depart at a certain time, they're looking somewhere to spend a few hours anyway. They've got to kill time. And that's where the use of a courtesy van or -- becomes attractive, and I didn't understand that function. I understand it better now. But we'll still get beat up about this, but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there anything else concerning the airport authority? Other questions? Thank you very much, gentlemen. We will recess for lunch. Thank you. (A lunch break was held between 11:57 a.m. to 1:21 p.m.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll reconvene the budget hearings. We're down to public works, stormwater management. Mr. Boldt, I bet you're here for that, aren't you? MR. BOLDT: Yes, I am. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 1 is the stormwater management department, Victoria Park drainage. Here the fund is to operate and maintain a pumping station for stormwater removal from Victoria Park unit one. Overall operating expenses increased $2,000, or there's $2,000 budgeted to replace electric control panels and float switches on the stormwater pumping station. And Mr. Boldt's also proposing to increase reserves to accumulate funds for replacement auxiliary gas engine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a taxing district; is it not? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: From Victoria Park unit one. Proposed ad valorem in FY '96 is reduced 14.4 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 2 is the Naples Park drainage fund. There's just a small residual cash balance here of $1,300 to be used for OCPFPs in preparation for the construction phase of the stormwater improvements in Naples Park. On page 3 is the Pine Ridge Industrial Park maintenance fund. Here there is a -- an increase in ad valorem of $9,600. Percentage-wise it's 27 percent. Here Mr. Boldt is anticipating a cost increase for the contracted aquatic plant control services within the industrial park. The last bid award was approximately -- was two years ago, and there were only two respondents. Due to the nature of the work and relatively few bidders, Mr. Boldt is anticipating a cost increase for that service. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 4 is the Naples Production Park maintenance fund. Overall ad valorem increases 90.9 percent, howbeit only to $56,900. Here there's an issue of Naples Production Park fund 138 and the production park maintenance fund are going to be consolidated in FY '95. There was a budgeted indirect service charge payment to the general fund. There was insufficient cash available -- residual cash in fund 138 to make the full indirect service charge payment. The balance due of $44,000 is being rolled over into FY '96 as a result, rather than foregoing the revenue to the general fund. That, of course, would be a onetime expense in FY '96. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Hawksridge. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hawksridge. This is, again, a pumping station from the Hawksridge -- in the Hawksridge PUD. Here ad valorem is decreasing 48.6 percent, only levying $1,900. Reserves are being accumulated for a pump replacement here as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question on this real quick, Mr. Boldt. Something like Hawksridge which is not built out, how is the assessment operated, per lot in there now? MR. BOLDT: No. It's ad valorem. Host of the lots are held by the developer. He's still paying the bulk of the tax. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On pages 6 and 7 is the stormwater management department, which is funded within the county general fund. Overall the appropriations are up 3.1 percent. In terms of highlights there is $4,000 termination pay budgeted. Mr. Boldt has a senior equipment operator that is trying to retire. In terms of operating expenses, they went up 5.2 percent. The principal expense within operating is for fleet charges for motor-pull vehicles and for chemical applications within the secondary canal system. Mr. Boldt's anticipating a three percent price increase in the cost of chemicals. Capital outlay, there's $10,000 budgeted for maintenance easement acquisition and $3,000 for replacement pumps on the aquatic plant control spraying apparatus. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, this acquisition of maintenance easement, is that on a golf course area up -- MR. BOLDT: No. It's a variety of projects we have around just our general secondary system. We don't have any easements. We're not anticipating costs other than the one you're referencing up there. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That moves us to page 8 of the -- which is the solid waste fund, pages 8, 9, and 10. In terms of highlights within the solid waste fund, I guess I'll point out a few things. The forecast on page 10 there's a list of the budgeted and forecasted capital projects. The budgeted capital projects were approximately $5.1 million. The forecast is only $860,000. Due to the landfill privatization contract, Waste Management is assuming responsibility for capital improvements at the landfill sites. In terms of positions the position count goes from 31 to 8 as a result of privatization. On the eight positions within the solid waste fund in FY '96 includes the department director, the solid waste coordinator position, two clerical positions, and there are four positions which function at the transfer station sites. We operate three transfer stations at Carnestown, Marco Island, and Naples as drop-off sites. You'll note a large increase in operating expenses in FY '96, and that's a function of making payments to Waste Management for landfill disposal costs as they are now operating the facility. MR. RUSSELL: I might add there that actually in those -- that increase shows up in the operating expense, but actually Waste Management is regaining their future capital expenses in those payments -- operating payments to the contractor. The budget that we brought to you assumes a continuation of the $25 tipping fee. In the handout on page 1, I have a spreadsheet that shows the reserve generation. If we held the tipping fee as it is for the next 10 years, at the end of that period we would realize a reserve of $23 million to essentially put towards the development and building of the new site. On the lower part of that spreadsheet, if we increase the tipping fee only by CPI -- here the spreadsheet assumes an average of four percent over the ten-year period. The revenue generation is $46 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand this, Mr. Russell, what you're saying is if we don't factor in the CPI and maintain tipping fee as it is, by 2005 there's going to be 23 million in the reserve balance? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: However, if we incorporate the CPI into our annual rate every year, that balance becomes 46 million by the year 2005? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the anticipated cost of a new landfill facility? MR. RUSSELL: In total, with 50 acres of landfill built, approximately 27 million. Also, if the county opted out and took the early-out option and took responsibility for the closure of our existing site under those terms, we would also have the monies to cover that cost of approximately eight million. Those two items would total $35 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds to me like you're saying option one doesn't get us there. MR. RUSSELL: Not with the early out, no. MR. LORENZ: Not if you want to take it with the early out. MR. RUSSELL: But the way we've got it built, if in '96 we maintain the $25 and then in '97 if we added the CPI -- or we could do that in alternating years -- we would have adequate funds. MR. LORENZ: You have at least another year to make that decision so you don't get -- if you wanted to have the reserves built up to take the early out, but you're only looking at maybe a year or two as a window. That's why we wanted to give you a heads-up here with this spreadsheet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Overall in terms of -- by comparing the budgeted personal services, operating -- operating capital, and capital projects, the impact on privatization you see overall in FY '96 the sum of those four categories reflects a 22.7e decrease. You'll note that there is 1,089,500 budgeted in capital projects. The principal project is the site evaluation for a future landfill site. There were no proposed expanded services. On pages 12 and 13 is the landfill closure fund, which provides for the closing of landfill cells which have already reached capacity. Under the forecast there is -- there's no funds forecasted for the closure of the Naples landfill cell 6. Waste Management also assumes responsibility for landfill closure projects as part of the privatization effort. You will note there is a large increase in reserves in this fund as a result of not -- not being responsible for cell 6. We're recommending that money remain in reserves in this fund. If the board invokes the early termination clause in the contract with Waste Management, Collier County would assume responsibility for landfill closure projects at that point. So until we get beyond that -- that window, we're recommending maintaining these funds in reserves for the potential for landfill closure. If we got beyond the early termination point, these funds would be transferred and reserved in the solid waste fund and be utilized toward the acquisition and development of the new landfill site. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me for going back just a second but going back to the -- the page -- or where was the page that was showing the -- oh, that was on the handout. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was on the handout. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The second portion of this that shows the reserve balance growing to 46 million, did that factor in investment interest -- investment earnings on the money, or did it just -- MR. BOLDT: Yes, at five percent in each group of numbers. It's the next to the last line. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. I'm sorry. All right. Just didn't have a chance to read it. Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to clarify for myself the bottom numbers. Is that based on not making an increase this year, but making an increase next year, or just based on this year? MR. RUSSELL: Right, next year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. So we're going to hear you next year say, Our recommendation would be increasing in relation to the CPI? MR. RUSSELL: Correct. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Pages 14, 15, and 16 is the solid waste grant fund. Overall appropriations are up three-tenths of a percent. There are three grants anticipated in FY '96: 277,600 for recycling and education, 20,900 litter grant, and 132,700 tire grant. There is a proposed expanded service request of $5,400 budgeted for the cost of health insurance that would be required to convert the assisting -- assistant recycling coordinator position to permanent, full-time status, and that would be funded through available recycling grant revenues. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, would our privatization if it proceeds as planned affect these grant funds in any way? MR. RUSSELL: No, it doesn't. The county still has the responsibility to reach its recycling goals. That's still an option of the solid waste department. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 17, 18, and 19 is the mandatory collection budget. In FY '95, under forecast, salaries are less than budgeted. The Department of Revenue is assuming responsibility for mandatory collection billing. Overall appropriations are up 17.7 percent. I guess in terms of -- of a highlight, the reserves are up significantly, 69 percent to $1.7 million. I guess it's important to note, though, that in the carryforward balance on the revenue side, the $2,036,800, that includes accounts and interest receivable of approximately $850,000 at FY '94 year-end. So that's, I guess, artificially high due to receivables, and the offset is in budgeting additional reserves. The revenue for '96 is projected at $277,000 above the amount forecast in FY '95. Due to estimated increase in the customer base in Waste Management, we've estimated a three and a half percent CPI adjustment for the waste hauler contracts. And on page 19 at the bottom, there's a comparison of the actual rates charge for both the Naples and Immokalee service areas and projected FY '96 rates as well because of collection being the three and a half percent CPI adjustment to the waste haulers. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That concludes the solid waste department? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Russell, Mr. Lorenz. We'll now transition to county water and sewer district on page 20. Mr. Finn is the budget analyst. MR. FINN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record Edward Finn from the budget office. Starting on page 20 are the budget pages for the utilities division. These budgets reflect a lot of hard work. I'm going to caution you that there are a lot of funds in this division. It has the appearance of being somewhat complex. I will say it is not a simple thing to organize or to review. And with that I'm going to let Mr. HcNees lead you through a brief presentation that the utilities division has prepared. MR. HcNEES: Just have a couple of introductory comments given that the nature of this is slightly different than some of your other budgets given the privatization discussions and some of the directions you've given us. First, I'd like to echo what Mr. Finn said. A lot of hard work has gone into this, a great deal of it on his part, and thank him for his efforts and the two department heads seated on either side of me. As you'll recall, a number of months ago when the discussion of contract operators or privatization for the utilities division came up, you sent us off essentially to sharpen our pencils and bring back to you a budget from which you would then make a decision did you feel like we had given enough or cut enough or whether you wanted to go ahead and bid out the operation of your water and sewer utility. We have brought to you a budget today that cuts the current service operating budget of the utility division by 11 percent. And let me emphasize definitions here, because I want to make sure you understand what I'm telling you. Current service by definitions as the budget department uses them in our case would mean what we propose to spend in fiscal '96 to treat the same number of gallons of water and provide the same service that we have in fiscal '95. We're proposing to do that 11 percent cheaper than it was done last year. Now, when you factor in the growth factors and the new gallons and the new customers, the net effect would be still a budget decrease of 6.1 percent. And now I add that included in that budget decrease are significant increases in our payment in lieu of taxes, which is a contribution to the general fund, a significant increase in our indirect service charges which are a contribution to the general fund, and a significant increase in the cost to the utility of -- utility billing and finance services as a function of the creation of and the transfer to the Department of Revenue. Now, I would have preferred to have shown those items outside of the utilities operation, but I couldn't get the budget office to go along with that. You know how those budget people are. And so what we have left with is an 11 percent decrease. And how we got there I'll let the department heads tell you or let you ask them as we get to each individual budget. But I wanted to give you that big picture, because I think that's kind of what you were looking for. A couple other issues. You had told us to bring to you level of service standards; one, so that you would know how to judge us and make sure that what we do next year with this 11 percent less is maintaining a constant level of service; and two, so that if you decided our 11 percent wasn't enough, you would have something to take to the street and bid for privatization service. What you've just been handed is a number of things primarily of which are those levels of service definitions for the water and wastewater operations. The other thing that's included in those packages -- the other day you asked us to bring to you some maintenance issues, and if we were to enhance our maintenance operations, what would it cost and what would you get for that. Each of the water and wastewater department heads has prepared some information on that and is also in your package. And when we get to their departments, perhaps you can question them and they can tell you what -- if they could have a little bit more money on maintenance, how would you spend it and what would you get for it. I highly recommend that that be considered, because I think it's a good idea. Finally, when we get to our capital budgets, we have put in there some money for automation of our maintenance operation, something that's kind of one of the last pieces of the Coopers and Lybrand report that we all know so well. They had said that we really needed some increased automation in our maintenance. In fact, we came back to the board nearly a year ago for permission to go forward with that and were delayed because the IT department had just been created, and you all wanted us to kind of not get ahead of that curb in terms of automation. So they're on board. We're budgeting the money for next year, and maintenance is certainly one of our priorities. So with that I just wanted to orient you on what we had done as a result of your direction. I'll give it back to Ed to walk us through this page by page. And I have wastewater books here for your questions when we get there. Thank you. MR. FINN: And if that meets with the board's approval, I'll be more than happy to do that. As I mentioned, on page 20 -- as Mike referred to, on page 20 is the expenditure side summary of the main utilities fund. That's fund 408. This fund provides the operating budgets as well as transfers to the debt service and capital budgets of the utilities district. The numbers that Mike is referring to in terms of percentage reduction you'll see in a column immediately to the right of the '95-'96 current service column. That percentage budget change column represents the change from the '95 adopted budget to the current service proposed '96 budget. The five main operating departments within the larger utilities division are each outlined there. Each one of those shows its representative increase or decrease over last year's budgets. The next column to the right is the expanded service column. Primarily that column is defined to fund planned expansions that have come on-line and increases in -- anticipated increases in activity levels. If there's no question at the summary level, I'll move on to the details. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have one question to help me find it when it comes around. We had talked, I think, last week or the week before about the maintenance requirements and costs. If you would be so kind as to point out to me where those are addressed as it's appropriate, and Mr. McNees, if you would tell me if you feel it's a sufficient amount as we hit those -- those points. MR. McNEES: Each of the department heads will go over their maintenance proposals to you. They're included in the package you've been handed. And when we get to that department, they'll take you through them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. FINN: What I'm going to do is ask you to turn to page 21. I'm just going to touch briefly on the revenue -- the summary of the revenues here. As you might imagine, the main two revenues are water operation revenue and sewer operation revenue. You'll notice that the -- I apologize for not having the headings on this page -- the one, two, three, fourth column from the left is the current service column. The next column is the percentage change over the '95 adopted budget. You'll notice that the sewer operating revenue is actually decreased over the adopted budget. You may recall that in the quarterly revenue reports the budget office has presented to you this year, we have made note of that. Mr. McNees and I have chatted about that quite a bit. We're under the impression that the original estimate that was put into the '95 budget may have been a bit optimistic, and that is the reason for that. As we move into the '95 budget, we have adjusted for that over-optimistic estimate, and we have numbers in there that we feel -- we're quite confident are good numbers, and they will come in. They represent a five to six percent increase on actual revenue collections. If there's no further questions there, I will move on to page 22. As we move to Page 22, we're looking at individual departmental components of the utilities division. Page 22 happens to be the administrative section. Last year this section was composed of -- of four FTEs or four members of the staff. This year there will be six in current service. That represents two -- two members of the previous finance section being transferred into this department. There's no net increase with that transfer. There is one expanded request, and that's for a finance supervisor position to be added back into this section. That position was originally eliminated as part of the DOR reorganization. The other two significant things that I need to point out to you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before you leave that personnel issue, what we thought was going to be done by DOR is now not going to be done by DOR and done here? MR. DORRILL: It is. He had some separate rationale for asking to keep one position in the utilities administration, because I asked him the same question two weeks ago, and he's prepared to give you his justification for that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. McNEES: Let me see if I can make it make sense. There was a finance director and a finance supervisor in that section. The position that was finance director went to DOR. The position that was finance supervisor was shown as a net cut as you looked at the DOR reorganization. There were a large number of duties within the finance department that were not directly or only utility billing related. There's a great deal of financial reporting for the Goodland and Marco districts because of their FMHA loans, for example. There are rate issues and revenue monitoring issues, for example, that are not a function of the DOR. The rate coverages, the bond coverages, any essentially large-scale financial issues are not a part of the DOR function. They are strictly utility billing. And without anybody then the division administrator ends up as the only person, and that's really -- the administrator doesn't have the time and may not necessarily even have the expertise to do that kind of work, so we really need a body of some sort. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So basically you have some financial accounting kind of responsibilities that didn't get shifted to DOR, because they're not revenues or -- MR. DORRILL: They're not -- MR. McNEES: Correct. They're not billing. They're accounting, monitoring, control, and reporting issues. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The division administrator's plate will also be that much fuller in FY '96 due to the reorganization. The solid waste department is now included under public works. Transportation is now included under public works as well as stormwater management. MR. McNEES: I'm telling you that if I had to do that work today, having formerly been the utility finance director and the budget director, it would be real tough for me to do all that work, let alone the additions, as Mike says, to public works under that person. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, your logic makes sense. My question to you, Mr. Dotrill, is are we now going to experience a reduction in what we thought was a savings with the DOR because of eliminated positions because of this? MR. DORRILL: No. That's why it's shown as an expanded service position. I think this has, frankly, more to do with the -- the consolidation through the recent reorganization. What Mr. HcNees said was that this division administrator is also now going to be responsible for the transportation department and the solid waste department. This is the division administrator position that will become public works administrator. He expressed a concern to me that the -- the budget in the loan-related repayments and the calculation in forecasting of rate increases in the utility division alone required someone of some technical expertise to remain in water and wastewater functions in order to support the division administrator. If you all want to see a complete list of the proposed responsibilities or needs as part of that, we can do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not arguing the need for the position to utilities. What I'm asking is when we are given a scenario in which the county's going to save X dollars, and it counts on the elimination of certain positions and those positions later become expanded services, regardless of the reason, that initial savings is reduced -- MR. DORRILL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in the end run. MR. DORRILL: That's correct. If this expanded service is approved, then it's approved beyond the savings that were gamered through the DOR consolidation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is we do this three or four times at different places in the budget, the savings that we thought we were getting go away. MR. DORRILL: To my knowledge this is the only instance where you get some that are factored back in. I had a request from the EHS department that I did not recommend, and they've asked me to consider an alternative, but they're not in the tentative budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HcNEES: To maybe grossly oversimplify, we're talking about $30 million worth of operating revenues, another $10 million in capital revenues, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to $70 million sitting out there. There ought to be at least one person on the county payroll that that's his job to pay attention to all that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, Hike, I'm not arguing. You've convinced me. I think the need is there. I think it makes sense. We're just in a position that we were promised a reduction and then we're looking at expanding, and the savings is getting smaller, and just -- I'm getting a creeping fear here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does anyone remember what the number was -- remember what the DOR savings number was? MR. DORRILL: I don't know offhand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: $175,000, something to that effect. MR. FINN: I think it was 80-some-odd thousand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So half of that is gone now. I mean from our position, Neil -- I understand a difference between an expanded service and so forth. MR. DORRILL: I understand your point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But less than half of that 80,000 is now gone. Now we're down to personnel savings with less than 40,000 in the DOR. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Didn't the DOR in its original presentation way back when we first started talking about it $300,000, and then -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't recall it being that much. In any case -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, now we struck a deal with the tax collector which took away 100 or $150,000 of that 300, and then there's been some whittling away at it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody could tell us that number. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The main attraction to me in the DOR was never the -- as much the personnel savings as it was the better service to the customer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I agree with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that, you know, whether we save any money in personnel or not, if we increase the service to our customers and make them happier and make all the -- MR. DORRILL: We'll send you -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- make the government work better, that's what I'm interested in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like the complaint tracking and all the service amplification that's part of the DOR. MR. DORRILL: We can reconcile where we're at and where we would be if this was approved on October the first to show it to you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not arguing with any of that. I just need to bring this up, because I don't want to be accused of being blind to what was a savings and ends up not being there. MR. DORRILL: I agree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see this happening, and I'm a little concerned. MR. FINN: Madam chairman, we are on page 22, and we're dealing with the utilities administration budget. And I just pointed out that expanded position we were speaking about. And I'd like to point out on this page highlighted in the middle, that would be the utilities division payment to the general fund in lieu of ad valorem taxes. That is 1.167 million dollars. That alone is an increase of $80,000 over the prior year. That's based on the taxable value of the assets. The other significant expenditure in this budget is the general fund indirect service charge. That is $798,000. That is a $100,000 increase. That charge is designed to reimburse the general fund for services rendered to the utilities division in the areas of finance, or county attorney, budget office, BCC time, manager's time, things of that nature. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume we're correct in assuming that these -- this $1,900,000 is included in the rate structure of the utilities? MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: No further questions? We'll move on to page 23. On page 23 you'll see the utilities service finance section. You'll notice that last year we had 26 positions in this section. I've put together a little chart down below there that shows you where those positions have gone. I'll run through those real quick if that meets with the board's approval. We have 19 positions transferred to the DOR. Eliminated as part of the DOR reorganization were four positions. There is one position that will be transferred to the IT department as of 10-1. And as I mentioned, in looking at the immediate previous page, two positions were transferred to the utilities admin. section to continue in their capacity as customer service representatives. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? MR. FINN: The '95 -- or I'm sorry, the '96 current service budget represents payment to the DOR for the services previously rendered by this department. That's done through an interdepartment payment for service mechanism. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FINN: On page 24 is the utilities division engineering department. This department consists of three people. There are two engineer positions here. They essentially coordinate and assist with the utilities division capital project program. Utilities capital projects typically are in excess of $30 million a year, or at least this year they are. There's no significant changes in this department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many engineers were there in the utility engineering department before us again? MR. FINN: There were several. I will tell you that one of the two engineering departments in this section were added last year as an expanded request approved by the board. So there was one left after the reorganization, and the board actually added an additional one last fiscal year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we started out with one after the reorganization to OCPM, and now we're up to three? MR. FINN: No, ma'am. We're up to two engineers, and the other is a clerical or technical position that just provides clerical support. MR. McNEES: Let me field that, please. That's correct. There was one engineer and what we call an engineering tech. There's a large sum of duties that these folks do that are not related to the capital projects. That's, of course, part of what they do. Every time a developer wants to build a unit on parcel X, someone in the utilities division has to tell him whether or not water and sewer service is available. Every time we accept a piece of water or sewer line from the developer, somebody in the utility division has to go through that process, log that in, make that a part of our inventory, any mapping, all of that. That's what the engineering department does. Someone has to approve the plats. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's that service I want to be sure that developers are paying for that we were talking about -- we've asked Mr. Cautero to be sure that they're covering that and it's not coming out of rent payers or -- MR. DORRILL: Question came up this morning in terms of the review and conveyance and acceptance of utility facilities and to distinguish in Tom Kuck's department those individuals and the costs associated with and the fees that are gamered through that. MR. McNEES: I'll tell you that a portion of those people salaried to do work in development services have been funded out of this engineering department. And we absolutely and totally agree that those folks demanding that service ought to be the ones paying for it, not the utility customers. MR. FINN: The payment in that case is $44,000 budgeted in '96. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mike, would you be able to take a look at what share of their work is directly development related and how much of their salaries should be funded from development review? MR. McNEES: Absolutely. It's going to be a big piece. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He just said the $40,000 is the indirect payment; is that correct? MR. FINN: It is actually a direct payment. MR. HcNEES: That's what we pay development services. MR. FINN: Yes. That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, where's the other side of that coin? MR. FINN: The other side in terms of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Development services should be paying --MR. HcNEES: There's an expense side of this budget to development services for the employees of development service section who are doing this, quote, utilities work. And as you're saying, it probably ought to be the other way around. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It ought to be the other way around. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Granted there is a benefit to the general public making sure this position is there, but it's not 100 percent and sure as heck isn't 90 percent. But whenever the county is running the utility, there is a minimum staffing level you have to maintain -- but it certainly isn't three people -- to make sure these things are appropriate. MR. HcNEES: Well, again, the duties of what are today two people are much more than that. The second engineering position that we got approved last fiscal year we have been fighting like cats and dogs to try to fill. We are not getting good applicants. We have been completely unable this entire fiscal year to fill that position. We have a lot of work we want that person to do. You had expressed a desire for us to get much more aggressive into residential tense, negotiating agreements, and pursuing all that. Well, Mr. Clemons is doing the best he can, but he's got a 20-million-gallon-per-day sewer operation to run, and it really taxes him. And we just don't have a person to do that sort of work. So that's one of the things we want this engineer to do in addition to keeping up with the other things I've already stated. We're trying real hard. Hopefully soon we'll have that position filled. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good point. Going out and obtaining the residential tense is something that isn't the direct development -- again, we're going to wait for you to tell us how much of that person or how much of your staff time is direct development related, and that should come under user fees instead of out of this enterprise fund. MR. HcNEES: I will. That's not going to be difficult to get to at all. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we could do it by wrap-up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. We'll look for that one on wrap-up then. MR. HcNEES: You mean you actually want to give us money instead of take it for someone else? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you're doing direct development-related work, we want development services to pay. MR. DORRILL: You got to get it past me first though. I never met a division head who wasn't willing to steal money from another division head. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But clearly the source here -- if it is a cost that isn't being borne by development services, that cost will be passed on to the user which is the land owner. MR. DORRILL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's not division to division; it's identifying a source and an amount. