Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/19/1995 B (Budget Workshop) BUDGET MEETING OF JUNE 19, 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 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: (Acting on behalf of Chairperson Matthews) My first official/unofficial action. Mr. Smykowski, would you like to lead the parade? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. Today, again, we have a full schedule. We'll start with a quick discussion of the general fund and where the MSTD general fund are at and then we'll move into public services. There is a section in your book entitled general fund. If you would turn to that page please, we will get started. Overall the general fund appropriations are up 2.1 percent. You will note the subtotal within the county manager's agency including expanded services is 4.8 percent. You will note a significant decrease in the budgeted reserves, 19.6 percent. You recall at the final public hearing for the FY '95 budget there was some anticipated sales tax and state revenue sharing funds which were placed into reserves at that point. For FY '96 at this point we have budgeted reserves at -- what is a typical level -- $1.5 million and the reserve for cash flow. The reserve for contingency is also at 5 percent. We made an adjustment for a supervisor of elections who elected to have a budgeted reserve within her fund. There is a $400,000 reserve for capital outlay at this point. That is a decision that was made by the county manager in the allocation -- approximately $7.6 million for capital of which a portion goes to debt service for the 800 MHz radio system and the final payment to FY '96 on the campus parking project. The balance is typically distributed to the various capital funds of parks, libraries, museum, and general facilities, and building related-type fund 301 which we will review later on this morning. As part of the final decision making process there was approximately $40 million in projects in excess of the available funds that the county manager had to make decisions about. As part of the final wrapup, there was approximately $1 million left over that he had removed in excess of what he actually needed to cut. At this point we've elected to reserve that. You will see a list of projects submitted both by the county staff as well as the constitutional officers in the 301 discussion. There is approximately a half-million dollars in additional reserves in fund 301 in addition to the $400,000 in capital outlay within the general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That million equates to roughly what -- as far as a percentage? You just said we've got a million more than we need, and we have opted to put that in the reserve. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why as opposed to just not expending or not budgeting it? MR. DORRILL: It took $40 million in cuts to get the capital improvement budgets to balance, and so I was going to, frankly, give you the benefit of the doubt if you thought that I cut something that you would otherwise like to see. I did not want you to then be raising taxes to do that, so I have given you the discretion of either keeping the money in the reserves, being able to apply it in '96 as part of the road funding dilemma, or you can cut it out if you want to try and reduce taxes below the point that they're already going to be at, and just, frankly, create an extra alternative for the county commission once you see the $40 million worth of capital improvement cuts that were made. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll see that list -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- later on this morning. And typically in fund 301 there is as long a laundry list of projects that were not funded as there were funding. So Mr. Dotrill indicated that would give you some discretion. In addition, we also have an outstanding debt on the 800 HHz system, outstanding debt on the $13 million in roads. If you elected you could pay down some additional principal on that outstanding debt as well, so there are a number of alternatives that would be available to you. In terms of revenues on page 3, overall the general fund is balanced. Ad valorem taxes are 1.1 percent below the rollback millage rate. I will caution you, however, in expanded there is $1,033,700 under departmental revenues. Mr. Olliff, as part of the public services division, has recommended a beach parking program of which -- that comprises -- the bulk of that 1,033,000 is revenue associated with a beach parking program of which the county residents will be exempt. That was the direction the board had given to Mr. Olliff during program budgets, that if county residents would be exempt, there appeared to be at least some support for our program at that time, so we have brought forth that recommendation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Today would be an ideal day to make a decision on that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 5 is the unincorporated area general fund. Overall appropriations are up .5 percent. Here there is a significant increase in budgeted reserves. That is due to the liability for impact fee waivers. The finance department had noted, as part of the carryforwards of $2,685,900, that we have a liability of approximately 1.4 million for impact fee waivers. Given the fact that we have a large carryforward, which is a onetime revenue source and that the impact fee waivers are essentially a onetime expense, we have reserved that excess -- the carryforward for the future payment of those impact fee waivers. At this point ad valorem taxes in the unincorporated area are at the rollback rate which represents no tax increase. There was a significant increase in taxable value in the county this year; Overall, county-wide $655 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What does that represent percentage-wise? What percent increase are we talking about? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Four percent for new construction; existing properties went up 2 percent. That is a preliminary. On July 1st we had the final certified. That is just a -- we base these on preliminary numbers that the property appraisers supply as of June 1. The final adjustments will be made, and we get a certified roll as of July 1st. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in a single approach, without increasing the ad valorum rate, what percentage increase in funds will we see from new construction and increased assessments? To be blunt what percentage does the pot grow without raising ad valorem rates? Four percent? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is part of the reason. Obviously in the 3-year analysis that I had done as part of the budget policy, we had assumed 2.5 percent. Obviously it was much more significant in value added to the county tax roll. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So now if we were to adopt the budget as everything is presented here, there would be no increase in the millage rate; however, there would be no decrease either; correct? MR. DORRILL: The general fund is -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: 1.1 percent -- MR. DORRILL: -- down. The majority of property owners in our communities actual paid taxes would decrease by -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1.1 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that is as presented here? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. That is correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So after our little carving, we may do a little better than that? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I will also caution you, though, obviously, in the three year analysis, FY '97 was kind of the big hump year to overcome. And at this point I have not had an opportunity to update that analysis, but that is something I would like to do, obviously, over the summer and give us a little better idea of where we stand on some of the things that-- again, in FY '97 we have the third year of the transition of gas taxes from road maintenance to road capital which leaves the road and bridge department essentially a general fund revenue supported department. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that incremental step the same as what we saw this year? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: However, road and bridge did have a significant carryforward in FY '95 -- at the end of FY '95 again a onetime revenue, which as you burn that off, obviously, you have a continuous on-going expenses that you have to fund with an on-going revenue source. Same thing with EHS. EHS had a significant onetime revenue source. The other thing of significance in the general fund is in terms of the constitutional officers' budgeting either turn-back or attrition. The sheriff has at this point budgeted attrition on the civilian portion only of his budget, and the clerk has not budgeted attrition. We have, however -- the sheriffs budgeted and forecast turn-back. We have up to $600,000. It was budgeted at 275 and that is based on the prior 4 years of history, the lowest of which 4 years ago you received $683,000 over the 3 years. You have received a million dollars or better. MR. DORRILL: That is an important point just so that we do not underestimate our revenues. And I felt strongly in directing the budget staff that if we have every reason, it be based on history that the turn-back at the very minimum is going to be $600,000 when, in fact, each of the last four years it has a million dollars; that for us to take a plug number of $200,000 is not good budgeting. So if that becomes an issue with the sheriff, you know, then I made that call and made it on what I thought was sound historical data so that we not underestimate revenues, and then we can get the full credit for the revenues that we expect to receive so that we don't have to otherwise to be looking for new property taxes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How would we continue to budget something that isn't spent year after year after year? MR. DORRILL: That is my point. Without trying to-- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your point of getting the turn-back. I'm just wondering if it's being turned back, why is it being shifted from one fund to the other and then back again annually? The end result is the same which we are giving ourselves credit for, and I am wondering why we budgeted it in the first place. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Why we budgeted it at all? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why the sheriff wants money that he traditionally doesn't spend. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To me there is a danger on the other side that if you don't spend it you won't get it next year. We've seen many departments begin to spend everything they are given to make sure that they aren't cut the next year, whereas in this case if there is turn-back or a significant turn-back, it almost appears that they have done better than their job and then -- I'm just not sure we want it the other way -- that if you don't spend it all you don't get it the next year. I like the idea of at least encouraging them to turn money back and that may be the only way to do it. It is just a thought. I don't think either is a perfect system, but I have certainly seen departments operate if they don't spend the dollar, they don't get it the next year. And I don't want to encourage that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The end result is the same as long as we are budgeting for it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In prior years we had not budgeted for it. It has come through and, in fact, that is part of the reason why our carryforward had grown to such a significant level because year after year you get a forecast of 200,000 and then a million four comes in, you get this big windfall of revenue. In terms of the 3 percent of total personal services within the sheriff's budget, that is $1,074,600. So that's just slightly more than half of what the 3 percent attrition level in the sheriff's budget would be. Based on his forecast expenses for personal services across law enforcement, corrections, and bailiffs this year of 35 -- I am rounding it to the nearest hundred thousand -- the adopted personal services within the sheriff's budget was $35.4 million. The forecast is approximately $34.5 million or 97.4 percent of budget. And we can address that further. This afternoon we will be reviewing the sheriff's budget right after lunch and, obviously, those are the significant policy issues that we will need to address. That concludes the overview of where we are at. Again, the general fund at 1.1 percent below the rollback millage rate and the HSTD general fund at the rollback millage rate. Next item on our agenda is the public services division. I invite Mr. Olliff and staff up to the microphone and -- MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good morning, Tom. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How are you? How was your weekend? MR. OLLIFF: It has been well -- going over this information. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 1 in the public services' section of your notebooks is the public services administration. Here overall there is a 1.6 percent increase. There are no expanded services as we have alluded to at the workshop on the previous week due to reductions in the budgeted health insurance premiums. You will note here, obviously, with the same staffing level if you take individuals, personal services increased only 1.9 percent, and you wind up budgeting 3.5 percent for salary adjustments. Operating expenses -- there are no increases, and there are no proposed expanded services for FY '96. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Questions? MR. SHYKOWSKI: On pages two and three are the agriculture department. Overall appropriations are up six-tenths of one percent -- reductions here due to staff turnover -- again, the savings in health insurance. Overall personal services actually decreased nine-tenths of a percent. You will note that in forecasts under capital outlay, there is a $102,000 forecast where there was nothing budgeted. That includes the personal computer and the $100,000 remittance to the Fair Board for the building construction which was approved by the board during FY '95. Under operating expenses, motor pool rental charges increased based on actual miles driven. Capital outlay is for the replacement of two five-year old computers. There are no proposed expanded services within the agriculture department. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does this include our teach the farmers how to farm program? MS. BLANTON: Yes. I am assuming I understand what you mean. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't, let me know, and I'll do my best to clarify. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Could you give your name for the record. MS. BLANTON: Denise Blanton. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does include -- explain to me what that does. When the farmers that own tree farms or whatever -- they come and get told how to do that safely and economically and __ MS. BLANTON: You're hitting a lot of key points. Yes. Very good. Agriculture in Collier County, of course, is winter vegetable production which is the major component of our production area. Also included in that is ranching, which in many cases it is a stewardship of the land. The beef cattle production is what we are noted for in Collier County. Also you alluded to horticultural production, which is the production of trees, woody ornamentals -- that type of thing -- for the landscaping industry. Because we are the size of the State of Delaware, we have ample opportunity and because of our climate so far we have been able to stay even with the competitive forces such as NAFTA, those kinds of things. But as usual it is working smarter and smarter and smarter is what keeps us economically still playing ball. But it is an ongoing challenge. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are most of the road vegetable operations for-profit operations? MS. BLANTON: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are most of the citrus operations for-profit? MS. BLANTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are most of the horticultural operations -- growing trees and such -- are those for-profit? MS. BLANTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's making a point, I'm sure. MS. BLANTON: Yes, yes. We're getting to the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why if they're operating for a profit and every other business in the county -- I am sure someone can come up with some example. Almost every other business in the county, they do their own research, they come up with their own ways -- why are we expanding how many dollars -- I can't seem to find it on this page -- to assist the Collier companies or whomever comes to us seeking knowledge in the role of agriculture? MS. BLANTON: Yes, and it is all comers. It is all comers because we are in partnership with them through and with the university and in maintaining that economic base, which is a significant portion of the county. I think that it is something we can be pretty proud of also as a part of our economic base. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think in terms of hotels are big or -- I do marketing. Is somebody going to come and tell me, at the government's expense, what the new computers can do for me in marketing? No. If I want to get the best and stay abreast of how to best operate in the marketing industry, I do that on my own. I haven't heard an explanation of why we are doing that for ag when they are a for-profit operation. Obviously, if they want to stay economically viable, then they are going to work at that. It seems to me that should be in a for-profit world, their responsibility, not the local government's responsibility. MS. BLANTON: Traditionally it has been a profitable partnership to be in partnership with the university and agricultural as it is maintained. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is profitable meaning we get money back? We make back every single dollar that we expend on it? MS. BLANTON: That the government does benefit from the economic vitality of the agricultural industry and the challenges that they face. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stop for a minute. You are giving me very generic, vague answers that don't tell me any specifics. Yes, if agriculture is successful, and, of course, we economically grow from that and benefit from that. But that doesn't answer my question. My question is every other area of the economy we expect those people to do the research on their own and if they are a for-profit company to try to figure out how best to operate their own for-profit business. Why should it be any different for agriculture? Why should you and I and every other taxpayer pay to teach them how to do that when it is for-profit? Obviously the economy benefits, but if they are in business to make a profit, if we don't provide that for them, and they still want to the make a profit, they will seek that knowledge out on their own. MS. BLANTON: In many cases it comes from a lot of different sources. It's not as if there aren't a lot of different ways to go about it, and they do. But there has been and continues to be an opportunity to share in that responsibility and I think that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I haven't heard a reason why yet. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much money are we talking about? How much money are we talking about on this particular program that attempts to teach the farmers to farm, because there are going to be several programs in this department that fall along these same lines? MR. DORRILL: Just by way of background, the one thing that is different about what we call the agriculture department is that is was created as a result of the land-bank college process. I'll say at the end of the great depression where in every state in the country there are certain colleges that are designated as land-bank colleges. The concept of the extension department comes through the University of Florida, which is the primary land-bank college in this state for this type of activity. But it -- in fact, in Denise's -- Ms. Blanton's standpoint, a part of her salary comes from the United States Department of Agriculture. Part of her salary comes from the State of Florida through the extension program at the University of Florida, and a part of her salary comes from the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. All of the other programs, though, they are different. We've got a livestock agent; we've got a horticultural agent; we've got an extension homemakers agent, and they are unique and unlike any other thing that this county does. But that is the honest answer to your question is that it comes through the land-bank process established through the University of Florida. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then again some of those are beneficial, the homemakers or the 4-H programs where the youngsters are learning skills that they can actually take -- move forward with and become productive members of society. But if the Collier companies come to us and inquire, and we're doing work for them and expending taxpayer dollars, and they're open to do that -- and I suspect do utilize that to some extent -- and then turn around and make some sort of profit at the end of the year, I'm wondering why we're spending money on those. There is a huge difference to me to helping out individuals who are learning skills and helping out for-profit companies who are taking that knowledge and going away and spending it when they can do that on their own. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a program where like the Gargiulo Companies come to us to do their research -- that would amaze me. MR. OLLIFF: There is a couple of things. I think, one, the managing practice -- there is a lot a tradition involved in how all of this came about. It is a partnership program through the University of Florida where five hundred and eighty-five some odd thousand dollars comes into this department from the University of Florida. The department serves as several functions. One is to make sure that there are a number of regulations that come down each year that regulate farmers, making sure that farmers understand what those regulations are and making sure that they know how to comply with those regulations is one of the functions of the department. Another one of the reasons I think that this department does what it does for that particular industry is because it has such an impact on your natural resources as well. They are using a lot of your water. They're using a lot of pesticides; they're doing a lot of land-use type work, and making sure that they are doing it as smartly as they can, so they're not affecting our environment negatively, so that they're economically using the water as much as possible. Those are some of the reasons that they are there, because it has a community-wide benefit for that reason. And, lastly, I think because as an industry in Florida and in rural areas, typically agriculture was such a large part of the economy -- and in this one as well -- that it was almost the same type of partnership that a lot of communities have with an economic development program. Here it is a partnership program that we have with that particular industry, because it is such a large portion of our economy that we don't have with others. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not doing enforcement are we when you said -- MR. OLLIFF: Education. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Strictly education? So there are other agencies and other laws dealing with enforcement to make sure people do comply with all those rules and regulations you just mentioned as far as pesticides and those type of things? MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me that we have -- we'll use the building industry in Collier County, another huge part of our economy. We have monies dedicated to enforcing code enforcement. But other than printing the various requirements that we have, we don't spend -- and, again, you didn't answer Commissioner Hac'Kie's question of how much money -- we don't spend X number of dollars sitting down with every individual contractor that comes in and goes through the Land Development Code and say, okay, this means this and this mean this; you should really do this because it is good for the future of Collier County. So if we're not doing that in one industry, why are we doing it in another? And if tradition is the answer, that is not a good enough answer for me to continue funding that year after year after year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, it seems to me that an understanding of what goes on in the extension office -- and I don't claim to have a significant one but -- it may be housed a little better. And rather than drawing the picture that the Gargiulos drive up in their company trucks, jump out, get in a meeting room, and are told how to grow tomatoes -- when I was out there what I saw is the extension office using the local farmers to try and encourage them to do things that are better for the water resources. For example, they're currently using a herbicide to go after a certain type of moth. The extension office -- the horticultural agent, I believe, has secured grant funds to try a new method that involves no herbicides and is using -- I think it was actually Gargiulo's tomatoes to test this on. The result may be that fewer herbicides are used in Collier County and, therefore, we do have a direct environmental benefit from it. And if we were funding that position solely -- I mean if we were the single funding for that position, I would have a real problem with that. What percentage of these people's times does Collier County actually pay? I mean, what percentage of their salaries roughly? MS. BLANTON: Approximately 50/50. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: About 50 percent? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They haven't been given a chance to answer that question yet about how money are -- MS. BLANTON: 141; $141,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: $141,000; seventy of which is Collier County money. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm in agreement that if we are in a position of trying to tell people just simply how to make more money at their industry or how to do their job better so they can make money, that we're in the wrong business. But the examples that I saw out there -- such as the master gardener program which helps local citizens -- there are a lot of things going on out there that aren't necessarily just simply a conduit for enterprise. So there may be very well what you are talking about occurring out there, but there are a lot of other facets that I don't thing are characterized accurately in that statement. So if we can separate those things and discuss the one specific that you're talking about, I'm more than happy to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a memo Denise put out earlier this year -- maybe two months ago -- in response to our initial budget meetings that talks specifically about this area and some areas that may not be best. I have that memo back in the office. I apologize, I don't have it. You mentioned a couple of particular areas and ways we could cut back specifically in that memo. It was a memo to Tom. If you will give me five minutes I'll go back and dig it out back there. There were very specific items in there that said -- well, you're right, maybe we don't need XYZ, and I think it ended up $61,000 or something of that 141; I can't remember the exact number. MS. BLANTON: It was in the program area of family and community educators specifically. And what I suggested was there was some paraprofessional, full-salaried, full-benefit -- in my suggestion that would save $21,000 -- would be to make that other contractual services. My thought in that would be there would be more flexibility in other contractual services. I think this is the memo to Tom that you are referring to. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. The two programs that the board asked about following program budget is actually the family and community educators program, the 4-H program. Those are the two that this memo responded to. I think the family and community educators are the one that actually received the most scrutiny at the time when we went through program budgets, and her recommendations were in that particular program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like to make a comment on the comparison of farming and agricultural activities to construction and that is our contractors and all the various components that make up the construction field are all licensed by somebody, either the state or the county as to the minimum standards that they must uphold. They also have a building code book that they have to follow when they are doing the construction. Is there anything similar to that with the farming industry, Ms. Blanton? MS. BLANTON: Yes, one facet of it -- and I would say it would be like 1 percent by the way. Through Tallahassee you must apply for a pesticide application license, and you sit down and take -- I think it is -- approximately 150 multiple choice questions about applying a pesticide. We have found -- and we have had extensive workshops on that. And you are employing through the university and partnership with the university, scientists -- a formal name is extension agents -- in this regard in interpreting that information, the why as well as the how. We find, too, increasingly we are offering our trainings in Spanish. Increasingly we are finding the need to offer that kind of information and hands-on information in Spanish. We recently had a program on a Saturday morning, because that is when they can come. We had 300 people registered, and 150 of those people were taught in Spanish, because that was their language of preference. I am rattling MR. OLLIFF: To answer your specific question, there is not very much in the way of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is the point I am trying to make. The service that the agricultural extension is providing is helping an otherwise unregulated field. And, God bless them, I don't want any regulations. But it's helping them to find ways to work smarter to get more productivity from the land; to consume less water; to use less chemicals. And all of these things come together and improve the environment that we all live in. I can't help but think that it is a service that we owe it to the other 120- or 130,000 people who live in Collier County to accomplish this. MS. BLANTON: If I may, I would also say this is a hand-in-glove kind of opportunity. The information generated is applicable across the board -- in your backyard it's applicable. And that is our mission; the transfer of technology and to apply it to the issues and the concerns of the people of Collier County. That is why the partnership was set up, because we are specifically charged -- mandated to make those problem issues and priorities ours. And we -- through the focus groups and advisory committees and, may I say, a very active volunteer force is how we continue to deliver the program effort. Even the example of Gargiulo -- and it was made -- that you saw for moths-- having them trust us enough to allow us on their property and the use of their people to help us conduct an applied problem analysis that is then transferable in very broad terms in addition to the agriculture, that is what we are about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think for my money anyway I have enough information to know that this is a program I want to see continue. It sounds to me that this is based on tradition of the land-grant colleges, but it would be a mistake to eliminate this pipeline of information from the university system into application in the fields and in people's gardens and anywhere else. So I'm ready if everybody is willing to support this to go on. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears that there may be a majority too, so I won't belabor it anymore. But it seems to me as we struggle to keep our tax burden as low as possible that supporting for-profit company efforts with tax dollars should be at the top of the list to cut. I'm particularly concerned when Ms. Blanton can't communicate to me, can't annunciate what the purposes are -- Mr. Olliff did somewhat -- but the person administering the program can't clearly state what the benefit of the program is, then that gives me great reason for concern. I'm not saying -- and you have said that perhaps we should keep this and shouldn't cut it -- I'm not saying that you cut all 141,000, but it seems to me there is some in here that -- the example you gave apparently was for the Gargiulos. So they can certainly afford to do some of that research on their own. We don't need to be subsidizing them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, the characterization that the extension office sits out there waiting for the farmer to come in and use its services I think is inappropriate and incorrect, and I think spending time out there would further show that. But you did mention that Ms. Blanton had prepared a memo and recommended some areas in which dollars could be saved. Ms. Blanton, are those reflected in this budget presented to us today? MS. BLANTON: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think, obviously, if you feel that there are areas in which the burden of the county's portion of your funding can be reduced, I would like to see those reflected in the numbers. MS. BLANTON: There is one -- the one that I proposed that is the option is the $21,000. I had investigated that option with the human resources department, and there are certain constraints in regards to personnel policies -- not necessarily personnel policies of the board but legal liability that we would have to research. And I'm looking over to Tom for additional information. But there would -- my suggestion to Tom -- my recommendation to Tom when I was asked the question was that I would make that other contractual services instead of what I call two-line items -- two salaries with benefits. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I suggest that in the intervening two months before we make our final budget in September, Ms. Blanton, that you work with the HR department and develop ways that you might be able to out-source this particular service and save as much money as you can as well as any other services in your control that are subject to out-sourcing, and see if we can provide at least as good for less money or even a better service for the same amount of money; whichever applies. MS. BLANTON: I believe we actually can end up providing a better service for less money in this regard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the date on that memo? MS. BLANTON: March 31st. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has anyone inquired at the attorney's office to look into -- inquired as to look into what those legal restraints may be? MS. BLANTON: I had inquired directly with Mr. Whitecotton is where I went. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the explanation that there may be certain legal -- MS. BLANTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But no one has inquired of the attorney's office? MS. BLANTON: I don't -- I am not aware. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me in three months time, particularly with these budget hearings coming up, that would have been a logical next step. MR. OLLIFF: I think we can make it work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we'll hear more about the out-sourcing of this. Is that agreeable? Okay. Thank you. MS. BLANTON: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 4 is the veteran services budgets. Overall there is two-tenths of one percent increase including a proposed expanded service. Overall the forecast for personal services were less than budget. The department director was originally planning to retire. Mr. Schultz has not retired and at this point will be with us in FY '95. We have not budgeted for the termination pay, vacation, and benefits as a result of personal service increases of one-tenth of one percent. There is $6,100 budgeted as an expanded service for a seasonal part-time position to assume responsibility for scheduling veterans and drivers in support of the Collier County Veterans Transportation Program as well as assisting clients and making application to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Boy, you both hit at the same time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've added two -- we now have two fairly new vehicles for the transportation services and all. I'm assuming to be current with that, we have had an increase in the amount of usage? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, sir. It is a significant increase. Most days, as is today, both vehicles are on the road making trips to different destinations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Lou, I notice you have three positions -- three permanent positions, and then we're adding a part-time, and the result is still three positions; is that correct? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How does that math work? I'm a little off in math. MR. SCHULTZ: Again, this was -- is off the recap criteria. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This is merely part-time and a seasonal part of the FTE. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure that there was not some new math out there I was not privy to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this a person who is going to coordinate volunteers? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, Ha'am. It will be a dual-functioning position during the height of the season. The individual will be trained to process relatively simple claims to the Veterans Administration as well as be the facilitator for the transportation system. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that person's duties going to be shared with some other division or department? MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry, Ha'am? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that person's duties going to be shared? Don't we have a volunteer coordinator, Mr. Dotrill, in other words, for a quarter of FTE; they can't pick that up? MR. DORRILL: We have a half volunteer coordinator. The other half we share with the court's administration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And their time is totally consumed with what they are doing? MR. DORRILL: I took this department through the same sort of questioning to determine the nature of volunteer coordination, and you may hear some requests from the library when we get there. Everybody, you know, is looking for a part-time volunteer coordinator. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long is -- when you say you need this part-time in season, what do you mean? Six months? Three months? MR. SCHULTZ: No, sir. I'm planning on 4 months, 20 hours a week for 4 months. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, I believe, Lou, we had asked you last time about workload, and your case load has increased dramatically, although your staff has remained the same for a number of years? MR. SCHULTZ: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I correctly recalling that conversation? MR. SCHULTZ: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because we had discussions on this same position the last time and I -- MR. OLLIFF: It's just during the season the veteran's population of those eligible for veterans's benefits nearly doubles in this community, and the number of people who are accessing that transportation program grows astronomically. Just simply trying to coordinate who's going where, when and making sure they are there is a job that requires somebody to do that that he hasn't had on his staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of that 20 hours a week, how much of that -- who exactly will be making an application to the VA? And what exactly will that be? And how much of that 20 hours will that be? MR. SCHULTZ: If I had to come up with a figure, I would say roughly 6 to 8 hours a week in claims processing; the remainder of 12 hours per week in facilitating transportation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's just processing the claims made by our local veterans to the VA? MR. SCHULTZ: That is correct. And primarily coordinating the medical treatments and scheduling. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this isn't solely just a volunteer coordinator? MR. SCHULTZ: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see the capital outlay here is to allow you to access the mainframe of the county system. You can't now access it? MR. SCHULTZ: No, Ha'am. That outlay of $6,100 was, in fact, to secure a new computer system to allow us to access the VA mainframe in St. Petersburg. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm talking about the $7,500 capital. MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, that is the forecast for FY '95. The purchase was authorized by the board in September of '94, but delivery of the system came in '95. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this is to access the VA system in Tampa? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, Ha'am. We can access the Vet-Net system in Washington D.C. As well as the Florida Department of Veteran Affairs' mainframe in St. Petersburg. MR. OLLIFF: I'll tell you what I tell them in orientation. I think there are only two veteran's departments in the State of Florida today that have this system. And when a vet walks into Lou's department today, that there are 470 some-odd different federal forms that they can file, and they are all in the system. He can fill them out electronically, and basically E-mail them to Washington D.C. To where they are there immediately. It prints out the hard copy and a cover letter for Lou to sign. By the time that veteran walks out of the office he is done except for the filing of the paperwork which needs to be done in our office and kept. As efficient as we are, I believe once it gets to Washington -- what is the average turnaround time for one claim? MR. SCHULTZ: Well, the court of veterans' appeals-- on the board of veterans appeals is roughly two to three years. MR. OLLIFF: So we're trying to get in line as quickly as we can, but the line is still very long. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is still pretty long. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, the national support for our veterans, it's a wonderful thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As a veteran speaks? Are we ready to move on? Thank you, Mr. Schultz. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 6, the Collier Soil and Water District. No increases -- the same $17,300 contribution is proposed in FY '96. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where does this come from-- or, no, we pay this out? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We pay it out as a contribution. MR. OLLIFF: It is a program budget that there was a question, because the actual original request was in excess of what is showing here at seventeen-three. And if you will recall they had just had an election the night before, and the board had changed hands, and the chairman of the board was David Wilkison, who was here at your program budget. He was caught kind of flat-footed. He was standing here and saying that he wasn't sure whether or not they actually needed that additional funding request or not. It was reduced to the seventeen-three, which was their previous request. And I think Bob Sitta is here from their board and is here to try to walk you through what their additional request was. The initial request, I believe, was 24,000. MR. SITTA: The board reanalyzed the figures and determined it at 20,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the court reporter? MR. SITTA: My name is Robert Sitta, S-i-t-t-a. I'm the treasurer of the district. The board re-looked at its figures, and because they are changing personnel there, they looked at the benefit package, the salary. We negotiated those figures and had determined that they hire a person and retain a person for $20,000. The earlier figure of 24 was based on what we had paid last year to the person who had previously held that position. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions, Mr. Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Sitta, you had an assistant who I believe quit earlier in the year; is that correct? MR. SITTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has that position been filled? MR. SITTA: No, we are going to be interviewing on Wednesday for that position. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The funds allocated for the salary for that position are going to be committed where? MR. SITTA: That is for the administrative assistant position. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we have uncommitted funds which are not being spent on a position right now; is that correct? MR. SITTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me we should see those funds come back instead of sitting out there. If we have a couple months of a position that isn't being paid, we should see those funds. MR. SITTA: Well, the problem has been that the office has been remaining locked most of the days, because there is nobody to man the office. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think Commissioner Hancock is suggesting not to fill the position. He is just saying while it has been vacant, that money -- we haven't expended it -- it has been piling up. That should show in the budget. You should carry that over rather than hold that and ask for a full amount again. MR. SITTA: Well, the reason we were asking for 20,000 was -- actually that is not going to cover the benefit package. What we asked for -- 20,000 is going to cover just the base salary. We still do have a shortfall for the retirement package in health insurance and anything like that that we would provide. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This a program that I'm confused about. I need to know what it does. It doesn't say -- we don't have any essential or discretionary funds, or we have some goals or programs. But it is not discretionary. Can you distinguish it from what Ms. Blanton was here saying that they do and what the state and federal agencies also already do? MR. SITTA: The soil conservation service is what the federal program is calling the natural resource conservation service. They operate in counties that have soil districts, and our district has been here for 10 years. But unfortunately the federal government restricts what the federal government can do and what the district must apply. Our district operates approximately on a quarter-million dollar budget; $96,000 of that is provided by a grant from the South Florida Water Management District. That is to cover our mobile irrigation lab, and that also provides for the cost of one employee that operates that lab. The federal government provides approximately $140,000 in in-kind services. They provide a district conservationist. They also provide a team leader for the mobile irrigation lab. Also they provide soil scientists and other technical advise. They provide also the rent for the office which goes to Collier County. The remainder of the district operation, which is approximately 8 percent, has been provided by the county and that is to provide for the administrative assistant position, which keeps our doors open, keeps the liaison with the public. That person also handles board meetings, the minutes for the meetings, correspondence, answering the telephone, various jobs, banking -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Secretarial. It sounds like secretarial support. I guess I'm feeling like this program is significantly funded with federal and state dollars and could probably do without Collier County dollars unless somebody can tell me something I am missing. MR. SITTA: Well, the main problem is that the federal program, by statute, federal statute, will not allow them to support us in certain areas. And since federal government will provide technical support and office personnel, those personnel cannot handle any kind of district business. They cannot take any correspondence, phone calls. They cannot handle any money that the district may use and that is our main problem. We're then put into a little bind there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Sitta, help me out with this. Why would I call the Soil and Water Conservation District office? MR. SITTA: We receive quite a few calls from the general public, mainly for the use of our mobile irrigation lab. They also want technical advice on water problems they have. In this area mostly it is water that we deal with. For instance, our mobile irrigation lab would go to a person's home, and they could analyze irrigation problems they have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me interrupt you right there. They are calling you and then you're sending out -- or administration is linking them to a mobile irrigation lab which is funded completely by the district; correct? MR. SITTA: Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So there could be an answering machine somewhere that picks up this phone call, and the lab could respond? MR. SITTA: Right now we have an answering machine that is functioning but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason that I am asking this is -- Dave Wilkison is a fine man, and I know you guys have the best intentions in the world. I'm just not sure that there is a real public service being provided by the allocation of funds to have, if you will, a receptionist in an office that takes phone calls and transfers them to where they should be going in the first place. In addition, I sit on boards that we have secretaries that do minutes, and they are volunteers. Your board is elected even. So I guess I'm looking for -- yes, we're only talking about $17,000, but I need to see a service being provided in order to justify the expense. I'm having a tough time with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think this is one that we should cut. MR. SITTA: I would say that it's not just answering the phone; that's just a small portion. We do get a tremendous amount of correspondence. We have to do a federal and state audit every year that's required by law. This person handles most of that work. There is a lot of clerical work that is involved in the district that is required by the state. All these agencies that are giving money -- we don't have anybody else that is doing this work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who formed the Soil and Water Conservation District itself? Did Collier County form it? MR. SITTA: It was formed by petition and election in 1985. MR. DORRILL: However, as part of the full disclosure, at least it has been -- word around here lately has been "folklore .... that only 30 people were eligible to vote in that referendum or there were only 30 people in the entire county that cast ballots. You might want to shed some light on that. MR. SITTA: The election process is created by the state statute and that says that there is a petition -- the Department of Agriculture determines whether there is a need for the district by having some public hearings. Those were held. Then they hold an election that is open to all freeholders. The election -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but those freeholders aren't spending $17,300 a year, the taxpayers are. It is not your problem. You didn't create it, but that seems a little inequitable. MR. SITTA: Unfortunately state law covering us was written in 1937, and it hasn't been substantially changed. But it did call for a freeholder's election open to any property owners in the county. It was held at three election places; there was one in Immokalee, one in Naples, and one in Everglades. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the district didn't exist, would the mobile irrigation labs still continue? MR. SITTA: That is very hard to say. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Send it by the water management district. It would continue. MR. SITTA: I am not sure if it would or not. Valetie Boyd could probably better answer that, because it has been under some pressure from different agencies. It is going under a change. Presently we are looking at some changes that may in the future be run by the federal government under contract to the South Florida Water Management District. This is under consideration, but right now the district is the only one that is operating it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know you didn't come here today expecting to fight the entire battle of the Soil and Water Conservation District, whether it should exist or not. But I have to agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie. I don't see the benefit to the general public of continual funding of the receptionist to handle things. Basically the receptionist handles the existence of this Soil and Water Conservation District. It is not that there is a service being provided to the general public there. She is just transferring phone calls and handling the existence of the district, so my reaction on this is just simply not to fund it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The work will go on. It will go on and will be funded by the state and federal -- and it will find a way to function. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That is a cut. MR. OLLIFF: The next page of your budget book, I'll cover for you -- it is the county forester. I think you all received some information from the state that the state had eliminated that program, so this is just a budget page that shows it going from our $3,000 contribution to zero on next year's budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 8 is the contract agency page. Again, it is based on the adopted budget policy, which this year there is no funding proposed in FY 96. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If John were here I would say I want to talk about this just to get under his skin. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would pretty much do it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 9 is the David Lawrence Center. Their proposed funding is remaining at the FY 95 adoptive level at $710,400. Mr. Schimmel is here representing the David Lawrence Center, if you have any questions. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the statutory -- what would we be funding if we were funding what the statute says? MR. SCHIHMEL: About $990,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So about 280 less than that is what you are asking for? MR. SCHIHMEL: Yes. We're trying to make up the difference with fund-raising. This will be the first year, by the way, that we have -- will see more clients and have an increased workload with a smaller budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you think we can go for three in a row next year? MR. SCHIHMEL: I can't make that comment right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding, Dave. MR. SCHIHMEL: The legislature has not been kind to us. It has been a devastating year. As a matter of fact, I'll go back today and try to cut another half of million dollars of Hedicaid earnings out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you lose some grant funds or did -- MR. SCHIHMEL: We didn't lose any state funds. We lost Hedicaid funds, which is how we've really been funding a lot of indigent care for children. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the state statute that mandates our funding? MR. SCHIHMEL: It's Chapter 396. We provided a copy to Tom and the staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm comfortable with this. MR. SCHIHMEL: Commissioner Matthews, last time I was here, I did an analysis of what the other county commissions are supporting. Lee County supports it 100 percent of their maximum requirement for the separate agencies. Charlotte is up there about a 100 percent. We're about -- Collier County fund is about 76 percent of its mandatory requirement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I for one, Dave, am grateful that you allocate funds as much as you can to reduce the county's role and expense here. Thank you for that very much. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on? MR. SCHIHMEL: Thanks for your support. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 10 and 11 is the Collier County Public Health Unit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here come the big guns. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Overall the net cost of general revenue is down seven-tenths of one percent. The contribution goes from 899,200 in FY '95 to 874,000. There are some increases in operating expenses, essentially telephone and allocated insurance premiums, as well as the liability premium to resolve the contract dispute this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Polkowski. DR. POLKOWSKI: We're not asking for changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is actually down seven-tenths of one percent. DR. POLKOWSKI: Perhaps essentially the same. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How is your funding going this year with Hedicare cuts that we have all read about? DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, the legislature has cut the public health units certainly in the primary care area, principally, although, also in the other administrative areas. As far as Hedicaid at this time, also that is a potential significant impact. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you're going to monitor it closely? DR. POLKOWSKI: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any more questions? DR. POLKOWSKI: As you know we are working with the private sector to develop that private-public partnership in order to assure that people in need get the services. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When we were discussing the public health units' contract earlier this year, there was thought, at least on the part of the county manager, that we could out-source some of this work; is that still true? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that was when we were looking at the contract that -- in other words -- fell through and there was no funding. MR. DORRILL: I am not contemplating that as part of the tentative budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm asking if it is possible to out-source any of these functions for lesser cost. MR. DORRILL: My impression, and the legal opinion that we had at that time, is that was an alternative. We did not attempt to get unit prices pending the resolution of the contractual dispute that we had. I cannot tell you that we would be able to get unit prices less than what those are currently offered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Thank you. DR. POLKOWSKI: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine presentation. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On pages 12 and 13 is the Collier County Museum proposed budget. Overall appropriations are up 4.1 percent. You will note there is no budget revenue in FY '96 that reflects the Friends of the Museum taking over the gift shop operations in FY '95. They will continue to do so. Operating expenses are up 16.3 percent and that is really a function of a full year's programming associated with new facilities. In addition, there is a proposal to construct cabinets and displays in the exhibit hall for $7,000; $2,500 for travelling exhibit fees, and $8,000 to develop photo murals. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These are all capital items? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, operating. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Operation? MR. OLLIFF: Operating capital less than $25,000. And that is why they roll up here. And otherwise the only change in this department is operating expenses negotiated with opening and operating the new exhibit hall, that was built through the combination of the Friends of the Museum and some assistance from the County Commission. Thank you. Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ron, I have a question for you. Something peaked my interest. If the Friends of the Museum take over the gift shop and then the revenues go away -- we were getting revenues when the county had volunteers operating it, how does that work? They take over the gift shop and we stop getting revenues. I'm just a little -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: There is also a corresponding reduction. You'll note that his forecast -- operating expenses are approximately $5,400 less than the adopted budget. That is because Mr. Jamro is no longer paying on the expense side of his budget for buying inventory for resale. MR. JAMRO: I think that is the key to it. We are spending about $5,000 a year, making about $5,400 a year, returning the balance or the profits to the general fund. There was no real volunteer participation in the gift shop. At that time it was a staff function and that we're transferring all that over and the profits, I guarantee, are going back to the museum, but to the Friends of the Museum, who are taking the obligation for stocking and maintaining the inventory -- the risk, if you will. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So their profits will be returned to the museum -- MR. JAMRO: Oh, absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to be utilized? MR. JAMRO: Every dime they raise comes to the museum. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't questioning the Friends, I was just wondering how that worked. MR. JAMRO: But it did relieve the pressure on us. That is a real help. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you have essentially freed up some FTEs to do other work because the Friends have taken this over? MR. JAMRO: Yes, Ha'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What exactly are these photo murals? MR. JAMRO: They are onetime expenses. They are computer-generated graphics which combine the museum presentation, the copy -- the interpretation of the exhibits and the objects. It's state-of-the-art, and it is the most efficient way to go. It gets rid of silk screening and all of those expensive processes. And in between, puts it directly -- exhibit wallpaper, if you will -- right on the exhibit wall. It is then coated and protected, and that won't be back again. It is just a question that we need to get those up for interpretations so that it is complete at that point. MR. OLLIFF: Just one point overall. While it shows in increase in this particular department's budget, last year this budget capital improvement for the lecture hall completions were in your 301 fund. In total the cost to run your museum this year is going down by MR. JAMRO: We're staying about the same. You've got the 3,000 square feet more museum, and you're operating for the same cost per square foot which is pretty good business. And, of course, let me show the board, too, that both the museum staff and the Friends of the Museum are continually searching for gifts to continue to help on the exhibit side of things -- there are sponsors and various pledges. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume there are federal or state grants toward historical-type things -- do we apply with any regularity for those type of grants? MR. JAMRO: You will recall we just applied for a restoration grant for Everglades City. Most of our special programs, activities are grant-funded through the Humanities Council -- some lecture series we had. It is hard to find -- in fact, I am not even aware of any that will operate a museum in place of county funding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I notice there is a $50,000 discretionary service that we had ranked discretionary. Are we going to talk about that one? MR. JAMRO: That is the educational component of the museum. That is the salary of the education curator, all the school programs, all the -- anything above and beyond the static exhibit is this part of the museum which brings us to the community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What does that person do 40 hours a week? MR. JAMRO: Develops in concert with the various educators, curriculum-based programs that are held at the museum to bring -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize for interrupting. But help me like -- Monday morning at 8 a.m. They come in, they sit down, what are they likely doing? MR. JAMRO: They are getting ready for the first school tour around 9 or 9:30. MR. DORRILL: We are the number one field trip destination of the Collier County school system. I'll say that there are 6- or 7,000 children. In addition, this individual goes out to the various schools and makes presentations as to what the local history is as part of the curriculum -- predominantly at the elementary school level. And the costs for that are paid by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then in the summertime they do -- MR. JAMRO: All kinds of exhibit research that is on-going, requests for information that we get constantly. There are all kinds of adult programs as well that we are getting into at the moment, and those have to be -- in many cases this person will also find the funding associated with those programs. That person was responsible this year for the Black History Festival. The person is also responsible for obtaining the funding and securing that exhibit that is there about the baby-boomers exhibit that is in the lecture hall today; that is that person's responsibility as well. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ron, we have heard about some increased security needs due to certain things coming into the museum, yet I don't see them in your budget. Are you anticipating coming back to the board for increases in the reserves later for those types of things? Help me. I just see this on the horizon. I need to know where it plays in. MR. JAMRO: Well, of course it wasn't on the horizon when we put all this together; that is a problem. This is above and beyond the museum's normal operation. The security problem is not -- that is something that we need to address. But what is bringing more immediacy to it is the potential of the Key Marco Cat exhibit, which, I believe, you'll hear about tomorrow from the folks on Marco Island. And we are still at this time getting prices from the Smithsonian regarding case construction and that. So we'll give you some firm prices for estimates tomorrow. But, no, that is not part of this. We have a request into the board for -- and our capital element in '96 -- for a $10,000 security system which would, of course, be from October 1 on. We may have to visit that sooner than we had hoped. So it all depends on how you respond to the Marco question. MR. DORRILL: We've had that discussion, and we also think that it is part of the supplemental budget request if that is approved by the county commission. There may be some off-setting revenue there as well, and the only thing I can compare it to is a number of years ago I was in Charlotte, North Carolina, and had an opportunity to pay to go through an exhibit of King Tut's treasures or whatnot that was on loan to the United States. I paid 10 bucks to go see that, and I was glad that I did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: King Tut is a little bigger than a 4-inch wooden cat. MR. DORRILL: But they have anticipated -- and part of it would have its own area, and if those people who are interested and want to are going to be willing to pay extra to help underwrite the cost of the security in the cases, and the display that is going part of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point being it's just King Tut and the Key Marco Cat are, you know, different. MR. DORRILL: I wouldn't pay 10 bucks to see the Key Marco Cat, but I did pay $10 bucks to see King Tut. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When I went to see the King Tut exhibit, it seems to me it cost about $25 or $30, and this is in Washington D.C -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not with Neil. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- But it also took about 14 hours of line waiting. There were lots and lots of people willing to pay that amount of money. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure that we weren't going to approve something and then get hit or blind-sided later. MR. JAMRO: Commissioner, this is the museum's operating budget for '96. Now the Key Marco thing is a separate question that certainly impacts on that, but -- and I think the county manager has -- that is the plan that they will present to you tomorrow, the idea that you will advance the money for the exhibit, and we'll try to make it pay for itself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I know Fay will pay at least 50 bucks just to see that cat. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Is there any possibility -- you and I have talked about it a couple of times -- about developing a driving core of the eastern part of Collier County that this educator over the summer months -- probably a couple of years -- might be able to put this together? MR. JAMRO: Commissioner, that is not that far off. I think we're already working on it based on our conversation at Ochopee. That is just a little bit of printing money. When all is said and done and researched -- and we talked with the people on Marco about maybe marking the Cushing site with one of those county markers, which we already have funds for that. So I expect we can bring that back to you around the new year in time for the next tourist season. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Sounds good to me. MR. JAMRO: My pleasure, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Social services is next. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, pages 14 through 16 is the social services budget. Overall FY '96 of the sustaining budget of FY '95 with appropriations at $2.3 million. That is inclusive of the expanded service of $8,400 that was addressed during program budgets for part-time receptionist position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just, as an intro, have said that I don't think anyone provides more service for less money in this county than Martha does in this department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It sure seems that way. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is also an area where the staff has been able to reduce the county's cost through pouring over bills and correcting errors in billing as well. MS. SKINNER: I think that well is going to run dry, because we've run into -- that the counties were having this real problem with incorrect billing and errors, and we have saved a tremendous amount of money in this county and passed that information to other counties. But now the state is getting on their toes and they're correcting those mistakes themselves. I hate to say it, but I think that well is going to run dry for us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least the bill would be accurate for a change. MS. SKINNER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Skinner, we've been talking this morning about the Medicaid cuts. In order to provide a level of service similar to what we have been doing, would you be anticipating later this year having to come back for additional funding? MS. SKINNER: We just may, because our Medicaid mandate is mandated, and I have cut my budget for the last three years by $100,000 each year in those line items. I see those mistakes, like I say being corrected, so I have cut again this year in that line item, and, hopefully, based on the past three years, we'll continue to see some savings there. But if the mandated cost to this county goes up, I might, in fact, have to come back for more. But I really don't anticipate it at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm just basing what you're saying -- and which is what I wanted to hear, is that our federal government, despite what Congress has said, is continuing to mandate -- possibly fund for a period of time and then withdraws funding, which is again an unfunded mandate. MS. SKINNER: Right. That is what we've answered the survey from fact, you know, this past week. And at this point it is going to hurt the hospitals; it's going to hurt the doctors; it's going to hurt those people that are now receiving Medicaid that we don't have to help. And when those Medicaid programs go down, whatever programs they are, the only alternative these people will have is to come to the county for service. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to ask you, as this develops in the next six or eight months, and Congress does what whatever it is going to do, that you keep us advised of this so we can work with Mr. Goss -- Congressman Goss -- MS. SKINNER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to do whatever we can do to either alleviate the mandate or get the money back. Any other questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Just a comment. We had asked our department to come back with a budget -- revenue neutral budget, no increases -- and thank you for it -- because the compliments of maybe I'll do a great job -- and you do -- but to come back and be comfortable that you can continue to do that job without increases is impressive. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Hartha. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 17 and 18 are the social services for seniors budget which is also an aspect of the umbrella of social services. Overall the general fund match to support grants in this area is decreasing 1.1 percent to $103,900. On page 18 there is an outline of the grants that the match will be utilized to leverage additional funds. Principally, a large part is of the community care for the elderly. The county matches 58,800 of total program expenses of $550,700. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're leveraging $103,00 and picking up about $700,000. Sounds like a good deal to me. MS. SKINNER: One month in a nursing home costs between $3- and $4,000. We're taking care of people in their home for about $1,500 a year. So that is quite a savings. MR. OLLIFF: I love this program. I do invite you to, whenever you do get a chance to, go with a case worker and visit some of these people and see how much they appreciate you funding this particular program. They would otherwise be in a home and I think they can't physically get out and come see you and say thank you, but they do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we ready to move on? Thank you Ms. Skinner. Are we interested in a break? It's about 20 minutes of. Let's take a 10 minute break until 10 of. (A short recess was taken at 10:40.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the budget hearings. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're on page 19. It begins the animal control budget. The budget spreadsheet of the public budget for FY '96 is on page 20, which is the general funds portion of animal control. Overall there is a 3 percent increase in total appropriations. Personal service is down 2.7 percent due to turnover and the reduction in health insurance fees. The operating expenses increased due to additional fleet management charges, allocated insurance, and funding for veterinarian fees. Under capital outlay there is $4,000 budgeted for software to automate the complaint tracking system, which is currently being performed manually within the animal control department. There is an expanded service proposed for $22,100, which would be a kennel worker position to perform cleaning and maintenance of the kennels required on a daily basis. That would allow for additional time on the road for enforcement of county ordinances by the animal control officers. MR. OLLIFF: And, fortunately, because of turnover we have been able to actually add that expanded service request and still decrease your personal service cost by -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we have discussed earlier this year that it was fairly apparent, perhaps necessary. Looks good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Thank you, you Mr. Olliff. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 21 is the Animal Control Trust Fund. Overall appropriations and revenues are down 15.9 percent. Operating expenses increased and that is for budgeted veterinarian fees increased to $56,000, which was an increase of a thousand adoptions at an average cost of $56 for neuter/spay services. Overall reserves decreased 25.9 percent due to a decrease in available carryforward for that. MR. OLLIFF: And this is a fund that may get affected by the eventual contract that we will be bringing back to you for neuter/spay. But in any case, it should not at all affect the next year's budget -- probably the year after. In any general funds dollars I think there is enough of a reserve in there to fund that $37,200. We can live with that, even with a fee increase, for a couple of years without us having to face a decision about what to do with that increase on neuter/spay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Did you have a chance to talk about the licensing that we had discussed? Okay. There was one thing, as we look at some of these expenses for animal control, there was correspondence regarding us trying to automate the licensor of the animals. In other words, you don't have to physically renew every year; that you may receive a renewal notice from animal control in the mail that you can send back and renew with payment. At that time animal control didn't have the software capability and so forth to do that. And there was some questions as to whether or not this could be a real revenue producer, because I think we lose a lot of funds by making people physically renew their licenses and probably lose a lot of licensers that way also. People may do it when they first get the animal but fail to renew. Jodi, how far along are we on that? And do you think it could be a real revenue producer for your department? MS. MORELOCK: I think -- the history shown in past postcards did help with the renewal cards. We had stopped doing that because of cost with postage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it more than an offset there? In other words, were we to reactivate that program, can we expect increased revenues to offset those? MS. MORELOCK: I believe so. MR. OLLIFF: We've actually talked about that, and just because, again, that neuter/spay issue and the sale of licenses is being affected by that, we're going to try and get that resolved, get that behind us and then put in that notice program again, because the numbers that we put together say that it more than pays for itself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we may see a mid-year adjustment after letting the dust settle, see this program come on line, and you may begin producing revenues for next year? MS. MORELOCK: Hopefully, yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about the -- it is the first time I heard this, but it sounds like a great idea -- like you get with your car registration. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. You get it in the mail. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But are you just talking about a postcard to notify? Can you then respond via mail, or do I still have to come down? MS. MORELOCK: Yes, Ha'am. You can respond by mail or in the past through your veterinarian. Either way you were given a choice of how to do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But either way -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mail is a good choice. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it generally increases your renewals and keeps your information fresh, and if people have moved, keeps the computer information fresh. And -- I've said it may be a revenue producer. MR. OLLIFF: The easier you make it on a customer, the more customers you will have. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next department is the budget spreadsheet is on page 23. Overall appropriations increased 5.6 percent. Personal services are up 4.6 percent. That is, however, inclusive of $94,600 in expanded services. Principal increases are in operating; are for data processing support services; increased utility expenses; additional postage and insurance. There is $48,300 budgeted in capital outlay for software, data processing equipment, office equipment and office furniture. That includes six Macintosh computers, two Apple laser printers, three scanners, a hard drive for a computer, and two CD ROM seven-drive towers. Expanded services that were discussed during the program budgets include $25,900 for a volunteer coordinator position; $34,700 for a children's librarian to expand that children's programing to the branch libraries; and $39,700 for the librarian position. That was previously funded through your LSCA grant. It had been funded as a bilingual librarian that had been funded for over a three-year period. Obviously that three-year period is over at the conclusion of FY '95. During the program budgets it was agreed that at that point to fund that librarian position in the general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have some discomfort with the volunteer coordinator. We had this discussion during the first go-around. I understand there are a couple of other departments. I say this is the popular item of the year. Last year it was color laser printers and this year everybody wants a volunteer coordinator. We've gotten by without this. I realize we've got a pile of volunteers in the library service, but it seems to me you kind of defeat the purpose of having volunteers doing the job if you have to hire someone to organize them. I have other comments as well. But we'll look at this one first. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Jones, do you want to tell us more about the volunteer coordinator? MR. JONES: The volunteers are a tremendous asset in Collier County. We have many of them. An untrained volunteer is not much of an asset. For those of us who have been in business or worked with the people before, if you have someone who really doesn't know what to do or doesn't have good leadership, they are less effective. They're still effective, but they're less effective. The particular chart I gave you -- first of all, your coordinator position came as a result of a two-year Q-plus study. The library had so many volunteers that were basically understaffed. We did not have time to train them. The Q-plus undertook a study for two years gathering data from all over the country -- all over the county on how volunteers are best utilized in the most cost-effective manner. What you have is one month -- well one season of usage with a volunteer coordinator. This is the headquarters library only. We are talking about over a hundred people to be managed. They gave 3,661 hours. Now below that I have given you the three basic areas that volunteers come in -- the general volunteers and what they are worth in money; a trained volunteer and what they are worth in money; an advanced volunteer and what they are worth in money, and each one of these people calculated into real money. We as a library system function well below the state mean in number of employees per 10,000 residents. The state mean is about 3.7; the national mean is about 4.2; and we function at 3. The key to our being able to function, particularly this year, has been to have a volunteer coordinator that was being trained in order to fulfill job functions that most library systems, or some library systems have paid employees to do. So, Commissioners, I'm not here -- I work for you. I'm not here to pull an adversary over this. This is a business decision. The dollars and cents are in front of you, and that is your decision to make. Now, this position also would be shared with parks and rec. So we would be getting volunteers at your two major public service departments, organizing a huge number of people -- probably upwards to 400 people. And none of us -- I don't in the library -- honestly have staff time to do this. And for those of you that have been in the library, we average at headquarters alone a tremendous number of people. Sometimes during season we get as many as a 100,000 people come into our system in a month. So I don't have staff to go train volunteers. I love them. We couldn't do without them. So it is just a business decision. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How are the volunteers organized right now if you don't have time for them? MR. JONES: Right now -- we've had a volunteer coordinator from the Friends of the Library. They gave us $6,000, and it was put into the budget and the position was placed in as a pilot program to see what the outcome would be by training these volunteers, by having schedules, having contracts, setting up somewhat like the hospital runs. And actually on the second page you will see some of the types of jobs that we were able to use volunteers for. Some of them were for just picking up trash and shelving books. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long has that pilot program been in place? MR. JONES: It has been in place since -- six months approximately, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two questions. One is what did you do prior to that six months to organize your volunteers and -- MR. JONES: There were not here when I came here. It was chaos. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, two, if it was $6,000 in six months, why is it now $25,000 or almost $26,000 for 12 months? MR. JONES: Because we hired her with no benefits. We hired her under the idea that it was a temporary, part-time job. And that is all the money that the Friends could actually afford to pay out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These general volunteer, trained volunteer, advanced volunteer and the associated dollar value, that is determined by whom or from where did you get that? MR. JONES: Those are national figures confirmed by the American Library Association. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we assume that the average volunteer is trained -- I don't know if they are or not-- but as I look at the numbers down here, 342 general, 409 are trained, and 316 advanced. So on average they are at the middle category. Is that a fair assumption? MR. JONES: It is now. It would not be a fair assumption this time last year. But this is after six months of training. This is an organization within the staff, and so we had October and November to begin setting up the cadres of the training. For example, the entire states branch is placed up into operation. Every book is moved, shelved, organized -- the entire branch was put together by the volunteer coordinator and 23 volunteers from the establishment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point being though there are statistics here at the bottom of the first page -- is it fair to say the average volunteer hour is at the trained volunteer level? MR. JONES: The average volunteer -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some 300 and some odd are below, 300 and some odd are above and 400 are trained. Some on average -- MR. JONES: This study is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I just did the math here. If you multiply out $9 per hour, which is the value according to the American Library Association -- whichever the group is -- times the number of hours we had, that comes out to $32,000 and some change. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For what month? That is for one month. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total hours have been multiplied. 3600 -- 3661 is monthly or is that annual? MR. JONES: 3661 is for the months of December, January, and February and March. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. JONES: So the data used at the bottom in dollars is for one month, the month of January. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm not using -- I was using the $9 -- 6.50 and $11. Forget the multiplication. I am just using the statistic that you're assigning a dollar value to each of the three categories. When I multiply that out for four months that is roughly $32,000. If you multiply that times three is ninety some-odd thousand dollars. And I am wondering to get -- where is the offsetting line there? As far as the -- if we've gotten $90,000 worth of volunteer effort without expending anything -- MR. JONES: Well, you have not. We're in the public service business. When I can take people from doing what we are -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Let me finish my thought. See, if we're getting $90,000 worth of service annually from them, according to these statistics you have provided, mathematically that is what it would be. And we are not expending anything on training them, other than the $6,000 provided by the Friends, then I would say that is a pretty good return. I am wondering how much over and above that $96,000 can we expect by spending $26,000. MR. JONES: The frame of reference that you've given me makes it difficult for me to respond. First, the volunteers have been organized. We were sitting here at this time last year with 90 percent of my volunteers would be in this general area, which made it 10 or 15 percent of the trained area, and those are the ones that have been with the library from year to year that could kind of work with us full-time. When a volunteer coordinator came on board we were able to actually get classes with the volunteers when they came in. And they were trained. Thus, this gave you an idea of what we could do with the number of hours once the volunteers were trained. As I have said to you, sir, this is a business decision. The volunteer coordinator allows us to deal with 200 to 300 people that otherwise would take staff time to do. The staff of the library system, based on state and local area, we're understaffed, but we can handle the job. But we cannot handle the job dealing with large numbers of volunteers. That in itself is the Catch-22, because the library system cannot function without these large numbers of volunteers. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I discuss this from a little different angle? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Jones, you've shown us statistics here for December, January, February, and March. Does that indicate that the bulk of the use of the volunteers are during those months and not during the rest of the year; is that what that indicates? MR. JONES: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then does it not make a lot of sense -- let me -- before I say that, let me ask you -- the $25,900 includes a full-time person with benefits; is that correct? MR. JONES: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Since the bulk of this work is accomplished in a four-month period, doesn't that point you towards a recap position for this? MR. JONES: It would, however, the woman I would say -- this was a -- it was an experiment we were going to try. If the position came on-board -- the recreation department runs just the exact opposite schedule that we do. I need volunteers December, January, February, and March and a little bit of April. Steve needs volunteers to run for the summer; April, Hay, June, July, and August. So we as public service did this study as a Q-plus activity. This is where this was born. It is how do we handle the tremendous number of volunteer hours that we are receiving; how do we handle it as good stewards to the taxpayers? And we found that both the parks and the libraries -- that regular staff was being overwhelmed just by the sheer number of volunteers. So to answer you question, if it is only the library, you're exactly right. If we go on to step two, it will be both the library and the park for a ten-month cycle. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now why then is the entire budget amount being shown under the library if parks are going to use it more than the library department? Not that it really makes any difference. MR. OLLIFF: Just for explanation purposes rather than trying to show you, because it is hard to find if you have to split FTEs, it makes it look as if we're not showing you the full program. We want to put it all in one place that you see as one FTE as a volunteer coordinator. We think it makes sense, because our programs are personnel intensive. I mean in the parks, by recreation and in the library providing services to people that are the resources that are important for us. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All of that and all of the discussion we have had still doesn't tell me why this is not a good candidate for a recap position? MR. JONES: There is no reason why it could not be if such a coordinator does exist. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Personally, I think I would support the coordinator under a recap position scenario. MR. JONES: I think it's a good policy, Commissioner, and I would be willing to take it under any circumstances -- furnish you with the data. Again, like I said, this is a business decision. I can furnish you in dollars and cents, and you can make decision during the upcoming year. I'll accept it under any conditions. MR. OLLIFF: This is really what we need. They're a good investment. I mean there are just people out there who just need to be organized, who want to step in and help. Without some organization they are, honestly, a liability to us, as opposed to an asset because when they come in the front door, it takes staff time to try and put them some place. And generally it ends up being more of a social function for them than it is a productive function for us. We surveyed every successful volunteer program in town, whether it is the Conservancy or the hospital, and all of those, and their one key that they continually tell you to their success is that they have one person playing point who actually recruits, trains, organizes, schedules, and contracts with these people and that's -- and recognition -- those are the two things they kept telling us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, your comments -- I'm sitting here crossing things off as you are talking. I agree 100 percent with the recap position. I think that is the first place to look. It sounds like a perfect position for that. Also, would the Friends continue to make a $6,000 contribution per annum? MR. JONES: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that will not be a part of the request here. So I would like to see that stay in under the offices of the recap position. My next question is regarding the librarian as previously funded in the grant fund. We've had discussion -- us here many times about accepting grants because whenever you accept a grant -- I think one recently that gave police officers on the street -- eventually you're going to accept those into the system or to anticipate it, and it is a situation that is kind of -- you almost don't want to accept the grants sometimes because you don't want to tie your hands down the road. But this particular position, from what I've heard, the communities embraced it very, very much. I guess I would like to move the discussion in that regard. I guess if we did not have that grant, would we have moved in this exact direction, or would we have taken an incremental step with maybe a lesser position to run the facility out there rather than going to this degree? That is my question on that particular one. MR. JONES: I was not here when that was done. The grant is about three years old. The SOP matter is that all of your branches have a professional librarian. Immokalee is one of your full-size, full-service branches. So based upon what was done in all other branches, one would have assumed that we would move in that direction. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So for us not to have a -- this type of position, we would be doing something in Immokalee than we do at the other branches? MR. JONES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it was not a whole lot more than simply taking advantage of the fact that a grant was available and having someone else fund it for three years. MR. OLLIFF: It gets the same level of service at every other branch. You just got three free years of money for it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure the grant wasn't springboarding us into something that we would not do otherwise. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. You have roughly 350 volunteers, is that what you are saying? MR. JONES: System-wide. And don't quote me on that. I'll say somewhere between 250 and 350. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of those do any have any background in library services? MR. JONES: The chairman of my library board was a former library director. One of our employees at the state branch, I believe, was the director at either Yale or Princeton libraries. To be real honest with you, I do not know of any. But I would hate to say that to you, because you could probably go out find some, so I'm giving you an honest answer; I do not know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I am wondering is if there is a volunteer who has a background and knowledge, would it not be possible for them to be utilized to volunteer time training? MR. JONES: We do that anyway. We have two volunteer trainers that work with specific items. For example, in the headquarters -- several years ago the commitment was made to go to the automated card catalog, the computers. A great many of our patrons who come in that building have reached the stage of their lives that they aren't particularly adept at learning new things, or they don't want to, or whatever the case may be. We train constantly volunteers to show people and to stand there with them and help them at our various points. So we do that. We truly have done everything we can to make this thing this work. Your library is very, very busy. Sometimes it is almost overwhelmingly busy. It is very difficult -- the population of Collier County demands quality services. If they don't get quality service, they're on the phone with somebody within ten minutes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We know. MR. JONES: So believe me, we are trying to be as effective as we possibly can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, when you mentioned this is a recap position, what exactly do you envision? This is a four-month budget item or -- help me here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The answer I got was four months would be spent in the library system, and six months in the park and recs, approximately. And since this is a position that may or may not end up being a position, and because it doesn't require any specific technical training, I think it is an ideal candidate for a recap position. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. Dollar-wise how will that change, or will it change this at all? MR. JONES: About 30 percent. That is about what the branch is running. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it will drop to about 16,0007 MR. JONES: Yes, Ma'am, in that range. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Jones, 3,661 hours and 105 volunteers that you speak of in this handout, is that only for the main library? MR. JONES: That is just headquarters at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you have 350 volunteers system-wide estimated? MR. JONES: System-wide, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the average time that a volunteer devotes in a year or a week? MR. JONES: 10 to 15 hours a week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 10 to 15 hours a week? MR. JONES: I'll say 10 -- well, again, that is one of those questions I don't have the data in front of me. I would say it breaks in at two cadres. Half of our volunteers probably give 10 or 15 hours a week. Of those half about 20 percent are year-round volunteers. The other half are the ones who give 2 to 4 hours. They come in, and they're the ones, for example, for this year that did book mending. We actually taught them how to mend and clean up books. So we have two different groups. There is a group that is less than 10. About half of the group is 10 to 15. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I'm just doing some quick mental calculations really. You're talking somewhere between a 100- and 125,000 hours a year. Roughly speaking, 350 people times X number of hours times X number of weeks. MR. JONES: I was referring actually during the season. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Only during season. MR. JONES: If I didn't write down -- for example, we have in the library during the month of like June probably four to five volunteers. These are local residents, and they literally give us 20 hours a week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just can't help but think if when we develop a volunteer coordinator position to manage, hopefully, 350 volunteers, they would be able to expand what they are doing out to cover all 350 volunteers. Whether it is a recap position or not, it doesn't matter to me. But it seems to me that 100,000 hours -- and that's what we are talking about -- is almost $1 million worth of volunteered effort. And I can't help but think that $16,000 or $25,000, whichever, is money well spent to coordinate $1 million of effort. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we have at least two votes for the recap. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it is for recap. So let's start there with the coordinator being in the recap position. And I guess when we get to parks and rec., then we're looking at the same for their volunteer coordinator. MR. JONES: It's not in their budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's all in your budget for the entire year. Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 24 is the library grant fund. For FY '96, obviously, that would be with the LSCA grant expiring, there is no fund appropriated to fill that position. The librarian is now funded from the general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? It doesn't look like there are any. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 25 is the library trust fund. This accounts from donations and bequests received from the public on behalf of the Collier County Public Library System. Overall appropriations are up 75.2 percent. The public funds are in the reserves for future use. That is a result of significant carryforward above what was anticipated in the FY '95 budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why are we building reserves like this? MR. SHYKOWSKI: It is a function of whatever comes in a given year in terms of donations, bequests, and/or I think this is -- MR. JONES: Also it is the book sale. We will expend some of that out before end of the year. But this data is gathered pretty early in the year, and we will expend some of this data out before the year is over. But just primarily when people give us money, they want us to expend it in a certain way, or this particular year shows income from the book sales that we've been having. And we will put that back into the system before the year is over. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have somewhere in here included as part of the budget, the annual .05 increase? MR. JONES: That is in the capital budget that you will see this afternoon. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That almost slipped through last year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we are increasing the books per capita. MR. JONES: The books per capita budget you will see this afternoon brings it up .05 as instructed last year by the commissioners. That is the budget -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We almost failed to do that last year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is in the capital budget though. MR. JONES: Yes, Ha'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Next one. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Let's leave the library discussion and move on to parks and recreation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Steve, you've already got your first gift. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 26 is the food service grant program. It is a separate fund -- grant fund to provide lunches at summer camp sites. Appropriations are up 49.6 percent based on actual levels actually received in FY '95 and anticipated levels for FY '96, for a total expenses of $211,900, which is entirely grant funded. MR. BRINKMAN: That provides for 16 different sites during the summer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you anticipating that this grant might go away? MR. BRINKMAN: There's always that possibility, especially with any federal funding. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So are we hearing it in the wind at this point? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are? MR. BRINKMAN: We have just heard that they are being reviewed. We haven't heard we're going to lose anything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At least not this year. MR. BRINKMAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, that looked like a quick prayer. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pages 27 through 29 is the Golden Gate Community Center. The budget spreadsheet is on page 28. Overall appropriations are up 40.9 percent. Again, this is attributable to the annualized cost of operating in the expanded facility which would be coming on-line -- MR. BRINKMAN: It's on-line now. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It is on-line now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a district funded portion CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not entirely. HR. BRINKMAN: 40 percent will be funded from the district, 60 percent from the county, and that is based on the square footage of the facility. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Expanded components of that is 15,000 of a total of 25,000 square feet of available facilities. MR. OLLIFF: We've tried to do this for just ease and sake in one cost center location, one fund rather than trying to split bills 60/40 and pay them out of two different locations, and we're doing this from the transfer end from the general fund. Everything still goes through fund 130 as a single source, but it is split. the funding does come from the taxing district and from general funds, just so we don't have to do split purchase work and all that kind of thing. We have done it this way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These capital outlays, that $136,000, that is essentially, I guess, for the old structure? MR. BRINKMAN: Actually part of that is for -- a lot of that is for the new structure as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the new structure as well? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. Roof repairs is for the old structure; replace hallway tiles in the old structure. The gym curtain for the new facility; carpeting in rooms A and B is the old; carpet new meeting rooms is in the new section; upgrade restroom facilities, electrical system -- that $30,000 is in the old section primarily. Courtyard landscaping of trees is $4,500; that's in between both the old and the new building. And the wrestling mat -- a portable PA system and the wrestling mat will be used in the new gymnasium. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: $12,0007 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $12,000 for a ping-pong table and a wrestling mat? MR. BRINKMAN: Actually it is the wrestling mat. The ping-pong table is probably $500 and the wrestling mat is $12,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what do we need the wrestling mat for? MR. BRINKMAN: That's for a number of different activities from beginning gymnastics to all sorts of various sports activities that we could have in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a fee charged for those activities? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. Host of the sports camps that are adding instructional programs we have would have a fee attached to them. It would also help us with the after-school program that will be at that location and the summer camp program. We have a hundred-plus kids for the summer camp program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How long do you anticipate the wrestling mat lasting? MR. BRINKMAN: Those normally last a number of years. I would say probably four or five at the very least. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And there will be enough use that is fee driven to pay for it? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, I would say that over the life term of that, certainly, we ought to be able to pick up the cost. MR. SHYKOWSKI: One note in terms of the original Golden Gate Community structure, the final debt service payment on the bonds which financed the initial construction will be made in FY '96. That again is supported by the taxing districts. So that is one expense that after FY '96 will disappear; that is $44,000. MR. OLLIFF: That is an important point. This is last year's service on that existing older building. Next year we will have a decision to make about the millage rate there, and there are some capital improvements that need to be made to the older side of the facility that we can't do within the millage rate, or actually lower that millage rate for that district as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Page 29, I note $2,200 for merit bonuses, and yet I haven't seen those in other budgets. Why here and not there? MR. SHYKOWSKI: They are in each individual fund at the fund level. There is a component for merit bonuses. For instance, parks and recreation that is covered through the entire -- there is a $1 amount budgeted within the county general fund. MR. OLLIFF: All of the departments that you have seen today, they have generally been in the 001 fund. This is a separate 130 fund because of the taxing district it shows up, whereas the others didn't. They will be rolled up into a 001 fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, what is the pay plan that we agreed to this year? MR. DORRILL: 3 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 3 percent. But that is not merit, is it? Or is it -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Three and a half cost-of-living, and there is a 1 percent merit component. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three and a half and one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mean to nitpick, but wasn't it 3.4, because that was what we figured out CPI was? MR. DORRILL: No. I think fiscal policy of 3 percent was prior year. Three and a half was what was approved in January -- February when we adopted the fiscal policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just two more quick questions. A $25,000 gym curtain -- and I don't know what that is -- are these improvements like this wrestling mat and this gym curtain, these are things that are provided in other parks, or would this be a Cadillac compared to the others? MR. BRINKMAN: Actually this is our first gymnasium, and we will have a gymnasium in the Immokalee facility as well, which is -- that building is just about to be finished up as well. So I'm sure that we will be looking for one for Immokalee as well. The gym curtain just goes between the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like at the Y? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They divide it by two half courts? MR. BRINKMAN: So you can divide the court into two areas and in that way you can have two different programs going on at the same time. MR. OLLIFF: We can get two rents. MR. BRINKMAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that an opaque curtain, or is it just a net? MR. BRINKMAN: It's just -- the bottom part is the curtain and the upper part is the net. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The bottom part is how high? MR. BRINKMAN: Probably -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm trying to get a feel for this. MR. BRINKMAN: Probably 10-, 15-feet high and then there is just the netting above that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $25,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they have a business that I want to go into. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next it goes to general fund, page 30? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, pages 30 through 33 are the parks general fund. MR. DORRILL: If I can, what are your intentions for lunch? I know a lot of the folks here and some of the sheriff's staff and what-not, they're anticipating the capital review, and if you are going to try to complete Mr. Olliff's division, and you're going to take a recess, we need to let these folks go now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Folks, it's quarter to twelve. I would expect that we will complete Mr. Olliff's division and take a recess. MR. DORRILL: Reconvene at one or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we need a full hour today or less? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're a little behind schedule so I would take less than one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Less. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we try to do it in a half hour. Is that too short a time? Okay. Half an hour for lunch. MR. DORRILL: Is anybody here for capital? You just need to be back here -- they said 12:30. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They say. MR. DORRILL: I won't say anything other than that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Brinkman, do you want to continue? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Overall there is a 12.3 percent increase in appropriations. That does include, however, almost $600,000 in proposed expanded services. If you look at the net total in appropriations of the current service, it is just slightly above that in the adopted budgets for FY '95, which was just short of $12.9 million. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had talked earlier in the year about the differences mowing three times a week, mowing twice a week. You give them at different levels of service. Help me again as far as safety issues on the ball fields and so on. If we go back to doing twice a week -- MR. BRINKMAN: Actually, right now we are mowing our parks once a week during the season and once every 10 days during the non-traditional mowing season, so in addition to mowing the general park areas, we are mowing athletic fields during the heavy mowing season two times per week for softball fields and three times per week for soccer fields. And that is during a seven-month season. The balance of year those are just mowed once per week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had talked during April or March, whatever it was when we were together, about taking a step back in those. Obviously, we don't want to create a situation that is dangerous for anyone playing on those fields. But we had been talking some fairly substantial numbers by stepping those back. My recollection was somewhere in the neighborhood of $600,000 by stepping that back and a few other maintenance-type items. MR. BRINKMAN: Actually, if we reduce the -- if we knock out the soccer -- the soccer fields are the areas where they need the most frequency of mowing because you have a ball that is going back and forth. So if you only mow that twice per week, you'll get a lot more interference of play. We mow those currently three times per week. We could knock that back to two times per week. There would be a little bit less active play in that respect. But soccer fields are -- we don't have a lot of those in the system, so we're not talking about -- we would be talking about maybe saving district-wide about 500 hours or 600 hours of time that then we could dedicate to something else. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that was a part of -- Mr. Olliff, help me here -- you had three or four steps, and this is what Commissioner Matthews had talked about wanting to do with all the departments is having true levels to measure. We had looked at actually stepping back one level and that was one of the things we had talked about within that level. MR. OLLIFF: Actually the thing that we looked at stepping back was actually cutting back by, I believe, it was 13 people that were in a particular package. I think 10 of those people were maintenance folks and three were rangers. So if we cut out 13 people in our budget, we would be going back to surfaces that wouldn't be necessarily safe in some instances for the public or anywhere near the level of service that we're providing now for the public. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm remembering -- I'm sorry to go -- but maybe I am remembering something completely different, and I need help from the rest of the commission. But it seems to me when we had these discussions originally, we talked about different levels of service. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there was no discussion that, my God, this is going to cause a dangerous situation. I don't recall that being said at all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish I had the memo because there are choices, and they were a question of just Cadillac versus Chevrolet. There was that kind of discussion and no discussion of danger. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No safety questions. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No safety questions. Should I go dig up the memo? I could probably find it. MR. OLLIFF: It is an issue of maintenance. The only safety issue that we talk about -- and our fields get an extreme amount of play. They get played on every single day. I mean we don't allow them to rest at all. And the only issue that we have really is dragging infields. And when you allow them to be played on, and you don't drag them after that, then you have chewed up infields where people had run with cleats on them, and you've got chunks of clay there where balls take bad bounces. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Tom, yours was the one -- yours was the only one where we were given what we thought we were going to get from every other division, which was this menu of what level of service -- what level of maintenance -- I hope we're not losing that here, because that is what I think you're asking about; isn't it? This was the one that -- MR. OLLIFF: No, we did that. We did that as part of the program budgets. You looked at three different levels of park maintenance. They were three specific levels. All we did -- we did not do anything, but what we took was our current level of maintenance and said if you want to scale it back to a lower level, here is a lower level. If you want to scale it back to a level lower than that, then here it is and then finally there is nothing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then what is the consequence of scaling it back one level? Because what Steve just said about that causing a dangerous situation is not my recollection of what was said. MR. OLLIFF: No. But I do believe that the maintenance level that you currently provide is already a lower cost per acre than any comparable county around here or any county in Southwest Florida. So I mean you're not -- I think there was a misperception that perhaps that we are providing a Cadillac level. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. But still my question, again, is what is the consequence of stepping back a level. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the savings first? What is the savings and the consequence? MR. BRINKMAN: The savings is -- it looks like $689,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is the number we were hearing. MR. BRINKMAN: It was 13 people -- 13.5 employees. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And could you describe the reduced level? MR. BRINKMAN: That would be a cut-back reducing the amount of time that the maintenance crews are out in the week during that particular time and takes that -- actually reduces by about 40 percent. This reduces by 40 percent our visiting services, so that means that everything that we do -- everything that we do out in the field is then reduced whether it's mowing or whether it's doing ball diamonds; whether it's cleaning up or picking up trash. The ranger is out patrolling the beach park areas. This reduces that availability of those folks of 13.5 people. In the maintenance area, even if we would cut back one person in each of our districts, it would cause us to fall back in our maintenance on the various fields and in the various park areas to the point where the public would start noticing that fields -- athletic fields, for example, were not done properly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it couldn't be that you guys offered us a menu that had three choices and even this first step was unacceptable. Why would you even offer us the menu? MR. BRINKMAN: Well, certain portions of that are not acceptable. In other words, the effect on athletic fields for example COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if we chose the third one, then if the first step down is a level that you're saying now is unacceptable, why did you give us three choices? MR. OLLIFF: You asked us to start at base level which is zero. So the way the program is structured, all the levels that we give you are a reduction from current all the way down to nothing. I mean the very first level, obviously, we still put it together even though I think from a public perception and from yours and from ours is unacceptable. We still put together a program package called base level for you to look at. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And two steps up from there? MR. OLLIFF: Two steps up from that. Everyone of those, I think, has major consequences. Anything that is a reduction in the current level of service -- because I'm telling you already you are maintaining it at a less than a level than any other area around. This is not a Cadillac that you've got today. But if you want to cut, you can cut. That is the cut that we proposed to you -- we showed you. Will there be an impact? Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am happy to hear -- if we're doing dollar-wise for less than other places, I am happy to hear that. But as I look around our parks, we certainly are not providing a lesser service or a lesser product than any of our neighbors. MR. BRINKMAN: But out there in the field there are a lot of services the community wishes we would provide that we don't. We simply don't have the ability to do that. And if you go to some of our smaller outlying parks, the maintenance at those is not very good. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I need to hear more specifics because as far as, gee, the ball will travel slower if I only mow a soccer field twice a week doesn't sound like a big enough consequence to warrant -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: $600,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Spending nearly well over $600,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess, Tom -- the approach we are taking is what you have said is that if we go one step down and across the board, everything suffers, things are going to get worse. Growing up in Florida, I have played softball in probably 15 counties, and I have never encountered fields as nice as the ones we have. I commend the both of you for that, because I think -- I saw grass in the infield the first time here, and I was amazed. I hadn't played on a grass infield since Little League. And I think that is great. I think we owe it to the citizens to give them that quality; it is part of what we talk about. But what this board is asking for, yes, you gave us steps and maybe parts in that step are not acceptable. What's not acceptable is reducing the rangers, because everyone knows that if we reduce the rangers we increase vandalism. Okay. So maybe reducing the rangers is not an option. But what parts of that -- maybe we don't end up at $680,000. But what parts of that -- if the ball travels a little slower, we can live with that. We are still providing a physical park that is at or better than most communities in the State of Florida, and I firmly believe that. So I personally need you to go into those individual elements and pull those out. And, yes, the quality will be a little bit lower, but it is still an acceptable or beyond acceptable quality for our citizens. I commend the job you are doing. But what we're saying is if there is any room for additional cuts that do not degrade the parks beyond the point, that is acceptable. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And may I just add to that? Commissioner Matthews, didn't I understand that this was going to be our program budgeting example? And isn't there an incentive in that process that maybe we ought to also talk about because we all love this -- this is everybody's favorite department in the county. It is the thing we are the proudest of, and it's because it runs so well that it was the one that was held up as here is where will start with true program-based budgeting that includes some incentives. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe Mr. Dorrill has said that the performance-based budgeting departments that he is proffering this year are -- did not include parks and rec; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: That is correct. I think we are going to do libraries, and the water department, and facilities management. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that the $600,000 savings that parks and rec. offered in March, they were doing what we asked them to do, but at this point it is not Mr. Dorrill's intention to offer that department in the performance-based budgeting? I've really got to say that I agree with Commissioner Hancock and, of course, I'm much older too. But I've -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that much, Bettye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. But I have never seen soccer fields and softball fields -- and never played on them in my life -- that are of the quality that we have here. And I think it is great to have the quality. But at the same time, I don't have any objection to cutting the maintenance back to the point where our citizens do say it's unacceptable. Right now we may well be maintaining those fields at a level that it's great, we like it, we appreciate it. But for $600,000 we can do a little less. I don't know what that level is, and I've got to rely on the citizens to tell me that what we are doing two months, three months, five months from now is no longer acceptable, and we want you to go back to what we had as long as they understand they're paying the tab for it. But I don't feel like we should be designing a maintenance level that is more than the citizens are willing to pay for, and we don't know that at this point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of that 689 is the three -- are the three park rangers? MR. BRINKMAN: Three of the 13 are -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dollar-wise; do you know how much that equates to? MR. OLLIFF: We would have to calculate that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Balipark figure -- $100,0007 MR. OLLIFF: Seventy-five. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seventy-five? Because I don't have any objection to maintaining three park rangers to maintain safety and minimize vandalism and minimize any trouble -- have that presence. However, I think there are a number of things that were outlined in that memo and that we've talked about some today such as the soccer fields twice a week instead of three times a week, that we can do without or we can step down -- plan it for a year from now. People come to us and say, gosh, these parks are simply unacceptable, then we can make adjustments again. But I think the vast majority of that 689 -- I'm looking as I say -- how much are the rangers? I'm looking for a dollar figure there. But I don't know if maybe it's 600 of that 689 or 550 of that 689, but I've seen an awful big chunk of that that I would like to see go away. MR. DORRILL: Taking off of both what Mr. Constantine and Mr. Hancock were saying, there is another element that each one of the program packages -- I went back and looked at the way they presented them, and they had three elements and one of them was the safety ranger, vandalism. The other one was just grass, mowing, and general turf maintenance. The third one is equally important. It is what I will call litter control. And I think if you will let us, between now and Wednesday, we can go back and take -- reduce the turf maintenance. But if you don't pick the garbage up out there every day, whether it is Little League season or soccer season, the phones are going to start ringing. I would say that you want to keep the rangers, but we need to be able to empty the trash every day as opposed to every other day. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is in the summertime are there certain facilities that -- and the answer may be no -- but in the summertime are there certain facilities that do not necessitate daily pickup maybe five days a week? MR. DORRILL: Well, I think it is going to be two-tiered. The community parks, I am going to tell you, it is absolutely necessary that we do that, especially as those kids are playing Little League or Babe Ruth or American Legion. At the -- what is the name of the -- MR. BRINKMAN: Lutz neighborhood park. MR. DORRILL: There at Lutz neighborhood park, I'm going to tell you, yeah, we could probably let it go every other day. And at the same time we can probably step down the turf maintenance county-wide and so. We need to have a hybrid program package here is what I think I hear you saying. And I think we can do that between now and Wednesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that also -- I remember reading in that level of service was 689 that perhaps restroom maintenance would be reduced. I don't think that is a good idea to reduce restroom maintenance. But I don't know. It's your package, and I really believe that there has to be a way here to cut costs. MR. OLLIFF: And, frankly, if it's cost reductions that you're looking for, when we went through the budget review at the manager's office, the major discussion that we focussed in on was the neighborhood parks. And there are a number of neighborhood parks that you have probably never seen. They are very, very small maintenance intensive kind of parks. They simply require a maintenance crew go out and cut the grass in those areas. And we had a very good discussion about the associations perhaps picking up the cost of those or just simply deeding that property or trying to work out some other arrangement where the counties are no longer in that neighborhood park business, because from a growth management standpoint, we made that decision six years ago that we didn't want to be in a neighborhood park business, and we probably have six or seven of those. And if we're looking for a cost reduction, that is probably the first place we would look to your staff rather than reducing the management of some of your other major facilities. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that is a great idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like that too. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom, what you first presented was a very aggressive program at setting the big dollars. What I don't want you walking away from here today with is an understanding that it is -- I don't want us to go immediately to bare bones, because I think we have a quality there that the public has come to expect. I think if we do that we are going to get an immediate, negative reaction. The people are not going to be happy. What I'm looking for is an incremental step in that direction that results in some dollar savings yet still provides a high quality park. Maybe not the highest we can provide, but if we gave you another $300,000, we could probably see even better parks. So I'm looking for an incremental step, and I don't want to lock in on that 689 number, because I think that was a drastic measure in reduction that everyone who uses these parks would see a very evident change. So I think going to that 689 may be a little too aggressive, but I would like to see at least an incremental step. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions on a couple of other things -- requested but not been recommended under the capital on page 32. I need an explanation of what these requests -- some of these requested items are. Replacement playground equipment, Coco Circle -- it says there that it is 15 years old. What is there and what problems are there with those? MR. BRINKMAN: They're just -- there is about three or four pieces of older playground equipment there. It is to the point now where it is very difficult to provide -- to get parts to service and repair that, so it's too -- it's a situation where it just needs to be removed. It is old enough to be just removed and replaced by a new play structure. MR. OLLIFF: That is one of those parks that we're talking about -- Coco Circle is one of those neighborhood parks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where is Coco Circle? MR. BRINKMAN: It is over by East Naples Middle School. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now I know where it is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that equipment in anyway in a dangerous -- I'm just thinking out loud -- but if we had 15-year old equipment that is in ill-repair and we are having trouble maintaining it, it's only going to take one kid to make up that $50,000 -- one kid getting hurt to make up that $50,000. MR. OLLIFF: What actually ends up happening is we end up cannibalizing equipment as it becomes dangerous, and it just comes out of service. We did the same thing in Marco. As a slide gets bad we just simply take the slide out and it is no longer there and pretty soon you are left with not much. And that is probably what we will end up doing in this case. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This was part of that broader discussion that was conducted with the county manager in terms of should we be in the neighborhood park business any longer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the area around, for instance, Coco Park -- Coco Circle Park -- is that a deed restricted area where the homeowners' association might be willing to take over the ownership and maintenance? MR. OLLIFF: I'm not even sure there is an association. In fact, I would venture to guess that there probably is not. MR. DORRILL: There is. I think this is a community where Mary Morgan and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that is Flamingo Estates. MR. DORRILL: Is Coconut Circle the one back to the west from there? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Flamingo is deed restricted. I don't believe Coco Circle is. MR. DORRILL: If you're asking me is there an active homeowners' association there, my inclination is probably not anymore than the same being true -- we have an almost identical situation at Poinciana Village -- same sort of thing. It is part of the original subdivision. They had a small neighborhood park. It was conveyed to the County Commissioners as opposed to a homeowners' association. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But Poinciana has a representative on the second district association, so they have some sort of a group. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They do have one. MR. DORRILL: In some instances there are and then there are other neighborhood parks -- there is one -- MR. OLLIFF: Palm Springs, one in Immokalee -- MR. DORRILL: Oil Grade. MR. OLLIFF: Oil Well Grade. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's not try to solve this today. I think that we've heard enough commissioners say that perhaps the neighborhood parks ought to go to resident associations and so forth to take over maintenance on them. MR. DORRILL: We're evaluating that, or at least evaluating vacating them and creating some type of homeowners' agreement for purposes of their then owning and operating neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a good idea. MR. DORRILL: At a minimum there would always be the opportunity to create a taxing district for that particular community that would benefit through them -- a little neighborhood park that they would own, and the county would maintain it, but we would maintain it through some tiny little piece of millage that would support that neighborhood park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a way to get a ballpark number on what these neighborhood parks maintenance and capital outlays are? I think that might save a lot of money, but we need to know what the number is. MR. DORRILL: These are operating capital items that either individually -- there is one here for sod, because I may have combined all of the various sodding proposals. You will see the major parks capital improvement this afternoon. These are operating capital items less than $25,000 -- $50,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is no interest in doing anymore with that? Again, I'm just thinking out loud. I would hate to have us have a kid get hurt and spend $50,000 paying off an injury rather than simply paying $50,000 to fix -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what we heard is if the potential for injury looks apparent, that the piece will be removed instead of remaining in place. So rather than spending $50,000 -- appropriating $50,000 to update a park that we're trying to phase out of the system, just continuing to remove those pieces may be our only option at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then to speak with the resident associations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than our discussions here today, I didn't realize we had a set a policy to phase them out of the system other than what I've heard in the last three minutes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, but I think it is a good idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other questions -- site lighting system improvements at Frank Hackle and at Lutz Park; what was proposed for that? MR. BRINKMAN: That would enhance both of those locations as far as additional light poles and with FP&L and some additional site planning that we would buy. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tell you why -- MR. DORRILL: It is lighting as opposed to athletic fields -- like it would be in the parking lot or these would be regular street lamp types. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you why it appeals. I don't know what the deal is at Frank Hackle, and there may or may not be -- how much the necessity is there, but at Lutz Park last year the county did, I think, about $85,000 in improvements. There is occasionally -- particularly in the evening a problem there. I have worked for the sheriff's department to increase patrols in the area. I would think just simply to protect our own investment that we just put in, in the last 12 months, it might be worthwhile to have lighting for safety purposes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. We have started to see a little bit of that down at Frank Hackle, and it is not very well lit, frankly. It is pretty dim down there at night even in the parking lot. So I am sure this will be a welcome addition to that park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're talking about this external building, lighting, and parking lot lighting. MR. OLLIFF: At Frank Hackel in particular, I think we're looking at lighting around the walkway, around the lake where there are no lights now. I think we have had some requests from the folks that they can't use it once it gets cool, when they would like to walk by the lake there. And at Lutz it was primarily driven by a community neighborhood watch program that asked for some increased security measures there in terms of some fencing and some additional police patrols and some lights. This was the last phase of that. Those are the improvements. We already put in some of the fencing and some of things that were requested. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we table that for reconsideration at wrap-up based on what numbers we see coming back from parks and rec. on reductions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would like to see lighting to enhance safety -- for enhanced safety at parking facilities. I think it just should be done. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I'm just -- how far do you go? You know, if I had run around I could probably find some parking lots that could use some extra lighting too, and I'm trusting their judgment. I'm just saying let's not commit to an expenditure until -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't extra external lighting. I think there's like one or two lights at the entire area of Lutz Park right now, and if you go by at night it is virtually black there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not arguing the need at all. What I am saying is let's not do -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I hear a third vote down there for the item at the end of the dias? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Concede. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's bring the lighting up to what is reasonable safety standards and if it is $30,000 to do that -- MR. OLLIFF: Is there a budget wrap-up meeting today? MR. DORRILL: This Wednesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, Wednesday. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this the parks and rec.'s segment or are we discussing each parking phase? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, it is. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next budget highlight after the requested but not recommended item under capital is -- staff has brought forth a beach parking program from which Collier County residents would be exempt, therefore, the remittance to the City of Naples for the beach parking program is not budgeted. There is a note on the budget spreadsheet that would budget $174,000, and it is shown as zero on page 31. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I did notice that, but my question is: Where are we in the direction that we're moving on this? Has the board already given direction to go ahead finally with that or where are we? MR. OLLIFF: At your direct program budget reviews, there were three commissioners that told us that if we could bring back a program that did not charge parking fees to county residents, that that is the direction they wanted to go. And so this budget -- in fact, our entire division has been writing that program, basically. That program -- this budget is built on that program. So it is -- there is a memo that I provided to you in advance of this budget that tries to highlight where we were with that program, the steps. Right now it is proposed as a $3 fee, free for county residents, generally under the same type of residency requirements. The City of Naples has a sticker car-type of program. And the only outstanding issue that I really need some direction on is that payment to the City of Naples for that beach parking fee program participation that we have with them. The idea as it is proposed is that we don't continue that agreement simply because our fee to the city is provided so that county residents can be provided free beach parking inside the city. I'm assuming that if you go to a beach parking fee program, that you will want to provide free parking to the city residents in the county. So I would assume that we are going to try to work that out towards a mutual agreement, no charge either way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have an immediate question on that. Is this funded from general funds county-wide? Well, I'm not sure that we can -- somebody tell me. But the city residents are already paying their share for this. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of years ago -- a year and a half ago, maybe two years, you issued a report on beach parking fees that showed at $3. We would just about almost, I think, break even with the expenditure of paying someone to collect those and so on and so forth. Since then you have issued a report that shows that we can make money doing this. I don't think the one three years ago even contemplated that our own people would get in for free. I think it charged everyone. I'm wondering what happened in the last couple of years to change the projection? If it would -- the beach parking areas only hold X number of people, even though we have more people here, surely there aren't -- the numbers aren't that much greater than that actually attending the beach. MR. OLLIFF: A couple of things, and I think Steve can elaborate on some details, but I think we actually have increased both your available parking spaces. You haven't presently told us to go out and try and increase your beach parking spaces that are available. I think we've been doing that at a clip of better than 200 a year. the number of people that are actually able to go to the beaches has increased, plus our attendance numbers are going through the roof. The tourism, generally, statewide is down. But in Collier County it's generally up. And we certainly see that our beach numbers -- in fact, our numbers -- they're based strictly -- the report that was done three years ago is based strictly on car counters and so is this update that was done strictly on car counters. I think three years ago the rate was just over -- between $2 and $3 was a break even point. But in this particular program -- and I think this was a little more staff intensive as well. I think the commission at that time wanted to see us staffing more parking lots than we are under this proposal. We are only staffing two lots under this proposal, so our costs are a little lower. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the difference then is greater usage than was proposed? MR. BRINKMAN: Greater usage and a lot more parking spaces that we do have available to the public. MR. DORRILL: We have added probably 150 extra parking spaces. And also the other thing he said, he's not rehiring parking lot attendants -- that we get a mechanism to go to some automated-type turnstile where you have to feed money into a device in order to get through the turnstile. So he's getting I don't know how many former parking lot attendants did we employ but either on an annual basis. MR. BRINKMAN: Actually there were quite a few. We're proposing in this scenario to hire some attendants at the two busiest beaches because those are the two most hectic. So we would like to hire attendants at Tiger Tail and at the Preserve. But everything else will be master-metered very much like Lee County has master-metered some of their areas, particularly the ones at Barefoot that is along Bonita Springs Road. So we would use that same type of system for the collection of the fees. People would pull in, go to the master meter, get a ticket out of the meter, put it in their windshield of their car. Our rangers would be patrolling the area and check for that ticket in the windshield of the car. If you have it you are able to park for a whole day. Now, in addition, we would work out for Collier County residents -- we would work out a permit that you would purchase very much like you do currently with the City of Naples, and you would display that on your bumper and thereby be able to park at no charge at any of our locations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say purchase a permit? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. We would have a permit that you could pick or you would be able to get at all of our different community centers and our administrative offices. There would probably be no cost for it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At no cost? MR. BRINKMAN: Unless the board wanted to charge a token fee for it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a couple of things that I think we need to take a better look at. The nonpayment to the city or to stop paying for county residents to park in the city, what that in essence is going to do is probably increase the burden on the county spaces outside of the city. A lot of the people that live in the unincorporated area go get their permits now, park down via city slots. So, I think, one, by not participating in that, we are, in fact, going to make a much greater taxing of all of our county spaces outside of the city. That is one thing we need to consider. There's already availability problems during season anyway. The second element is something that I discussed with Councilman Pennington. He suggested that there may be rather than creating all these new places for people to come pick up permits, that the city would continue to issue those city and county permits. Now the council hasn't discussed that, but it was an idea that Councilman Pennington and I talked about, and it may have some merit. It seems to me that we may want to keep both programs alive. If we are going to provide beach parking for county residents, to withdraw from the city program and overtax our own areas when they are already somewhat insufficient in size, it may not be a good move on our part. We may be creating more of a problem. So I think that is worth taking a look at. And I do want to make sure when we talk about issuing permits, we're not talking about purchasing. Again, I don't want county taxpayers paying again for facilities that they have already paid for. MR. OLLIFF: I think Steve was obligated to mention that because your parks and rec. advisory board suggested they charge a nominal fee to handle the administrative cost of issuing the actual parking fee sticker, but that has been mentioned to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need a primer -- a base-line explanation about what you are talking about with cancelling the city beach program. Could you just explain that from scratch for me? MR. OLLIFF: We have an interlocal agreement in place between the county and the city. When the city instituted their beach parking fee program, it was free to city residents. And because there is almost an 80/20 -- I think -- number that they have in terms of the local residents who use city beaches that are from the county as opposed to living within the city, they felt it only fair that for the administration of their program for the beach parking patrols that they pay for, that the county ought to support a portion of that expense. So we have an interlocal agreement where this year I believe, Steve, correct me, we're going to pay about $175,0007 MR. BRINKMAN: $177,000. MR. OLLIFF: Okay -- $177,000 to the city this year that allows in return all county residents be able to go to any city beach and park at those spaces designated for free. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that all makes sense to me. But it doesn't make sense to me to eliminate that participation when we're funding ours -- the funds that we're looking at includes the incorporated area. So if you -- do I understand? Am I right about this? 001 is the whole county -- MR. BRINKMAN: County-wide. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- includes the city. So why would we eliminate a program that -- well, take me to the next step. So now you're proposing eliminating that program and -- MR. OLLIFF: -- and allowing city residents to park at county beaches for free. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you are using funds -- it is a county-wide fund to do this, so city people are paying twice? MR. OLLIFF: Which funds am I using? I'm lost. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The general 001. MR. OLLIFF: This program would be supported by beach parking fees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But were the facilities built with funds from the general fund? In other words, did the city residents pay taxes that went to construct these facilities? MR. DORRILL: Not out of the general fund. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what you're getting at? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my question, yeah. MR. OLLIFF: It all depends on the project. In some cases they were funded out of the impact fees and some cases out of voter registration and improvement trust funds. And in a lot of cases general fund monies were used to purchase and develop the beach parking lot that you have; yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess what I don't understand is why doesn't it make sense to just continue having the two programs work in tandem? MR. OLLIFF: Well, right now we are paying for an estimated attendance at the beaches of county residents. I guess if we're going to do that equitably, we will have to turn around and try and estimate what are the city resident's usage of county beaches and work out some sort of a funding arrangement with the city, in which case, we pay them, they pay us. We were hoping that maybe just from an administration standpoint, it would be a little easier for nobody to pay nobody and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See I'm afraid that we would find out that we would be paying more, because I'm afraid that city residents don't often use county beaches, that they have too many more convenient beach accesses. So if we did this trade, I'm afraid we would lose. So it seems to me that we should keep it like it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How would we lose? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we had to pay them for county -- for the percentage. Right now we are paying based on the county residents. 80 percent of the use of city beach accesses is by county residents and if we try to do a balance that was measured by how many city residents use county parks, I think we would find that very few city residents use county parks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that the formula that you were suggesting, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: If we're going to pay them, they pay us -- then, yes, that is the type of formula I guess you would have to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if instead we abolished the program, we would be just sort of saying you use ours, we use yours and nobody pays anybody. Has anybody talked to the city about what their reaction would be to that? MR. OLLIFF: No, I wanted to talk to you first. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's certainly something we need to find out is how receptive they're going to be to us in terminating the program, and they're having that cooperative agreement if we do come up with a cooperative agreement where each area allows the other to park free. We surely should move to a single sticker rather than having two stickers on a car. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is a suggestion that we need to look into. And if under any circumstances that we work out a cooperative parking agreement between the county and the city, we should come up with a single sticker so the people don't end up with multiple stickers all over their car. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I would like to know more of the reason, Mr. Olliff, that you feel we should drop the payment to the city and why you feel that these -- that the residents in this city have not necessarily participated in the construction and maintenance. MR. OLLIFF: We are not paying for construction and maintenance. All we are doing is paying for operating costs for their beach parking program. So it has nothing to do with how much we originally paid to acquire or develop any of our parks or theirs. They're simply saying that we have the cost of whether it be a $100,000 or $200,000 for our people to go collect from the meters, to issue the tickets, to empty the trash at the beach parks; that is our operating costs for our beach parks. County, you ought to bear a portion of that because a portion of your people are in the city and not only are the city residents going to pay for that. I agree with that. I think that is good concept. It may work out that it simply ends up being a reduction in the amount of contributions to the city in order to allow the city residents to use the county beach for free. I think there are some other alternatives that we can look at. But somebody needed to kick this ball off the hill, and I went ahead and proposed something so we had at least -- so I could get some discussion with you, and you could tell me where it is that you want to go with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It just seems to me that the operating cost -- the same operating cost that you are talking about that the city is having -- and I'm not saying yea or nay, I just want more information -- but the same operating cost the city is talking about are costs that the county is incurring somewhat right now even though we're not collecting parking fees. And because those parks are funded from the general fund and ad valorem tax, the city residents are right now paying that fee whether they use the parks or not. So I don't know what the mix is going to be, but it seems to me we need more information on whether it is a reduction or what, I don't know. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many beach parking spaces do we have? MR. BRINKMAN: Ten sixty-four. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? MR. BRINKMAN: 1,064. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those are full -- on average throughout the year, how much of that is full every day? During the season, obviously, they are full every day -- like today they are not full. MR. BRINKMAN: It just depends on the location. Each location is a little bit different. Tiger Tail normally on a year-round basis has a very high percentage of people that use that. So the Preserve, again, is another beach area that a lot of folks use, Vanderbilt not so much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just doing the math here and I think that you're figuring -- well, let me go back before I get into that. How many of those 800 or 1,000 people every day are residents, and how many are visitors to our area? Do we have a breakdown of that? MR. BRINKMAN: That varies too. Generally during the season there is about 20 percent residents and about 80 percent folks from outside of the county. MR. OLLIFF: The numbers range anywhere from 80 to 85 percent being out of the county. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about in the summertime? MR. OLLIFF: Much, much lower. I don't know what that number is. I can go look at the month-to-month for you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you where I am going with this, because if the park is full every single day, year-round, 365 days a year, all of them -- I don't think they are -- but if they are, and it's 80 percent always from noncounty residents -- and I don't think that's always the case -- but if that's it every single day, 365 days a year, then that is roughly 855 vehicles every single day from out of county that are in there -- which, coincidentally, times $3 times 365 comes up to the amount $938,000 you're saying we will take in revenue. I'm suggesting that it's not going to be 365 days, every single day, 365 days a year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But there is multiple parking. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it is not going to be particularly when you get into Hay, June, July, August, and September -- it's not going to be anywhere close to 855 for people outside of the county. So I am wondering if that 938,000 isn't a little optimistic as far as what we'll actually generate. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I shed a little light on that? Perhaps, I think the one element in that -- in your math that you may have omitted is that you're assuming that one parking place is filled in the morning, and the car remains there all day long, which is not the case. People continually come and go throughout the day, especially during the season. The parking spaces will be used multiple times. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, how then did we arrive at 855? There has to be some formula, obviously. In the winter -- you're right -- there is going to be three or four cars and in the summertime there's not going to be any. MR. BRINKMAN: We basically looked at Lee County and averaged the amount of money they were taking in per space. And we used that average for some of our locations that at Tiger Tail we knew that we were going to beat that average and at the Preserve we knew we were going to beat that average. So those two locations, we did increase the revenue a little bit more. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how much is it going to cost annually to do this? I see a number here a 198 -- MR. BRINKMAN: The first year of operating is 323,500. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When are we going to adopt that? I know your budget is based on this assumption and so that is very important, but what is the timing for adopting this plan? MR. OLLIFF: That is the other issue I need to bring to your attention and get some direction from you. I need some -- the ability to be able to bring this to you before October, because we are basing our budget on it. I need to have it in place come October, which means I need to be here somewhere this summer asking for approval to go out and buy parking meters -- master meters -- hire the people that we do have on staff in order to be able to do that. I'm looking at probably late July or August kind of a time frame. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds essential. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm probably in a minority here, but our beaches are probably the single most attractive and most enjoyable recreational activity we have here. Regardless of whether it's residents or not, I think it should be open to everyone at no cost. Mother Nature provides it. Our tourists are already paying for the renourishment and the maintenance through the TDC funds, so hit them up for another $3 or hit them again. And it seems to me that the beaches, Mother Nature's recreational activity, ought to be for free. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. I agree that they should be for free. We're just talking about the parking lots -- providing parking lots for people and charging them for using them. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's kind of tough to walk to the beaches in Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like to throw out -- Commissioner Hancock, you had more comments? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to say I would like to see this come back to us with more detail on discussions with the city. I am with Commissioner Mac'Kie in that I don't think we should abolish the payment to the city. I think we need to talk to them and work out what that amount is either going to be or reduced to. If we can eliminate it, great. But I don't see that being an agreeable position. I would like to continue to participate in the city's program, because I think it takes some strain off of the county parks, off county parking spaces, which frees them up for more people who have to pay the $3 a day. And I would like to see that agreement worked out, flushed out, and that's really the direction I would like to see this take. Because I think the parking fee program is a good idea providing county residents do not pay additional funds. I would like to see it move ahead. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I think we should also make a decision on this, because we keep talking about whether we're going to do it, not going to do it, we're not going to do it, we are going to do it. We need -- as Mr. Olliff says -- we need to, as a commission, give him some direction fairly shortly and not only that, not only for his purposes, but we need to let the city know if we're going to go forward with this and make those arrangements. So I think -- I would like to suggest that we bring this back as reasonably soon as Mr. Olliff can with the information that we require with the discussions with the city and so forth and make a decision on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just going to ask this board if we wanted to give Mr. Olliff direction to go and negotiate with the city whatever it is that we need to negotiate in order to make the package fair and to come back to this board at the soonest with a proposal on how the entire program ought to work and what the cost will be and estimated revenues. Now, the point I would like to bring up is the excess revenues from this project. Mr. Olliff, right now is estimating a little over $200,000 annual expense after the first year and $900,000 in revenues. Got about $700,000 there, and, frankly, I would like to see this board dedicate that $900,000 to additional -- the $700,000, I'm sorry, to additional parking, because as our population swells, we're going to need more parking and I for one think if we're going to charge for parking, we should take that money and enhance the parking that we do have and acquire additional -- not only land but perhaps purchase right-of-ways to the beaches that may or may not exist that we can purchase. I'm not interested in condemnation, but if we have a willing seller, then perhaps we can buy another beach access point and use these funds to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's a good idea, but we need to see what those funds are going to be after it is all said and done. So I don't know that I'm ready to take that specific direction today. But, obviously, any revenues generated from this, I feel comfortable that earmarking the greater portion for additional beach parking. We're going to have an increased demand that we need to meet. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. MR. OLLIFF: I think you need to let your budget office tell you the impact of a decision like that. I think the amount of money that we're dealing with is actually enough that it trips -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the general fund we are at this point -- $644,000 below the rollback rate. In the aggregate we are basically at rollback due to MSTU-driven tax increases such as Pelican Bay requesting additional security and some of the road districts -- we accelerated the road resurfacing program, et cetera. So in aggregate, we would be adverting a tax increase as part of our -- in between our two public hearings. But your general fund would be -- still be slightly below the rollback rate. Your tax increase would be driven again by MSTU-type activities; road resurfacing, Pelican Bay requesting additional security, et cetera, so you're aware of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that relate to this $700,0007 MR. DORRILL: It doesn't really relate to the $700,000 now. It is a two-fold issue. This budget was predicated on having about $600,000 net and it's parking fees going to the general fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Which helps offset some of the other additional expanded services. MR. DORRILL: We will need to evaluate if we reestablish the 170-some-odd thousand dollar payment to the city, whether we can still -- when the trim notices go out are we still going to be able to say that both in the general fund and the unincorporated area fund that we're below the rollback rate? However, if we get too close in one, we run the risk of having to advertise an aggregate millage increase in our legal notice, which is something we would prefer not to do, because it is very poorly understood by the public. It is very easily misperceived because when we look at the aggregate millage rates, that is a formula that we used for all the funds, all the millages in order to properly notice the public as to what not only the general fund increases were or decrease is, but what is the aggregate millage rate. And because of some increases in some of the road districts and a big increase in Pelican Bay -- but, obviously, only people in Pelican Bay are paying that -- but because of the aggregate formula basis, we would prefer to recommend to you that we do whatever we can not to have to advertise an aggregate millage increase over last year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if we're $600,000 below that point right now -- is that what I heard him say? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's what the general fund is. But in aggregate we are basically at that point now. MR. DORRILL: We will need to determine if we're going to add $170,000 back into the budget to keep our payment level with the city, we need to determine what the impact of that is on aggregate millage rates county-wide. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that also take into consideration the other cuts we made this morning? Obviously, it doesn't take into consideration the parks and rec. $600,000. MR. DORRILL: We would need to evaluate that. And I'm thinking we're probably going to come back just -- off the top of my head -- with probably $300,000 to $350,000 worth of cuts in parks and rec. to reduce the mowing schedule. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that would more than offset the 100 or whatever the contractual arrangement is we made with the city. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would hope it is more than we could do than simply offset it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would hope so too. But perhaps that is all that we can do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The problem is Ms. Matthews suggestion has a lot of merit. At this point since this money has already been built into this year's budget, I would prefer not to earmark it at all, but I think we have gone a little bit too far in the budget process to make a point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may be better off looking at a year of service of this and seeing where we are in order to then make proper allocations, because if we fall a little short of that, we don't want to abolish that altogether. It's a point worth considering. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The problem, though, is if we go in the direction that Commissioner Norris is offering, and I want to offer to this board that we are in the process and part of our budgetary problems right now are as a result of a former county commission -- should be running from one part of the budget to another part of the budget, because they didn't want to face the music, so to speak, of having a minor millage increase and continually shifting money -- that we are where we are right now -- in Mr. Cuyler's words, we are where we are as a result of that shifting, and we're now having to shift it back. So I would like to ask this board when Mr. Olliff comes back with it that we make a real concerted effort not to get used to having that $700,000, whatever it may be, in a general fund; that we do allocate it to a specific use. $700,000 in a millage on $16 billion worth of appraised value is not a great deal of money. And I would prefer that we not get terribly used to that. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just to dovetail on that in the rationale is that I'm supportive of the concept of user fees is that it would be just that -- not that it would be a revenue source for general fund kinds of expenses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Evidently, I think we should see at least a portion of those proceeds go towards any payment to the city because that is in essence a maintenance function. So if we do continue to pay to the city, any proceeds from beach parking should go in that direction so that doesn't come out of general funds. That is what you are paying for beach parking fees provided that we all accept it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suggest that we need to make a policy decision on that, but we don't need to do that now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we need to base that on the discussion we had a few minutes ago for wrap-up. Staff needs to know when Mr. Olliff brings this back if we're going to dedicate the excess funds to purchasing beach access and/or beach parking, because we've got to make a decision for the trim notices. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my suggestion then would be that since we have just heard of this now, we probably shouldn't make policy especially since there is no public input here in the budget hearings. I think that is a public hearing, a public policy. I think if we have to set that 700 aside without having it dedicated by Wednesday, so be it. But I think we all need to be aware that, yes, we're going to set a policy, but only it has to be done in 48 hours. MR. OLLIFF: But when you're thinking about that policy -- far be it for me to complicate things worse, but I know a lot of business -- you know what other counties are doing. There are a lot of counties here that are supporting their entire beach operation cost through their tourist development tax monies and using beach fees for completely other things, whether it be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The other counties are dedicated to the renourishment project, and it appears that it's going to be for awhile. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other comment I would just -- $700,000 you say out of a $16 billion tax base, but the fact is that it is almost seven-tenths of a mil in our general ad valorem. So its almost .7, I'm sorry .07. But it does have an impact as we try to lower that thousand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It has an impact, but we have to look at the policy -- the quality of life issues for this county and taking that money and using it to acquire additional access for parking increases the quality of life with the entire county. But, anyway, let's move on. It's a decision that we can't make right now, because this is a workshop. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lack of food is having an impact on me. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That decision will need to be made though in terms of adopting a proposed millage rate, which we typically do during the third week in July. We have to notify the property appraiser of the intended millage rate for purposes of preparation of the trim bills, just so you are clear on that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is just so everybody can count their votes. I am not going to support group management in general revenue funds. That is one more time that the board will be doing the wrong thing to give the right impression, which is a misimpression. I want that to stay as a dedicated source. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as long as we're going to continue to talk about this for another 20 minutes -- we pay for all of our parks and rec. time out of the general fund right now. It is a money loser, if you will. So -- no, that is just the way recreational activities are designed, they're not supposed to make money. But if we can help offset some of our recreational -- I don't think we should have a beach parking fee, but if we're going to, and we're going to generate revenues through it, I don't have any problem with those offsetting recreational costs against the benefit of having it if you're going to have it. MR. OLLIFF: We do that throughout the department. This would not be a first or anything. Recreational programs in many cases -- we will collect more than that actual program to help offset some of the other -- you know, maintenance makes no money. So we would try, where we can, to make money for the department so as -- we're looking at the whole department's cost. We're trying, you know, we had told you our long-term goals, trying to generate 50 percent of the operating costs -- that revenue -- this was a major step in that direction. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Even with the beach parking we budget as proposed for the general fund, the net cost of general revenue is still almost three and a half million of a total five and a half billion in appropriations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ready to move on? All right. Next one I think is page 34. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I hang back? I had one more question on 33? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We actually haven't gone through the expanded services on page 33 that we need to address. I'll run through them quickly. Besides the beach parking, there is $16,000 for the telephone registration system. This would allow the people who are failing to register, who physically can't drive to remote park locations, to register. $124,800 for maintenance of the East Naples and Pine Ridge Middle School sites. That is proposed as a six-month phase in. $28,900 for one additional park ranger position. That will control community parks for athletic events held in the evening. There is also $65,700 budgeted for a park program leader, one position, to assist in organizing softball league activities and athletic camps. The cost of this program is offset by athletic fee programming. It was also an item that was requested by staff and recommended by the manager for part-time employees to reserve tennis courts and collect revenues for court usage on light fees at community parks in the evenings. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question was if the city gets that, it's such a -- it makes money and we're paying for it. But that money for the court could also be a wash like the sixty-five seven is? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, it is a wash. In fact -- and the reason we were trying to propose this in the first place is, one, for the convenience of the people who want to schedule court time. But more than that for us, it was to put a body in the community parks at night. We simply don't have anyone in the parks. We have like 35 acres of land without a staff person at all and we have a certain exposure there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if that is a wash, Mr. Dotrill, and the sixty-five seven is also a wash, how did you come to not recommending the tennis and to recommend the softball? MR. DORRILL: The primary concern that I had was that there was a major philosophical change. The only place where we currently have tennis recreational fees is at your tennis complex on Marco Island, which rates as a stand-alone, frankly, tennis club. Mr. Olliff's statement that we have no one in the community parks in the evenings is not correct. We have one individual who is there but needs to leave the community center building in order drive and go around within the park district. Frankly, I could not get resolved in my own mind that kid that comes or rides his bike or walks to the community park who may not have four bucks an hour to play tennis but wants to come bang the ball around with his friend is not going to be served through this, and I just thought at some point we've become so fee focussed that we lose a little sight of that perspective. And, frankly, the area of concern is the Pelican Bay community park. So many of the tennis playing patrons there think that the courts are being damaged or not properly supervised or they want to be able to call ahead and get a court time. And I just couldn't get the satisfaction that the kid is going to be able to ride his bike over from Naples Park to play tennis with his buddies unless he calls and makes a reservation with the court pro. And I had more questions then I had time to get answers to, so I didn't feel compelled to recommend it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with some of what you said. The main difference to me comes in Pelican Bay where we have the hard clay surface. That is maintenance intensive. It is costly -- so does Marco Island -- and we have fee structure there. My line of differentiation is where we have a surface that requires that kind of maintenance, I think a fee basis is a good idea, because we are providing better than standard asphalt court. However, to charge fees to use an asphalt court is a little -- to me -- goes beyond what is reasonable. We used to have meters for the lights. Those things, I think, went the way of the dinosaurs did. They didn't work very well. We don't have the kid and his buddies or young lady and her friends going over to play tennis generally at 9 p.m. at night as much as you do during the day and in the summer. So the only way in which I am going to support fees is for those in which there are special conditions such as a hard clay court or where we have a lighting expense that is costing us a significant drain, and there is a feasible way in which to collect funds for that. But other than that when the folks -- these folks paid for these parks already. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me comment. The privatization task force, I believe, tonight is going to be looking at a proposal to provide a tennis program at Pelican Bay facility and based on what their recommendation is to this board, we will have the opportunity to talk about it once again. So if you want to wait for their recommendation -- I'm sure whatever comes up will be revenue neutral as far as the county is concerned. The proposer of this is looking for a contractual arrangement to charge fees for lessons as well as on the court time. Next. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On page 34 and 35 is the parks recreation department. This is the portion that is paid through the unincorporated area general funds. Overall you've got a 22.6 percent increase in appropriations. Principally a function of the cost of the Immokalee pool rec. center. For example, a 51.8 percent increase in personal services. There is an outline as well of the budget capital outlay for the $117,000, principally, replacement-type equipment. Again, there was an Airport Park picnic pavilion that was not recommended in the same analogy of that in the general fund is for neighborhood parks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is the Airport Park at Immokalee? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another picnic pavilion? MR. BRINKMAN: Picnic pavilion, right. MR. DORRILL: But not recommended. Just longer term budget issues. The only significant comment here is that the unincorporated area fund is drawing in a fairly significant rate because of your investment in parks and rec. activities and the support of the sheriff's road patrol in Immokalee. But, frankly, the problem that I have with it is that philosophically people on Marco Island are paying to support the park and rec and sheriff's patrol activity in Immokalee, but the people of Park Shore are not. The people in Pelican Bay are paying in support of the parks and sheriff's patrol in Immokalee, but the people in Port Royal are not. And as the unincorporated area fund grows because of your investment in Immokalee, the people inside the City of Naples are not paying for those activities. And I think, not this year, but some year, as we see increasing costs to maintain county service in Immokalee or expanded costs for gymnasiums and now aquatic complexes and a growing cost for the sheriff's road patrol in Immokalee, you're going to have to look at putting those activities into the general fund recognizing that some sort of unique inability for Immokalee to pay for those costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand those concerns. I'm not sure what we can do with it now other than to ask the county manager to meet with the city manager and to ask Commissioner MAc'Kie, the liaison to this board, to meet with mayor and initiate some discussions that might lead to folding this back or at least a portion of it back into the general fund. And the reasoning for that is the entire county supports the operation in Immokalee that the citizens there work all over the county and that happens to be their home. But I agree with Mr. Dotrill that if not all, a portion of this fund should be folded back in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: These are certainly discussions that I think we'll hear, but there is some give and take both ways that need -- MR. DORRILL: So just real quick -- it is a longer term issue, and when we proposed it the way that we have this year in order to keep on target. Is that it, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is it for public services, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Brinkman. Thank you Mr. Olliff. We're ready for lunch. Commissioner Constantine has said that he has an appointment for lunch which is going to require a full hour, and he want's to be present for the capital budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, they just wandered away. I guess they gave up. So if you want to go half an hour then we can do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right, so let's meet back here at 1:30. (A lunch recess was taken from 12:55 p.m. until 1:51 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the budget workshop for -- what is this -- the 19th? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 19th. MR. FINN: MAdam Chairman, for the record, Edward Finn with the budget office. Capital projects start on page one. Just to give you a quick overview of what we are going to look at today, we're going to look at the countywide 301 projects which are primarily funded through a transfer from the general fund; we're going to look at library projects which are funded partially from the general fund and partially from impact fees; we're going to look at airport authority projects which are funded partially from