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't want to encourage you to steal money either. MR. McNEES: Trust me, we pay our fair share. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. McNEES: I won't moo as if I were a cash cow or anything. MR. FINN: On page 25 is the water operations section. You'll notice that below the goals the programs are listed there in a very simple format just to try to give the board an idea of the major segments that are covered by this budget. It is a fairly large budget. Below the programs we have a fairly extensive listing of performance measures that provide some indication of not only the activity levels but the level of performance that this department is able to achieve in its daily work. On page 26 you'll see at the top the actual -- the actual spreadsheet that outlines the costs in this department. You'll notice that the percentage budget changed. Current service this year to last year's adopted budget is minus 18 percent. I will point out that a sizable portion of that is occurring in the operating expense category. That is attributable to less expenditures primarily in the areas of electricity and chemical usage. MR. McNEES: Yeah. Let me amplify that a little bit. When we jumped into this let's cut the budget, there was one real nice piece of big, low-hanging fruit, and that was the north regional water treatment plant which was brand new, had a start-up budget based on what the engineers estimated for chemicals and electricity and all that, and that was significantly higher than it needed to be. So we were able to pluck that one, and that's what Ed's talking about now. That's why you see in this particular case in operating expenses such a large decrease. That was really the only nice, big piece we got to pick. MR. FINN: You'll also notice in the current service column -- this is where we reflect the water revenues. You'll notice the operating expenditures for '95-'96 currently will be about $6.3 million. The water revenues that are generated essentially by this section are seventeen -- almost $9 million, providing a significant contribution to the overall operation. The expanded services, there are a few here. Primarily they're driven by the anticipated increase in water to be treated and distributed. The personal service increase is fairly small. And that's simply a requirement, because lab techs are being reclassified and will be eligible for overtime. They do some work on the weekends in terms of taking tests and things like that. The capital outlay expenditures are fairly small. They involve primarily a couple pieces of equipment. MR. McNEES: This might be the appropriate time for Mr. Newman to talk about the maintenance issues you raised. MR. NEWMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record Mike Newman, water director. I've handed each of you a little informational packet here to kind of help us guide through the budget here. The section that we're looking at right now is section 3, consideration of additional maintenance enhancements. Staff has only had a week, basically, to put this together, so we did the best job we can under the circumstances. It lists a number of infrared testing, motor balancings, vibration testings to the motors and equipment at the regional water treatment plants that would -- that would detect problems with those systems prior to failure and would allow us to minimize the cost to repair those and minimize the downtime associated with that. We've tried to go through and give you an idea of the different things that we are and are not doing. Each section is broken down individually by the north plant, south plant, and the distribution section. Probably should have started back here with the prior section, section 2, which is a duties and responsibilities assessment. We've tried go through and hit the high points of our operation and basically give you an idea of what percentage of those duties we're able to complete according to standard. The real important ones, the regulatory ones, we're getting those 100 percent of the time, basically. But as you look through here, you can see that some of the things we're getting to 20 percent of the time -- can only get 20 percent of the job done according to the standards out there in the industry or whatever it happens to be that sets that standard to give you an idea of what the current level of funding will allow us to promote out there in the system. The bottom line on this is if we wanted to fund all the additional maintenance enhancements that are listed in this booklet, we'd probably be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of anywhere from six to seven hundred thousand dollars. The large majority of that is going to be in the distribution system, valve maintenance, air release, to get our facility's maintenance system up to specification right now. That can be done either through contract services, or it could be done through -- through additional county employees. We feel we could probably do it at a lower expense with full-time employees, but that's an option that we'll leave up to you how you would like to address that if you want to entertain that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question. I'm looking at page 2 of your duties and responsibilities assessment. MR. NEWMAN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Under duties and responsibility for equipment maintenance, I'm just trying to get a level for what these service levels mean. Mechanics, preventative maintenance you have daily, weekly, monthly, yearly. MR. NEWMAN: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then you have 10 percent within the standards, 20 percent out of standards, and 70 percent not at all. MR. NEWMAN: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How do we, reading this, assess that? MR. NEWMAN: Again, it was the limited time. I mean there's so many different pieces of equipment and so many things that need to be maintained. I would have to hand you something about the size of the phone book in order to give you a complete breakdown of that. So we tried to give you the categories and give you a percentage of that entire category rather than -- MR. HcNEES: Mike, let me -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me see if I can do it. The mechanic maintenance -- you're saying that 10 percent of all the maintenance that's done is within standards, 20 percent is outside of the standards? MR. NEWMAN: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But done? MR. NEWMAN: It's done later than recommended, correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And 70 percent of the preventative maintenance is not done at all? MR. NEWMAN: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something that when I took my tour of the facilities something that was brought to my attention and concerned me. It stems from the fact that our entire utilities system for the most part is 12 years old. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's new. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All of our equipment is new. It's running. In order to keep the budget down, we take from areas that are not immediately necessary such as maintenance. Those problems don't show up until another five or ten years down the road. What I'm concerned about is, yes, we're avoiding those incremental increases, but we're going to get hit hard at about the same time on a high power volume of equipment, and that concerns me. And in talking to these gentlemen, I got the same impression from them that the maintenance wasn't there, and we're continuing down that same path. So why I asked to make this a focus is that I'm trying to prevent a doubling of rates at some time in the future to have to go out and pay for a lot of repair that could be done in incremental phases so we don't hit people real hard. MR. DORRILL: Or as you explained it last week, to take money out of the current significant reserve accounts and do some -- some work, either contracted or otherwise, to respond to these. Commissioner Matthews, did you say you're on the second page of section 37 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Section 2. MR. HcNEES: I won't represent that we would ever be looking at something like a doubling of rates or anything like that to make some sort of alarmist proposal to you, but absolutely we believe it would be more cost-effective for us to put more money into maintenance today. And you hit the nail exactly on the head. As we fight in this ad valorem format every year over the budget, those are the kinds of things that hit the floor and that maybe we need to be attentive to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The important thing here is this is an enterprise fund. The people that receive these services are going to pay for it one way or the another. The question is do you pay a little bit on an incremental basis, or do you get hit all at once for it? I think all of us would rather adjust than be slammed once. That's, to me, a prudent approach. And you've shown, say, six or seven hundred thousand dollars worth of things. I think in wastewater we're going to see some of the same concerns. And we're certainly not going to be able to do all of it at once, so I think we need to pay attention to it, I think, a good portion of the required maintenance and phase it in. MR. HcNEES: Maybe I can make a proposal then between now and the wrap-up, maybe, that the department heads and I can sit down and kind of distill some of this and see what do we think is a realistic proposal in the first year for some enhanced maintenance and put a price tag on it. Certainly we're not going to jump into the 2 times $600,000 all in one year but bring some proposals back as far as maybe some levels that we could recommend, and you could tell us then what you want us to go forward with. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would -- I would like to see that and know what the rate impact is going to be and what is available in reserves versus increase in rates and the whole scenario. MR. HcNEES: We're not going to bring you anything that means rate increase. I promise you that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I share that concern. I don't think we should be letting what is essentially a brand new system deteriorate for lack of maintenance. If we can get an extra ten or fifteen years out of the system merely because we're doing maintenance on a timely basis, we ought to do it. MR. NEWMAN: Commissioner, I can give you a lot of examples of systems we have taken over in the past that were done by private companies or developers, and they did no maintenance, and the money we had to sink into them to bring them up to spec. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It could be, too, that their operations were always designed to turn them over to the county. MR. NEWMAN: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean maybe that was by design. That's not our goal. MR. NEWMAN: I agree. We're here for the long haul, and that's why we're trying to look down the road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see a recognition, and I appreciate staff bringing it to our attention. Let's get it addressed before wrap-up. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, I believe we're on page 27. This is the other large operating department within the division. This is the sewer operations. Again, you'll notice in bullet-point format the programs or the main areas that are encompassed by this department. You'll notice the performance measures which again give you an indication of activity levels and how well -- or the quality of their performance. Below that you'll see the spreadsheet which indicates the actual proposed budget. In this case, the percentage budget change from adopted '95 budget to the proposed current service '96 budget reflects almost a 14 percent decrease in the budgeted dollars. You'll just -- why don't we note again the sewer revenue? I mentioned when I talked about -- at the summary sections I talked about this revenue issue. This is actually four percent or almost five percent less than we budgeted last year for sewer revenues. And staff is certain that that was simply an error that was not caught before the budget was adopted. We discussed that with the board on two separate occasions when we brought the quarterly revenue report to you. We feel as though that's well in hand. That's not having any operational impact this year. There are -- I'm going to also bring your attention to the position counts here. The adopted '95 budget included 85 positions in this division -- I'm sorry, in this department for current service purposes. That's been reduced to 81 positions. Mr. Clemons, you want to go over that, or you want me to cover that? MR. CLEHONS: Just briefly, as part of this budget this year, the supervisors and I sat down and took a hard look at each of the various sections and looked to streamline and make more efficient what we were doing. We had some vacancies that we had not filled for a little bit, and we've decided to do without. We will just take the existing staff we have on hand and accomplish the same amount of work; therefore, we're recommending that we reduce that overall by four. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just important to note that this year seems to be this big focus on taking vacant positions and getting rid of them, which may affect this three percent attrition we're talking about. These two things are going to collide at one point. We need to be careful of that. I appreciate the effort on it. MR. FINN: The specifics of how we got to a reduction of four, there are actually five positions that Mr. Clemons has proposed to eliminate in terms of current service. And there's one permanent -- or full-time -- part-time clerical position in the north plant that's being added back in in current service as a regular employee. Marginal cost involves strictly the benefit package. MR. CLEHONS: That's all. MR. FINN: That's why we have a net reduction of four. There's actually five positions being eliminated and one being added back in current service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FINN: In general, this department has probably a little bit more in terms of expanded services than the water department. Towards the bottom of page 28, I highlight those for you. The largest of those positions is expanded services for the Collier treatment facility. Of the expanded funding, 576,000 of it is involved in the north treatment facility. That has to do with the added capacity in the sludge processing plant, the need for personnel to operate that plant, the need for some additional operating expenditures, and the need for a piece of equipment in order to handle the sludge. There's also $10,000 added in electricity costs in the collection area, and that has to do with the absorption of additional lift stations and the need to simply supply electricity to them. The last item is $112,000 to change the chemical usage at the south county plant from chlorine gas to liquid bleach, and I think the board is well aware of that change. We've essentially gone through the operating departments in the Collier County water and sewer district. On page 29 we start dealing with some of the non-operating funds, if you will. This is the debt service fund associated with the district. The debt service fund is in line with last year's. This is funded through carryforward and a transfer from the operating department -- or from the operating fund 408. Any questions there? On page 30 -- this is informational. This is the Pelican Bay wastewater facility fund 450. This was closed down by board action in '94. We're forecasting the transfer of the residual funds in this fund to the water/sewer district assets. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just real quickly, so that's going to go to -- that particular facility is now being operated by Collier County water/sewer, so we're just transferring the funds to an area that it would be used for maintenance anyway? MR. CLEHONS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if I'll be hearing any territorial screaming from Pelican Bay on that. MR. HcNEES: No. They're very happy. We worked this all out with them over time. They're well aware and happy with what we did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FINN: I believe we're on page 31. This is the Goodland water district. This is the district operated essentially by the county for the residents of Goodland. Expanded services here have to do with essentially the marginal increase in electricity that's anticipated. The difference between the adopted budget and the forecasted and current budget involves, perhaps, an overestimate in the amount of water that was anticipated to be delivered. I believe staff feels they have a pretty good handle on it at this point in time. There's one personnel associated with this operation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I keep hearing the increased cost of electricity. Is that what you were referring to, Mr. Dotrill, about a miscalculation, or is utilities on a different program? MR. DORRILL: Their rates are correct, because they're off-site. They're separately metered and billed. It is the bill and the meter here at the government center is my understanding of what the problem is. MR. NEWMAN: The majority of the increase here is for electrical. It's also to cover the Key Marco development facility and what has been anticipated that we've been told by the engineers that will occur as a result of that development over the next year. It also accounts for an increase in assets used, the per-thousand-gallon charges that they charge us. They supply us with all the water for this facility which we then redistribute to the Goodland water district. They have increased that, so this reflects that increase. MR. FINN: On page 33 is the -- the budget presentation for the Marco water and sewer district. This district -- there's a couple things that I probably need to point out. One is the operating expenses on both forecasts is currently quite a bit higher than the adopted budget last year. That has to do with some rate increases imposed by SSU that weren't included in last year's budget. On the revenue side I'm going to point out that the adopted revenue budget in terms of sewer revenue was $400,000. The forecast revenue this year is $290,000, and the current service revenue budget is $320,000. Primarily that is a result of a rate increase that was included in this budget, that is when it was presented to the board the budget was predicated on getting a rate increase or doing a rate increase. That has not yet taken place. What staff has done this year is they're showing you in the expanded column for sewer revenue the rate increase that is going to be necessary this year -- or I'm sorry, in FY '96 in order to bring our revenue in line with our operating expenditures for this particular sewer district. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're saying we're going to have to have a rate increase of approximately $201,000 on the Marco water/sewer district? MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. MR. HcNEES: And we'll be back here before the beginning of the fiscal year with public hearing and all the documentation and details on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This sounds like fun. MR. HcNEES: The way the numbers work, we'll be bringing people up to about the same level of where our county water/sewer customers are at this point. So percentage-wise it may seem large when we get there, but it's bringing them about the same as county water and sewer. Since we adjusted the rates down there, SSU rates to us have gone up more than 200 percent. So we really need to deal with that, and there's just not a whole lot we can do about it. MR. FINN: It is important to note that both of these districts -- in the case of the water district, they're simply providing distribution. In the case of the sewer district, they're simply providing collection, and the actual production of potable water and the treatment of sewage is done by SSU. And for the most part these budgets are driven by what SSU charges. MR. HcNEES: We're more the customer here rather than the provider here really. We're SSU's customer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me just ask a question about the hearing that you're talking about coming up this fall or sooner. Is that going to be a full-blown rate hearing similar to what is done before the PSE, because this board has talked occasionally about reclaiming the public service commission purview over county water. MR. HcNEES: No. This is not anything near the scale of a rate case that you would be talking about as you would prepare for the PSC. This is really no larger in scale than one of your normal weekly public hearings. We'll bring to you our recommendation and background. In this case, the numbers are pretty simple. There's only 900 customers out there. We have an SSU rate that they charge us, and we pass it through. So the numbers are fairly simple. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a pass through? I was just wondering whether we should be looking at that to give us some flavor of what we can expect if we were to take back those PSC responsibilities. MR. HcNEES: No. This is nowhere near the level of detail that you go through with that kind of a -- the last rate case that the county commission heard -- or its rate regulation board heard was about ten years ago, and I happened to be in on that. And the level of detail and the time isn't even -- isn't even -- it's ten times more than what it is for something like this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mrs. Matthews, "flavor" is about as close as I may want to get to it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's been discussion that we should take that back up again, yet we're continually cautioned that we don't want to get -- we may not want to get into those rate hearings -- rate case hearings. And I was just questioning whether this was going to get close to us so we could get a taste of what we don't want to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we want to maintain the right or the ability to take them back, but I'm not so sure we want to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, at this point we've covered the operating areas of the water/sewer district as well as those two smaller water and sewer districts. We also talked about the debt service that the utilities division is responsible for. On page 35 we start talking about the capital and the capital needs of the district, specifically this is the Collier County water/sewer district. On page 35 is a fund that has been developed part way through this year by the finance department to collect and to track the water impact fee or system development fees. You'll notice that that money is simply collected here and then transferred out to the water capital fund. On page 36 you will see fund 412, which is the water capital fund. I'm going to point out for you that the adopted '95 budget assumed capital expenditures of $15.6 million. The forecast for those -- for those projects and whatever changes have taken place is $13.7 million. And the proposed budget for capital projects in this area is $16.3 million. Those capital project are funded, as I mentioned before, by a transfer from the impact fee that we just looked at, the impact fee fund, and transfers from the operating fund, which is fund 408. And lastly, any carryforward in this fund in the event bonds were used to build capital infrastructure, they would also be shown here. On pages 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41, I provided for you a listing of the water capital projects that are currently budgeted that are forecasted this year and that are proposed for next year. I'm providing that for your information. I don't expect you to go through each one and ask about them, but if you do have any questions, we would be happy to entertain those questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the only question I have is that we've been entertaining and moving forward on doing something about increased capacity in the south county portion of the wastewater treatment program, and this is water impact fees. My question is are the impact fees and the infrastructure replacement fees enough to cover getting that project started, bonding it, and paying the debt service on it. MR. FINN: That's a big question. MR. McNEES: On the water side -- maybe if you could hold that question until we get to the sewer capital budget, I could answer it more directly. On the water side the most -- I think the largest project you're going to see is the north regional water treatment expansion. You see that budgeted without additional indebtedness under our current rate structure and our revenue stream. I think that is somewhat amazing to be able to fund an expansion of that nature. So yes, the impact fee stream and the revenue stream has been without debt. Our debt capacity at this point is large. We haven't issued debt for a number of years. So if we were to find out, for example, that this particular expansion on the water side was going to cost significantly more than we've estimated, we have quite a bit of debt capacity without raising rates. The same thing would be true on the sewer side. We don't have that south plant expansion budgeted yet, because it's a few years down the road. We're going to be in good shape in terms of either having the cash to actually do that or the capacity to borrow the money without rate increases, whichever in that year it happens to turn out. Financially we're in good shape. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. That's what I wanted to hear. MR. FINN: MAdam Chairman, if you're interested in looking at the project that Mike is referencing, it starts on the bottom of page 39 and runs through the top of page 40. It's project 70859. It's budgeted next year at $9 million. There's some preliminary design occurring this year. Also, on page 40 I just wanted to point out something that Mike had mentioned in his preliminary statements, and that has to do with inventory and maintenance computer system. All right. You'll see on page 40, about the third project up there, there's $100,000 to make some improvements in that area. That would probably dovetail nicely with the board's interest in getting a handle on the maintenance aspects of the operation. MR. McNEES: I would rephrase that. For $100,000 you aren't getting just improvement. We don't have anything to improve. You're getting maintenance of management and inventory controls systems that we don't have today. Hopefully that hundred grand is a little high, but if we're going to do it, we believe we should do it right. That's a legitimate capital expense that we've been discussing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're not enhancing a computer system, you're '- MR. HcNEES: Hike's got an old PC. MR. CLEHONS: We're enhancing a card file. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, if we're ready to go on, essentially on page 42 -- 43 through page 48 is essentially the other side of this coin. This is the sewer side of this coin. It starts with the impact fee or the system development charges. It shows you the fund as a whole and gives you an idea of the level of projects. For instance, this year with the amendments that have been made to the budget, we have $19.2 million we anticipate expending this year. Next year's proposed capital project budget on the sewer side is $22 million. On the next page, page 44 through 48, is a listing of projects that are in place or proposed. Significant projects include, on page 45, number 73035, the injection well project at $4 million. Other significant projects include -- page 46. This is, I believe, project 73916. It's an expansion of the south plant. I'm sorry. I think I misspoke. MR. HcNEES: This is my fault. I didn't get to you. This is not the expansion, but this is actually the changes that you all have already approved out there to the treatment process and the movement of the oxidation ditch and all that work out there that you're familiar with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is the retrofit of the existing system? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the conversion. MR. CLEHONS: Modification, conversion, not expansion. MR. FINN: For the record I want to make sure that I fully retracted the word expansion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have two quick questions on these. I have 73036 on page 45 shows a county-wide sewer management plan with a $200,000 line. Didn't we just -- did we just see some form of identification of gap areas in a county-wide wastewater -- or was that potable water? MR. HcNEES: That's on the water side where the engineer has just gone to work on the master plan, and we need to do the same thing next year with wastewater. MR. FINN: At the top of that same page, there's $2 million expenditure for additional five-million-gallons-per-day capacity. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember seeing gap service areas, and I wasn't sure if it was water or wastewater. So we've done potable water. Now we need to do it with wastewater. MR. HcNEES: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How often do we do new master plans? MR. HcNEES: The last water master plan was 1984, I believe. So it's -- they're essentially a ten-year -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Want to make sure we want to pay $200,000 to have them draw a new one. Connect this one to that one. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not at all. We're on an ll-year cycle. It's like sunspots. MR. HcNEES: Hopefully a little more predictable than sunspots. MR. NEWMAN: The water master plan has 10- to 15-year horizons built into that. MR. HcNEES: From a practical standpoint, once you get it out 10 years -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know how I hate to see consultants get contracts. MR. FINN: We've taken a quick look at the capital projects. We will try to answer whatever questions you have. If the board is okay with these projects, this is what will be included in the tentative budget. I'm going to lead you to page 49 and 50. These are simply sewer districts that -- I'm sorry, sewer area B south district and sewer service area B district. These funds have been collected in the past and simply are being carried forward pending some final closeout or some final determination on how to -- how to or what to do with these funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we were discussing a couple months ago to refund them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we did to, and the question was with or without interest. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The question was to the person who paid or to the current property owner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wasn't that the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nobody wants to talk. MR. McNEES: I'll talk. The history goes back even when I was utilities administrative assistant. In 1984 we first began to try to figure out how to give this money back. And as I understand it today, it's essentially in the hands of the attorney's office to say what is legal and what can we do, and they are to resolve that. And I honestly can't tell you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Somebody is working on it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We see Mr. Cuyler in about an hour. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be legal to keep it, but it may not be right. MR. McNEES: We don't want it. I'd write a check today to anybody Ken says that we can give it to just to get rid of this, because all it is is earning interest. The original property owners may have all moved, and we can't get all parties to agree on what's an acceptable solution. It's just been a mess, and it just keeps getting bigger every year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just to be sort of short about it, we get to decide, don't we? So why don't you bring it to us, and that will make Ken have to give an answer, and then we'll deal with it. Why don't you get it on an agenda? MR. HARGETT: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good idea. Let's get it addressed. MR. HARGETT: Before we get too far with capital, did you talk about the north county expansion 7031 in any detail? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just about to ask about sort of as wastewater goes -- we talked a little bit about as we expand the wastewater treatment and so forth. Are those costs and plans included in what we're looking at in the expansion costs here for odor up there, specifically under wastewater? MR. CLEMONS: On 70317 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anything that involves expansion on wastewater. MR. CLEMONS: The current expansion, which is winding down, should be completed in the next few months included those odor control facilities. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And you and I discussed future expansion. I know there's an expansion after an expansion. MR. CLEHONS: Right. This is the next expansion for that facility, and it will also include -- when the actual construction work comes around, it will include any necessary odor control associated with the new portions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Target that 90 percent-plus. MR. CLEHONS: I understand. MR. HARGETT: The point that I was wanting to raise with that expansion is when this phase that's under construction right now comes on-line, I think it had been represented that we were going to take Pelican Bay off-line and also our existing plant. And after going through some of the growth and the loading on that plant, it doesn't -- I think right now we're projecting about the year 2000 when this new five-HGD expansion will come on-line before we can actually take Pelican Bay or the existing plant off-line. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they were already talking about that parcel, what to do with it and who owns it. I mean they were at that level of discussion internally in Pelican Bay. I think they were expecting it to come off-line this year. MR. HARGETT: We had received some correspondence, and I was wanting to at least at this time talk with the board about what had been discussed in terms of this current expansion, but this next expansion is -- will be of sufficient size that we'll be able to absorb the Pelican Bay plant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is that -- should we notify PBSD, or is it just the homeowners? I mean what entity there is basically -- should we notify, because they're talking about this as if it's going to happen, and I think they need to know the time frame somehow. MR. HARGETT: There was some correspondence from their board of directors -- their chairman in which the county manager did respond and mentioned that we had planned to take this plant off-line, and based on what's going on, that it would probably be another four or five years before we actually took it off-line. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I guess I'll be the one -- MR. CLEHONS: We'll follow through with that and make sure. Quite frankly, the north end really caught up with us this year. In end season we had pushing through the plant six and a half million on a plant that was only rated at four and a half. So the expansion of seven and a half didn't buy us a lot of room. MR. FINN: We're pretty much done. Just to recap, I'll go right back to the summary real quick for you. The operational expenditures to deal with the current level of service, the total is down about 11 percent even after adjusting for the increase in estimated activity that's going to occur through FY '96. Operations are still down 6.1 percent. I think your staff has done a very good job in looking at their needs and evaluating their needs. In general I think we've been able to provide for the board what the board is looking for, and I hope the board sees it that way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a pretty clear picture of utilities at this point, much clearer than I did an hour ago. Thank yOU. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. FINN: Thank you. MR. NEWMAN: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Transportation is next. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, after public works we have the transportation department. Mr. Archibald is here. MR. BAMIATZIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Spiros Bamiatzis. Before we get to the transportation budget, I would like to give you a brief overview of the revenues the way that they were put together for fund 101. As you may recall, about last year you made a decision to reallocate the gas tax revenues from fund 101, about two-thirds of them to go to fund capital projects; therefore, as you see on page 52, gas taxes have been reduced from $4,694,500, to $2,089,100. The balance to fund the operations in 101, they would come from a transfer from the general fund, and that's why you see this transfer jumping from $74,000 to about $2,697,000. So there is basically a reason for all these things happening. Having said that, on page 53 -- I'll just go over the highlights. There's about one position in the transportation administration under expanded section, and there is about $75,000 for additional stuff, and that includes two extra personnel -- I'm sorry, three extra people, two maintenance workers and the traffic technician position. And there's about $5,000 for medical assistance and $27,000 for four new signal systems and associated electrical expenses with that. And on the revenue section the expanded service request is $229,000. That's how much this is going to cost for the expanded service. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, that is funded through a transfer from your general fund as we've transitioned the gas taxes to capital. Road and bridge will be subsidized through a transfer from the general fund, approximately 2.7 million -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mike, I can hardly hear you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Approximately $2.7 million in subsidy from the general fund is required to support road and bridge operations in FY '96 as a result of transitioning the gas taxes from maintenance to capital. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we're moving sales tax, not ad valorem. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What was that sales tax being used for that we're now going to have to fund? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It used to be in road and bridge, and it was slowly moved over to the general fund, and last year we made a conscious effort to start moving it back. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Help me with a little history so I understand. Was this the -- when we're talking about the five percent shortfall this year, was this the basis for it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know whether it was or not, whether it was the basis or not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just remember us talking about things being put where they shouldn't have been for some time, and now that we're having to face the music, so to speak, we are experiencing the potential for shortfall in funding. Is this a dominant portion of that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe it is. I believe it is. And it was in 19 -- was it in 1992, John, that we started talking about moving some of this money back? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We actually started talking about it in December of '92 and made the decision. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're transitioning over a three-year period. Last year it was one-third, '96 two-thirds. A year from now road and bridge will, in effect, become a quasi-general fund department, because the gas taxes available will all be utilized for capital. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. That's part of the history I don't have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. It took a lot of digging to get the rest of the history to figure out that it needed to move back. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You keep your shovels. I'll just listen. MR. BAMIATZIS: You can find the details for that on page 53. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: Moving along, page 54 is the budget for the municipal service taxing district one. And as you can see from the performance measures what is -- it goes from 4.2 miles for this year to about 20 miles for next year. Out of this 20 miles, about 12.7 miles is proposed to be resurfacing for Marco Island. There is an increase in ad valorem taxes of $403,900, and that is as a result of carryforward revenue of $53,000. And again, that has a lot to do with the amount of activity that will be increased substantially for MSTD 1. On page 56 -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Quickly, just to give an overview, in each of the road district MSTDs in which we do surfacing, we are proposing in FY '96 to accelerate the number of roads that are being resurfaced in a given year. If you'll note, for instance, in district one, fund 102, there's 205 miles of roadway. And if we're only doing five miles per year, it's going to take 40 years to get them all resurfaced. And the average life is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of -- 20, Bill? MR. HARGETT: Twenty to twenty-five. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Twenty to twenty-five. So in order to get it done on a timely basis, we are recommending accelerating that program in each of the districts to do additional lane miles in a given year in order that they'll be turned around in a reasonable fashion. So you will see this throughout each of the road maintenance districts. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 56 is a budget for MSTD 2. Again, because of that extra amount of activity, there is about $96,800 in expanded service, and that takes most of the increase of 32 percent. This expanded service includes $49,000 for maintenance services. It includes $4,200 in mowing contract and $45,000 in median beautification, and that is for Immokalee Road. Okay. On page 58 is the budget for MSTD 3. Again, you have $89,100 in expanded services. And resurface, of course, is increasing from 5.2 miles to 8 miles. And the expanded service includes in more details: $10,000 for mowing contract, and $19,000 for increased landscaping materials, and $53,000 for road paving. And this takes part in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. George, we're only going to do eight lane miles in Golden Gate estates next year? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. Primarily in Golden Gate City and portion of the estates off of the Everglades. Keep in mind we still have the JAC account, and it has some funds in it for upgrading lime rock roads. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we'll get to that later in this? All right. MR. BAMIATZIS: Moving along, page 60 you have the budget for HSTD 5. And that includes $39,000 in expanded service. And in this case the ad valorem tax for '96 will be reduced by 8.6 percent or $249,000, and that is because we have an increase to carryforward on this, and that's why the -- the ad valorem taxes are decreased. There's a correlation between ad valorem tax and carryforward in the HSTD districts. Also, new contract for mowing would be in the amount of $36,000, and that contract will take place throughout the districts and will be implemented throughout the district. On page 62 you have fund 606. And basically this is a carryforward balance that will be used to do road surface activity as it becomes necessary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many lane miles of upgraded lime rock roads we looking at next year? MR. ARCHIBALD: We just got through doing a survey, and right now only one road qualifies, and that is not Mr. Stevens' roadway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Please. MR. ARCHIBALD: But right now we're looking at two, but what we're going to be proposing to the board when we make our annual report is to go ahead and get authorization to inventory three or four times a year with the idea that as a roadway reaches the minimum -- and the minimum that we're using is ten homes per mile per unit. When it reaches that minimum, then the county with its own forces would go ahead and upgrade the roadway from a lime rock to a paved standard without having to wait a long period of time. So that program amendment, so to speak, is one that we'll be bringing to the board. Right now, based upon that one roadway being needed, we're going to proceed with that, and that was one of six roadways that was on our report to the board last year. Accordingly, we will proceed and do that one roadway that meets the minimum criteria. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's only one roadway that's meeting that minimum criteria this year and it does not add reason for you to have to put additional manpower on, does it make sense for us to consider setting that criteria at nine homes now since we've caught up with all those guys that are ten homes or more? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me guess how many homes are on Mr. Stevens' street. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, if there were only eight, you would ask me if we could drop back to eight. MR. ARCHIBALD: The concern that we have relative to that point is, in fact, the workload and the funding. If we drop back to nine, the workload would change from one street to between ten and fifteen streets. We do have to reach a point. The point that we've used in prior years has been more like fifteen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. MR. ARCHIBALD: So it really deals with the frequency in which we do those inventories. And that's the change in the program that we're going to be recommending. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess what -- what I'm asking, George, is that when this road improvement program started out, the criteria was fifteen homes, and over time we've reduced it to ten homes. And your survey this year indicates there's only one street that qualifies under ten homes, and I'm just asking is it reasonable that we should drop that down again so that we can some day finally get this done? MR. ARCHIBALD: My answer would be no, based upon the economics involved and based on the funding. And we may find out that if we inventory more often, that that list will grow. Instead of doing it once a year, we do it every quarter. I think we can keep up with growth, and I think that there will be more homes. We had projected six roadways this year. It looks like probably four of the six will meet that minimum; the two that we've done, one that we're going to do, and one that may occur in the near future. So there will be an increasing number of roadways. We'll have to see what the inventory produces. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 63 you have the budget for HSTU. That's the Marco Island beautification district. Forecast expenses are higher than budgeted given the fact that this year there was a default of the contractor, and the new contractor came in higher than what was budgeted. And that was the expenses, basically, in the forecast. In the expanded service there is a water truck at about $35,000. And because we have a low carryforward balance as far as revenues is concerned, the ad valorem taxes will increase by about $78,800. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: George, what is the current status on that contract? I still get calls, and people don't know where the status is on that. MR. ARCHIBALD: As the board is aware, we've gone ahead and awarded an interim contract through the beginning of September. We'll probably extend it through September itself. But under that interim contract, they're doing low level of mowing, a certain amount of weeding once a month, and we're going to go back in in working with the committee and increase the frequency of the mowing, increase the frequency of the weeding and also the trimming. So as we get into the growing season, the frequency of those activities will change and hopefully we'll respond to them. The comments that I've gotten from the recent work had been positive, contrary to the ones we received a few months ago. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And we're having to do it in sort of reduced basis because of the budget being fixed for the -- for this current year? Is that part of the reasoning? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. Really it was based upon how quickly we could go through the rebidding process, because we had to rebid to get an interim contractor on the board. And what we did under the interim contract is set certain pricing for certain activity. And a good example is mowing. The original contract was typically mowing every ten days. The contract that we put forth was one of mowing every fourteen days. Well, the contractor's coming back now and asking both the county staff and the committee to consider reducing that back. We do have the dollars to do it, and we are, in fact, doing just that. We'll probably end up reducing it below a ten-day frequency, possibly a seven-day frequency in June, July, maybe August. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: So those frequencies are changing depending on the time of year and how much rainfall we get. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: So the median should start to look better fairly rapidly you think? MR. ARCHIBALD: They do now, and I would like to think that they'll be maintained better and better. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 64 is the Westlake Beautification HSTU budget. As you can see, there were not any programs or performance measures for that program. This request, rather, came from the citizens. They want to revive this issue, but as of now -- and maybe George can fill you in on that -- they have not come up with any complete plan to finance that. MR. ARCHIBALD: The Westlake board has gone ahead and written us that there's three different plans that they're considering. And when they finalize those and they've made some submittals to the county, we will, in fact, be coming back to the board with a proposed plan to spend roughly the $5,500 that exists -- with no new taxes -- that they're proposing in the upcoming year, but they're still considering an assessment in a future year of possibly '96-'97. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? MR. BAMIATZIS: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 65 is the Golden Gate Parkway Beautification HSTU. Improvements for that particular district have been completed, so the major objective, basically, is to maintain the improvements. The forecasted expenses have increased because of the default of the maintenance contractor in the middle of the fiscal year. Again, because we have available carryforward, the required tax to support this budget decreased by 23 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this maintenance company defaulted also? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same one. MR. BAMIATZIS: Yes, yes. That's the same one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's looking very good. MR. BAMIATZIS: On page 66 is the budget for Lely Golf Estates beautification HSTU. The improvements for phase four have been completed, and the budget represents the improvements of their plan for phase five in that particular district. Page 67 is the Immokalee beautification district. And in this one the major objective is to refurbish the improvements of State Road 29, and the forecast includes $15,000 for maintenance and for the lease contract in the middle of the year. Services include an additional $15,000, and the capital outlay includes $100,000 for improvements in phase 2 of that district. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It appears that the 33 percent increase in appropriations is all capital; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, but for the 15,000 in additional landscape charges under operating. And due to carryforward revenue, ad valorem increases 5.8 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, the 98 to 113. Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: That's it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Ms. Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jean Gansel. I have the last page in transportation district, the street lighting district. We will be completing the consolidation of all the street lighting district for fiscal '96, with the exception of Marco Island. Marco island has been budgeted as a separate district. The two other districts that you see listed separately we treat -- I think I maybe explained this. This was a district where ad valorem had been collected one year. The developer put the lights in himself. We've been holding this revenue every year, getting a little interest. During this year we will work on making efforts to return the money, so we will be able to eliminate this district also. And the Naples Production Park we're also working on some boundaries there, and hopefully that will then be consolidated. MR. HARGETT: The board's asked -- at least in the last couple weeks or so, there's been some questions about how street lights get paid for. I think there's been some letters from citizens to you inquiring about that, and this would be the page that answers that. MS. GANSEL: Some developments the developer puts them in and the homeowners' association pays for them. Some of them have a petition to be a taxing district, and these are the taxing districts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we take a short break -- if we can keep it very short -- and come back at ten after, and we'll continue. (A short break was held.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll reconvene the budget hearing. And we're on to the point where we deny all requests by the Pelican Bay services. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We did say we were going to get out of here on time, Jim. MS. GANSEL: Pelican Bay Services, in your booklet on page 1, I just wanted to remind the board that the Pelican Bay public hearing to again review their budget will be August 2nd up at Pelican Bay. These budgets have -- as submitted here have been approved by the Pelican Bay advisory committee. The first page is a summary of their fund 109, which is their water management and right-of-way budgets. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Gansel, if we're going to go through this in a public hearing out in Pelican Bay, we really don't need to spend a lot of time on it today, do we? MS. GANSEL: On Page 7 there is a new service here where they are requesting and would be paid for with ad valorem taxes with Pelican Bay for additional security. The funding is to have one officer patrolling the area 24 hours a day, 7 days week. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And this is the item we'll, I assume, have some discussion on at the public hearing? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's -- that's the critical portion of the discussion. I will tell you that the one thing that I have passed on to the folks at Pelican Bay that they have assured me, as has our sheriff, is that whatever costs are involved are absolutely inclusive, so the cost of this is borne by no one else other than Pelican Bay. I've looked at it, and it appears to meet that bill, and that's an important element of discussion. MS. GANSEL: We have been working with the sheriff's office on those figures, and they were provided to us, and they do assure us that this is a complete package, that there would be no costs that would be borne by anyone other than the residents at Pelican Bay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll look forward to hearing more at the public hearing, I guess. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm curious. How is it that this one we do that way? I mean we meet at night at Pelican Bay and we don't do that for any of the other ones. MR. WARD: You actually established that pursuant to the ordinance creating the Pelican Bay HSTBU was to hold the public hearings on its budget each year in Pelican Bay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be one of the largest citizen-numbered HSTBUs or HSTUs in the county, with the exception of the lighting district, coming up with something with the element of control and the size. It probably serves the county as a whole better to have a public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't mind. I'm just curious how it came to be. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was because Pam wanted it that way, but I'm not sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jim, you're not paid by the hour, are you? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe it would be important in the future to tell you not to bother to come for this part of it. Didn't we also do that? MR. WARD: That's okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It makes sense to me that we're going to discuss it in an evening meeting. MR. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you for driving down. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry we wasted your time. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We'll note that change for the future. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know. It's kind of nice to see him. MR. WARD: I don't mind coming over. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just as a brief note on that. Pelican Bay's a pretty unique thing in that it is set up pretty much like what is now a CDD, although it wasn't a CDD back in those days. So it's a pretty unique animal to us here in Collier. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next one. MS. GANSEL: Next is page 9 -- I'm sorry, page 8, the county attorney. Page 9 is the fiscal information for his office. In the current services there are some increases in operating costs, and most of these are due to increased litigation costs. Mr. Cuyler has requested an expanded position -- a clerical position here for $22,700. This was discussed at the programs, and it was ranked as discretionary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: Couple items. First of all, I need to hand out to you an organizational chart. Commissioner Hac'Kie indicated when we were at our last hearing that she wanted a more comprehensive chart, and I'll have Debbie hand that out to you just for the record and to give an impression whether that's okay with you. I'm giving you a copy of both a proposed one and a new one that's a little more comprehensive. I hope you don't mind me sitting over here. I always feel like I'm at a senate investigating committee when I'm over there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where were you on the night of -- MR. CUYLER: To put the budget in perspective, I also wanted you to note -- because commissioner Hancock mentioned something to me the other day about the perception that the office grows and grows, and I just wanted to tell you that the last -- the last four fiscal years our budget has been for -- starting with '92-'93 minus 1.7 percent, plus eight-tenths of a percent, minus .02 percent, and this year is .9 percent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is the largest increase in four years? MR. CUYLER: It is, in fact, the largest in three years, but it's still under a percent. And that leads me to the expanded position. I told you at the last hearing that my staff had convinced me that that was an important position and that that could increase our effectiveness and our efficiency, but I had not decided for sure whether I was going to leave that in or not, because I wanted to see the final numbers. This .9 percent includes that expanded position, and it is my recommendation to the board, as it was my staff to me, that we leave that position in. It is the lowest classified position, I believe, in the county. It's primarily for excess filing, excess typing, back-up when people are sick. You've got two attorneys using one legal secretary. That secretary is out, it tends to cause problems. If the receptionist is out, we have to pull somebody off to handle that. And I have been convinced -- and I'm a lot more convinced even today than I was at the last hearing that that is, in fact, a position that is well worth the money and will pay for itself very quickly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where does this new person fit on your expanded -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to add a page on the bottom, or -- MR. CUYLER: Yeah. That will need to be another slot on the bottom once you give that the nod. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this person will go under the legal secretary somewhere or in line with the legal secretary in terms of line of authority? She will probably fall in the same category as the secretaries, but in terms of the categories -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is just a base clerk? MR. CUYLER: Base clerk, yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any more questions? Think we're done. MR. CUYLER: I will use the more comprehensive organizational chart. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, to answer another question I understood you had this morning about the south MSBTU -- Mike called me and told me -- I wanted to let you know we either have or are about to advertise an August 8th, 1995, a meeting which -- at which this is going to be discussed. And I've got a fairly comprehensive memo setting forth the issues that I'm going to give to you, and you're going to have to make a decision at that hearing. MS. GANSEL: Page 10 is the county manager's budget. This is pretty much a status quo budget. The increase is under two percent. There are some operating costs that are going up, some that we had discussed this morning, electricity being one of them, water and sewer, some items that I'll call nondiscretionary. They're passed on along to the department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any questions? MS. GANSEL: Page 11 is the board-related costs under the county manager. I've listed at the bottom of this page the items that are included in this budget, money for the citizens' survey, the advertising of the agenda, plaques, the workshops that you all have, the county government days. We are showing a decrease in this budget. Printing, getting a better handle on that. There's less copies that are being made, and we're continuing to try to reduce those. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The suggestion had been made -- and there was a brief discussion on it -- regarding going to some form of computerization where the board was on laptops, that kind of thing. And I think there was some mischaracterizations that came out of that that there were some members of this board that thought, you know, computers are stupid, you know, was the way it was basically put in the paper. That wasn't it at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was tough to get that accent in the paper. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think that's a fair reflection of the way I felt when I read it is someone sitting thinking, Gee, what's a computer? Not the case at all. What my concern was access, cost, and start-up, all that kind of stuff. Did we go any further at all as far as looking at that down the road? It was kind of left hanging, if I remember correctly. MR. DORRILL: We have -- it may be even this coming Tuesday -- the follow-up budget estimate for what we were calling phase two boardroom enhancements that include -- SMYKOWSKI: That would be next week's agenda. MR. DORRILL: It is part of that audiovisual package with the individual monitors. I don't know whether we factored in there costs for laptops. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Put white-out on the computer screen. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Part of Tim's hit list, I believe. MR. DORRILL: Top of the list, as I recall. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gosh, we all need video monitors. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I was just curious as to whether that was getting back to us or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess based on Commissioner Norris' comment that he needs an on ramp, we need to sit down with him and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For the record that is all in jest. I do have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought you did. I mean if you're in investments, I know you know how to use one. MS. GANSEL: Is there no other question? Okay. On page 12 is the cable franchise budget. This is in the MSTD general fund. Primarily this budget is composed of some of the costs associated with the county being the franchising authority. We do have some professional services in their professional fees to assist the county. We will be receiving renewal applications in this upcoming year for the cable franchises. When application is made there's a $10,000 fee that is used for reviewing the applications. So we kind of offset the costs for the review and the professional services with the revenue that will be received from that. MR. DORRILL: For example, this coming Tuesday we have a franchise transfer application between Colony and Continental, and that will be on the agenda. So the cost attendant to administering the franchise agreements are maintained in this cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What happens to the franchise fees when we receive them? MS. GANSEL: Those are put in the MSTD general fund. We projected over a million dollars to be received from franchise fees. That offsets other costs in that fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What do we do with that money then? MS. GANSEL: It's a general revenue to that fund -- for the HSTD general fund, so it would just help support the activities of that fund. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is your second largest operating revenue aside from ad valorem taxes in the corporate area. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: HSTD general fund? MS. GANSEL: Unincorporated general fund. MR. DORRILL: City has their own franchise fees, and we wouldn't put them into the county-wide general fund. That's why we put them in the unincorporated general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just wasn't sure I understood what the HSTD general fund -- MR. DORRILL: Unincorporated. Page 13. MS. GANSEL: Okay. The office of management and budget. Page 14 we have the financial information. I'm proud to report that we have two percent reduction in our budget. The only highlight that I've listed is that we do have a capital request of $600 for audiovisual equipment for quality improvement program. If you want us to go through the reductions, we will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I do have a question. It's kind of a generality thing. Mr. Dotrill, if we are going to move progressively into performance and outcome budgeting and get into zero-base budgeting, desktop auditing, those types of things to make that program work, I would think that the office management would need more people to make that work. MR. DORRILL: I agree, and I have had just some preliminary conversations with Mr. Smykowski along those lines, and we are preparing the final format to show you the three pilot departments that we are going to propose to you for performance budgeting and some gain sharing proposals for next year. Short of knowing how successful or how satisfied that you are going to be with that, I wasn't sure that we should try and anticipate until we've finished the pilot project what it is and how you want to redirect the budget staff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, how many people do you perceive the budget staff needing, even if they are only temporary, to perform the three pilot programs? I wouldn't want them to fail because we hadn't been -- we had not foreseen a need for an increase in the budget staff in order to do the zero-base budgeting and desktop audits. MR. DORRILL: Having come up to somewhat full staffing in the addition of the recap petition, I don't believe they're contemplating any expanded services. I will tell you that it has been difficult as we looked around the state to find a good example. We first heard that Palm Beach County was doing some work with this type of budgeting when, in fact, they went and got their forms and got their format, we seemed to be doing more than they are already. They're just sort of at performance measure comparison and trying to put things in more unit costs. Hike, you jump in here as you feel lead, but we don't yet know exactly what the pilot project -- what type of face it's going to take. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The person -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: The other thing is the citizens' productivity committee is -- that is one of their chosen project areas in terms of developing service efforts and accomplishments which is, in effect, improving and/or enhancing the performance measurement and and/or activity measure system that we currently have. I'd like to see where they take us as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Whose the -- his name fails me, but he's the state secretary of facilities. I think his name starts with an "L." MR. DORRILL: The general services administration equivalent or whatever it is? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, for the state, the secretary. His name fails me right now. He introduced this kind of budgeting. I'm sure he's got formats for it. Last year at a state level for his department -- it was not department-wide, but it was certainly several -- MR. DORRILL: You think it is department of general services? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was a new department that was just created last year or the year before. MR. DORRILL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it's sort of like facilities management, I guess we would say, if it were a department in the county. I can't remember his name right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, I will say that if by the time we finalize the budget the information isn't together to determine what staffing -- if any increase needs to be made to ensure that the pilot program has a solid base for success, we can easily look at an amendment during the year to add someone to make that happen or the recap program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. It's just that to do that we would have to tap whatever reserves we set aside, and it just seems to me that we could be far thinking about -- MR. DORRILL: We're going to go forward. I think we proposed to you our facility management department and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The library and the water operations. MR. DORRILL: Okay. The library and water operations, and they have been working some overtime to try to get a good handle on the service level indicators that they want to propose to you for benchmarking purposes and try to get a very good handle on what our current unit costs are and make sure that we're starting here from a level playing field so that it is -- as they maintain service levels but bring in their costs lower than the agreed upon unit cost. That's where the gain sharing comes from. And so we're -- what type of time frame -- are you all going to have something to present? Is it next week? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I hope for wrap-up or at least conceptually talk about -- MR. DORRILL: We want to show you that next week or at least before you get off on recess, make sure we're headed down the road that you want us to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I have some information from Tallahassee that this secretary put together, and when I go back, I'll see if I can find it. MR. DORRILL: Okay. If not, we'll see what we can find out there. Anything else on that, Jean? OCPH. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, just before we get into this, we had a discussion when we first agreed to the OCPC as the percentage of work we were doing -- I don't want to say out-house versus in-house. Can you just in 30 seconds give us an update as to where we've come with that? MR. CONRECODE: Sure can. In fact, it's in detail month by month in the report I just handed you. Rather than go through that report, I'd ask you all to read it. And if you have any questions or would like additional information or briefing in public session, I can do that. We averaged over the first 19 months 36 percent in-house professional services. If you look at the graphics that go along with that, you'll notice that the fluctuations in work demands are picked up by outside consultants, and that OCPM staffing is very consistent month to month. So the peaking that's occurring is being hit by the outside consultants, which is really the goal of having level and stable employment for your staff. So the goal was set at 40 percent. We're averaged over the first 19 months at 36 percent per month. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom, do you have a time accountability system in place at OCPM? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you have basically, in essence, utilization rates tracked by projects? MR. DORRILL: And by employee, and it is automated. MR. CONRECODE: And we track everything down to the number of hours of sick leave, personal leave, nonbillable hours. Our average productivity wide -- productivity rate department-wide I think in the report says 73.5 percent, which is good considering you give the employees about 23 percent of their time in employable benefits: vacation, sick leave, things like that. So just in holidays and vacation time, we are almost -- we're approaching that maximum billable time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And have you been able to do a true apples to apples where you do a project that OCPM did that is similar to or comparable to an outside project in a year or two prior to see what the cost comparison was? MR. CONRECODE: We haven't done that type of comparison. The types of comparisons we have done in the report that you have shows a rate comparison. We took three outside firms and asked them to submit data anonymously. That's why they're labelled firm X, Y, and Z, but they are actually Naples firms. And I'm doing the rate comparison for four or five level positions. In addition to that, in the report we gave you last year, we identified specific projects where we had a proposal for a scope of work for an independent consultant and our actual cost to do that same project, and we showed you the cost savings in that report. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one quick, final question. The percent we were doing in-house prior to having OCPM was? MR. CONRECODE: 13 or 14 percent, and there wasn't a real good accurate tracking of that then, so that's why I'm saying 13 or 14 percent. Now, the only other significant thing that I point out in the report is over the 19 months our average rate of production -- work in-place per month is up 68 percent. Our costs of doing business is down 4.33 percent. So when you talk about gain sharing and performance, those are real strong indicators of how this process is working and, I think, how the department's been affected. It's doing that peak shaving, it's doing effective work in in-place numbers. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have as you go through the data. The data's all there, and we've got more backup data included if you need additional information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? I think probably we're going to have to digest this at some other time. MR. CONRECODE: At our program budget hearing, you asked me to have that at this time, and that's why I'm handing it out today. I didn't expect to necessarily go into detail on that today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Looks like you've at least tried to answer the questions. I appreciate that. I'll see if I have any further questions, but I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. FINN: Madam chairman, for the record Edward Finn, budget office. I believe we're on page 15, which is the first page of the OCPH budget presentation. As is the case with most of the departments, went through the program budget process. You have the department goals in the various programs that the board reviewed during the program budget process and the rankings the board gave to those programs. At the bottom of page 15 are the various performance and activity measures that we use to track the activities that occur in the OCPH department. Tom will touch upon those briefly in his report, I'm sure. On page 16 is the actual spreadsheet showing the budget and its relationship to the prior year budget. In general this budget is down 3.2 percent overall. We have a slight reduction in personnel costs. There is an increase -- a fairly substantial increase in operating costs in this department, and even with that increase the budget is down. The increase we're referring to is the indirect service charge. The indirect service charge, as I mentioned when we went through the utilities department, is a cost charged by the general fund or reimbursed to the general fund for general fund type services like the finance department, the county attorney budget, et cetera, et cetera. That increased the operating budget by $130,000. Perhaps the most interesting when you're looking at this budget would be the revenue side of it. And as was referred to earlier, the OCPH department works as kind of an internal service department to the capital -- the various capital project or the various categories of capital projects. They charge back to the projects on a per-hour basis based on productive staff time. From that you can see pretty much how the OCPH staff time is utilized. You'll notice that the preponderance of the work is currently occurring in the road area. There are some decreases. It's kind of interesting to see how the whole thing kind of changes and moves around. While roads are increasing, areas like the solid waste and the utilities and 301 projects, which are general government projects, are tending to go down. So what you're seeing there when you kind of evaluate the whole thing is that the staff is being utilized where they're needed instead of being what could have been referred to as pigeonholed in certain departments whether or not the work was there. Now, you have -- the people are in place and capable of dealing with the work as it comes along as the priorities change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom, I was several months ago made aware of one of the libraries -- the situation with one of our libraries that they were being double billed. It was just an administrative problem that they went through. Have we had other types of billing problems with an OCPH, and what are we doing about those? MR. CONRECODE: Well, we've had a series of billing problems -- and it's with all our clients, not just libraries -- in some cases where we erroneously billed. We billed utilities once for hours spent on a park project. That was caught and corrected. In the case of the library, that was corrected. Again, we track it in such level of detail -- we know that our average cost to a library project is as low as an average cost to a park projects, because John Jones is involved in these projects, so it takes less of our time. So we do track that and correct it immediately -- if not within a month, sometimes within a week -- when those are identified. And those are all reviewed by me, by the division administrators. If there's an error, we do correct it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think that has improved too with time, and the fact that in '95 funds were budgeted within the projects for the OCPM fees. Initially the OCPM organization was created during a reorganization when there wasn't necessarily a line set up for billing purposes, so that created some administrative headaches in the initial -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just uncomfortable for me. I'll draw a situation where OCPM is on the other end that they had someone at development services holding them at. We had two county departments jockeying with each other. We were losing serious efficiency there. So that efficiency aspect of the billing is what I was concerned about when I heard that. It was just something to bring to your attention that we want to try and focus on. MR. FINN: The balance of the projects -- I'm sorry the budgets that we're going to review that involve OCPM tends to be MSTUs that the OCPM staff is responsible for not only completing, but also administering from a budget prospective. On page 18 -- also, you'll notice that several of those are in closeout stages or phases. On page 18 is the Pine Ridge Industrial Park MSTU. This is associated with the stormwater control project that was completed there. Funds are currently being held in reserves for future uses or pending some other final resolution of this fund and the uses of these funds. On Page 19 in a similar vein is the Naples Production Park, again, a stormwater control project that's essentially complete. Funds are essentially going to be expended out of this fiscal year. Page 20, Sabal Palm Road extension MSTU. This is a MSTU that levies what is a fairly high millage on the property owners along this road to continue to seek permits and provide a certain amount of road maintenance. I think their ideal or ultimate goal is to obtain permits to improve additional segments in that roadway. At that point some other funding source would have to be developed. On page 21, Forest Lakes roadway and drainage fund. Again, another MSTU -- again an MSTU that provides benefits to the impacted residents that are part of this MSTU. Tom's staff is responsible for this and completing the project in accordance with the desires of the residents. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You responded very well to my request for information on that particular MSTU. And Neil is not here, but I just wanted to thank you for that. MR. FINN: On page 22, continuing with things that are perhaps phasing out, Chokoloskee Island MSTU, I think there's a general census to close that out. There wasn't very much support in that area to go forward with this -- what is, I believe, a potable water line project. So this has been phased out, and the fund is supposed to be closed out this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought there was talk of using this MSTU for the park that they're proposing on the causeway there. MR. CONRECODE: There was discussion about that. Because of the language in the ordinance that created the MSTU, it couldn't be used for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We've got to do another one in order to do it? Okay. MR. FINN: On page 23 is the Marco Island beach renourishment HSTU. Again, funds are being held in reserve there pending some future use. If there's no questions there, page 24 is the Wiggins Pass dredging fund. There are some residual funds there to be expended on any professional fees that may be required in the upcoming year. The remaining funds are being held in reserve pending closeout or some future use. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't our past dredging and maintenance now coming from TDC funds? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What would we ever use these funds for? MR. CONRECODE: This would be post-dredge surveying for the last time we went through it, or, you know, money in the funds -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can't hear you, Tom. MR. CONRECODE: For any post-dredge surveying. Prior to and after every dredge, we have to go out and survey, reapply for permits, and it covers those sort of expenses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that not covered by the TDC funds? MR. CONRECODE: Well, it could be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see Commissioner Matthews getting to a break point here that we come to a point that the TDC funds handle all the costs associated with the dredging of Wiggins Pass and other county passes, and there will be no need for this fund amount at some point. And when that happens it would be, it seems to me, a good idea to take the funds that are remaining in the reserves and extend them on to current dredging to reduce the TDC funds that are used and then in the future just be handled 100 percent by TDC funds. MR. CONRECODE: If you'd like we can look at desolving the district all together. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's the idea, that the Wiggins Pass management plan is accepted before doing that, but that would make sense. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's where I was headed, yes. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, on page 25 is the Marco Island beach renourishment construction fund. Funds forecasted to be expended in '95 are the breakwater at the south end of the island. Again, these funds are from previously generated funds. Also forecasted is the beach raking project this year. That is funded by transfer from the TDC fund. The service for next year primarily is putting residual funds in this fund again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So again we have a fund here where currently the expenditures are being funded from TDC, and this is -- and if we go forward with the proposed renourishment project that we're currently working on -- I recall the Marco Island bond issue in the TDC -- there's not much use for this fund anymore either; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we should maybe use this fund up, reducing the TDC money? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. And again -- in this case we'll wait till after you hear the beach funding issue. I think that's on your agenda for next Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think what I'm hoping for is that some of these HSTUs or HSTDs that we dissolve from doing it in '96. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Here, here. Here, here. We have the prepared budgets for ongoing -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would give you more time for the performance budgeting and desk audits. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is true. MR. FINN: On page 26, east Naples fire hydrant fund. Again, this is an HSTU that I'm sure has a long history. I'm not sure anyone is -- MR. CONRECODE: We are actively working on this one to dissolve the district now based on your previous direction, and the only question is how the funding can be disbursed. It's for fire hydrant maintenance. And the question that stands right now is whether we can simply do a transfer to the fire district and have them do the maintenance from this point on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say I thought in north Naples the fire district does the fire hydrant maintenance. MR. CONRECODE: And they're doing that in east Naples as well, except that this is residual money that's been in there and doing nothing more than earning interest. There's no tax levy here -- I don't know. It predates me by -- MR. FINN: This has a fairly long history. I think this was actually a project to install fire hydrants for capital improvements. The highlighting indicates it dates back to '83. The funds you see there have simply been rolling forward accruing interest year to year and simply being placed in reserves. The difficulty after time goes by is which property owner do you reimburse it to? The original ordinance stated that it was to be used for construction, not necessarily maintenance. It's a whole series of legal problems -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the amount of $8,000 we would spend more time figuring out who to give it back to and spend more money giving it back than the entire amount. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we're spending money every year just carrying it forward. MR. CONRECODE: That's why I think if we can legally do the transfer to the fire district, just simply it will be a contribution to their budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Earmarked for maintenance. That makes sense to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Makes sense to me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Makes sense to me. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, that's all we have for the OCPH department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The entire Department of Revenue is here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You got nine minutes. Can we do it all? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One quick question before we start. John, when we had first seen the chart of your employees in this department, there was some question about the count, and I believe we removed one or two of them. Since then Guy Carlton has also taken on some of the tasks that had been proposed for your department. During a board meeting, we had a discussion that that would probably clear two positions, and I wanted to make sure that those two positions don't appear in this budget. MR. YONKOSKY: And they are not in this budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think this morning we were talking about another 40,000 going to another department -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you hear that discussion, John? MR. YONKOSKY: No, I didn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and the savings of the DOR now. I'm not saying money is the reason to do it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Until the administration -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The potential savings for DOR now -- CONMISSIONER HANCOCK: What has happened is not the direct result of the DOR, but you had proposed to eliminate, I think, two positions or at least one position in utilities that functionally they need outside of the revenue collection side, so it's coming back in their budget. So when we had natrowed down to $80,000 in personnel savings, all of a sudden now we're creating a position of 41,000. we were down to $40,000 personnel savings. So we were just talking about how that dollar amount keeps getting whittled down, and that's a concern. Not that you can sit here and answer it today, but obviously start out with hundreds of thousand and then it went down to 170, and then we were at 80 for just personnel, and now we're down to 40. If we start owing money, I'm going to get real concerned. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. I understand that. And I thought that perhaps as I understood it that part of that position may be used on a wider basis because of the department of public works as opposed to utilities. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, that's correct. The point just being that the position they supposedly eliminated is now back, so that number that we saw is getting -- it's shrinking. So just as a point of information for the board, I think is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, the Department of Revenue budget begins on page 27. And the descriptions of the services are fairly lengthy. I think Mr. Yonkosky wanted to make sure everyone was aware of exactly what the department was doing, and he's gone into great detail there in performance measures. The financial information begins on page 29. This is an internal service fund, which means that it's afforded by internal operations. The forecast budget that you see of $716,100 was a five-month budget that you approved for this year. What I did in reviewing the budget was to annualize that to give my first review a basis of comparison from this year to next year. Annualizing that budget, it could sit at about 1.7 million, so kind of comparing 1.7 million to next year's budget -- current budget of 1.8. The position count that you had approved in the budget amendment was 26 positions, and the current year we show as 29 positions. The reason for that difference is the three cashiering positions that were transferred from the clerk of courts -- it was on last weekws agenda. The clerk of courts had three positions that were collecting money for community development and utilities. Those have now been transferred to the Department of Revenue, as well as the costs that utilities and community development paid for that function. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about those two people that -- two positions that were no longer necessary when Guy got that contract? MR. YONKOSKY: Those have already been removed from here. At the original time we came to you with the program budget, there were 36 positions in there. There are now 34, so those have been removed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iwve apparently misunderstood something. Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Okay. Additionally -- this always makes it difficult for comparative purposes, because we donwt have a budget from last year. The Department of Revenue went through and where you see at the bottom of the spreadsheet on the bottom of page 29, the adopted budget for fiscal w94-w95, those were the costs that were absorbed into the Department of Revenue, and the budget that theywre proposing this year is 1.8 million. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, Mr. Yonkosky, this is not funny money? Wewre talking real dollars here. This isnwt perceived value dollars? Wewre talking real dollars saved to the taxpayer compared to these two numbers? MR. YONKOSKY: Let me address that by saying that you had X amount of dollars that were appropriated in the budget last year to perform these services. Thatws the $2,073,571. Under what -- wewre proposing to do the same services for 1,874,000 is the budget weTre asking for. So you probably never could do it dollar for dollar, but weTre going to perform the same services for the 1,874,000, which is approximately $200,000 below. You know, that includes the three cashiering positions. MR. HARGETT: I think hews trying to answer yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the one thing that still leaves a question in my mind, you said you had appropriated 2,073,000. Do we know how much we spent to get the job done last year? MR. YONKOSKY: We changed in mid-year. The expanded forecast column, 716 is the amount that we anticipated we would need for the end of the year. We will be able to take it at the end of the year exactly how much we spent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a history back on a prior year? MR. YONKOSKY: I could go back and get the history for the prior year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be helpful just because the perception of creating a new department, even though itws consolidation, we want to make sure we are, in fact, a real dollar reduction. Again, Commissioner Norris said it earlier. Itws not just the dollar, itws increased efficiency and better operation. I understand that. But part of the sell, so to speak, was a reduction in actual dollars spent. I would just like to verify that is, in fact, going to happen. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. All right. MS. GANSEL: Okay. In addition to the comparison there from budget -- adopted budget last year to current this year, as you can see in the operating expenses and personnel costs have gone down, but operating expenses have gone up significantly. And on page 30 we have identified what those increases are. And Mr. Yonkosky may want to address those, or if the commission has questions regarding those. MR. YONKOSKY: The operating -- there is a reduction in personnel costs and reduction in transfers. A lot of the items are shown as transfers in the older budget that now become an operating expense. For example, the money that was going to 106,000 that was listed as a transfer was going to the clerk of courts for computer services, because now that you have your own information technology department, that money will show up as an operating expense rather than as a transfer to another agency. There are several of those types of reasons as to why the operating expense budget has increased. As Jean said, on the top of the page that shows increases in expenses that are included in the budget for fiscal '94 that were not in there for fiscal '95, one of them -- significant one is a charge for lockbox charges. That was not in the budget before, because we weren't paying for it. We were collecting it ourselves. Now we have a charge to the bank, eight cents a transaction, to actually collect that money for us. But I think we need to realize also that that money is going into the revenue stream faster. In some cases it's going into the revenue stream and beginning to earn interest as much as 10 days in advance of when it was earning it before. So the interest earnings in utilities will increase by greater than the $38,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you tell us how much greater? MR. YONKOSKY: I believe it's $14,000. I don't have that information with me, but all together over a year I believe that the projected savings was $14,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What happened to the FTEs that were handling the checks and preparing the deposit tickets and so forth? Where are they? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now that the bank's doing it, is that the question? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. YONKOSKY: We did eliminate one position. One position was eliminated from it. If you go back to what we had talked about at the -- when we first started we were talking about the position in utilities. Utilities budget had 26 positions in it last year, the finance budget. And that's -- three of those positions stayed in utilities. That brought it down to 23. We eliminated 4 positions from that 23 in the budget that's -- that you have for this year. Four of those positions have been eliminated. Then we picked up the three from cashiering. We eliminated two positions in EMS, and we're asking you for half a position back. That's a total of three positions that are not in here that were in there last year or that will be gone in next year's budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I realize it's late in the afternoon, so maybe I'm dull-headed here, but this -- this -- I can't get this. I really, really, really want to see more quantifiable answers to the questions about how -- what's the net effect of the Department of Revenue being created. And it seems like every time we ask the question it changes a little bit and we get a little -- you know, we just today got a $40,000 hit -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Surprise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that was a surprise. And it never -- I just want some real straight answers to here's how much the lockbox costs, here's how much we saved on FTEs, and here's how much we're saving by getting the money in the revenue stream sooner, and therefore, the net effect is -- but it may be just that I'm dull-witted at this point, but this -- I feel uncomfortable that these answers aren't as clear as they could be, so I'm going to want more clarity on this than I'm getting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do to, and I don't want to wait till September when we have our final hearings to do that. I don't think anybody's dim-witted. We were promised big things. This was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread when it was announced. All of a sudden what was $360,000 in savings -- or whatever the original amount was -- got chipped away, and chipped away, and chipped away. And somewhere along the line -- I think we feel like we've been sold a bill of goods. We're not saving more than $40,000 bucks, and that's a long ways from 360. That makes us start wondering -- I'm sorry if that number isn't exact, but it was 300 and something. That makes us start wondering, you know, when's the other shoe going to drop? When is it going to be 40,000 more gone? When are we going to start paying more to do it this way? I know efficiency and making sure certain things happen was part of it, but a big part of the sale, as Commissioner Hancock says, was we were going to save a pile of money annually doing this. It appears that we may not save any as it keeps getting chipped away. I need that -- apparently Commissioner Mac'Kie needs that very clearly, very -- and maybe we're both being simple, but very clearly, step by step drawn out for us. MR. YONKOSKY: I don't think that you are. I believe that the savings is there. I believe that they can be demonstrated that they're there. The decrease in savings for the addition of an employee back into the utilities, I have no control over that. The board has that control. But a savings of approximately 300,000 is there. It can be demonstrated. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please do. MR. YONKOSKY: I will do that for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What -- excuse me. I'm sorry. Why would the utilities department come here this afternoon and say we need a finance supervisor because there are -- there are finance functions that the DOR is not going to do? MR. YONKOSKY: I don't know what they said those finance functions were. They may have been budget amendments. I'm not sure what those particular function were. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they said is that it relates to all of the many bond issues and keeping up with the interest rates and accounting kinds of matters that don't relate to billing but are financial evaluations interdepartmental. That's one issue, but then there are -- I -- we've only gotten down the list and number one here on lockbox charges, and I don't think there's a clear enough answer there about -- I'm sure you can give us a clear answer, so I'm asking you to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Also I'm -- I don't know if this is correct or not, but I'm going to say it, because the times I've been over at development services to get permits or licenses or whatever I needed, in the cashiering portion for the utilities, I've always seen two people sit there and open the mail and pull the checks and do the deposit tickets and so forth. With two people sitting there and their benefit package, 38,000 for a lockbox makes sense. But if you're only eliminating one person, I'm not sure it makes sense then. MR. YONKOSKY: Those -- the two people that you were looking at were utilities customer service people. I don't believe that they take cash. What they had on the other side of that is a place where the three clerks -- cashiers had sat before, and they took the cash. And what we've done is take and combine it so that there will be three people sitting there in the front. Those three people will both provide customer service and receive cash. All three of them will do that. One of those people will be dedicated to community services -- or community development. And yes, the savings is there. The savings of the $14,000 is there. It's over the two employees that are not going to be there the next year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize for missing the discussion on the utilities person. I'd like maybe us to red flag that and get some further discussion on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The expanded service in utilities administration says the expanded request is for a finance supervisor position to replace the finance director position that was eliminated as part of the DOR reorganization. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to assume we have some sort of definition for supervisor, and I'm wondering who it is they're supervising. I also think if they're coming to us and saying, Well, finance isn't going to do this, and yet apparently they have never spoken to you about what role you will or will not have, because you said you weren't aware that they were coming and requesting that position. So there are red flags going up all over the place here. MR. YONKOSKY: The function -- and you'll have to ask Mr. HcNees about the functions this individual would be performing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can ask the manager too. Mr. Hargett, there needs to be some coordination of these two offices. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not asking the county manager anything. MR. HARGETT: I think Mr. Dorrill addressed that briefly. I think he certainly needs some more detail. I think he's committed to give you more detail on the utility position. I do recall him emphasizing it is an expansion of services. As the DOR was being formulated and who was to do this and who was to do that, there was some fairly clear-cut direction as to the people who went with the duties, and it was outlined and discussed and coordinated as to who was going to do what where. And, for example, where the finance director is now at DOR, all the duties that she performed before went with her. And there are many departments who do not have finance supervisors. Mr. Archibald manages his budget. I realize there's some difference there between utilities. That's the expansion that we're talking about. It's the magnitude of the operation. And let us have an opportunity -- I think the red flag's appropriate, Commissioner Constantine. Let us get back to you on that position, define what was done versus what is being done, and to show you step by step those savings that you've asked for in DOR. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two separate things. MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I totally understand as you set this up you're saying you'll save money here and there, and we keep going back and you feel like we're kind of nickel and diming things. Let me draw something for you that comes to my attention real quick. It's on page 29. You state at the bottom that the adopted budget for '94-'95 there was $2,073,000 allocated to get these functions done. You said we're saving a couple hundred thousand because currently we can do it for 1,874,000, yet in '95-'96 you're requesting an expanded service that pushes it up to 200 -- I'm sorry, $200,000 worth of expanded service. So the actual '95-'96 total budget is $2,077,000, 4,000 more than it was costing for us to do it in '94-'95. Am I reading that correctly, or am I missing something? MR. YONKOSKY: You're literally reading it correctly, but that $202,000 in expanded services includes three employees that already exist. When you privatized your landfill, the scalehouse operations which collects a great deal of money and provides the information that bill the providers, those people you said that you wanted to keep, and that's why this is an expanded service. They were not part of the original DOR, the land and the scalehouse operations, and they are now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, they've been transferred from what was solid waste to DOR? MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Along with $46,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how much of that 200-something do they account for? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. The transfer from the landfill. MR. YONKOSKY: The 146,600 is the three landfill people. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: And the rest of it is an individual that the 40,300 for the -- is actually for mandatory solid waste and the monitoring and tracking of the service calls, and you've all received those service calls. I'd like to tell you that Palm Beach County has 448,000 parcels. In those 448,000 parcels they have 12 field service representatives. Monroe County has 25,000 parcels. They have one field service representative. Lake County has 37,000 parcels, and they have two full-time field service officers -- investigators. Collier County has 50,000 parcels. We have no one to do that. All of that tracking is being done manually right now. So that's a position that we think will pay for itself by putting people on the roll. It's estimated in district number 2 there's approximately 600-and-so people that are not on the roll. They're not paying their $100 a year. And once that goes on the roll, we believe that this position will be able to go out there and answer customers' complaints and the taxpayers' complaints. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The answer to my question -- and we may very well end up with a department that runs better at almost the same cost. Who knows? I don't mind that. It's just the constantly changing numbers become irritating up here because we -- you know, the questions are still out there. So I think that's why you're sensing some frustration here. I'll leave it at that, but I think we all are looking for the other shoe. It keeps dropping a little at a time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What I see happening here for us, this confusion -- and I think this utility supervisor position is a real good example of it -- is that I think probably we tend to think if we transfer someone over to the Department of Revenue that it's an exact functional match, and that's just probably not necessarily going to be the case very often. And probably some of them are, but not all of them. And this utility supervisor position, I think, is a good example because utilities department was telling us today that beyond just billing and collecting money, that this position is charged over there with doing a number of other functions. So it's like saying we have one and a quarter full-time employees in X department. Well, where are you advertised to find a quarter of an employee? I mean we're not really physically talking about an employee. We're talking about splitting of duties and shared responsibilities and multiple functions during -- or encompassed in one job description, and to try to take that out and literally put it over in the Department of Revenue, I think, is probably causing us some confusion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I know that's happening, but the DOR in its inception took credit for the entire salary of that person being removed, and now we find out that that really can't be the case. That may have been the problem. When that position was to be eliminated, we assumed there wouldn't be an additional cost to pick up those duties. So you're right. That's where the problem is. I think that's why we have the constantly changing numbers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's where the problem is. It's just that that should have been explained and apparent at the front end rather than piece by piece as we go along. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It feels like government bologna at its worst. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably beat that horse. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You can explain how this is happening further next Wednesday at wrap-up. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. I'll try to get a report with the information in it before so you can have a chance to look at it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Yonkosky, you are charged with the responsibility of explaining the totally inexplicable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that concludes today. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That does conclude. For the board members if you would leave your notebooks in the board office, we will obviously have to add to the packet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:20 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Anjonette K. Baum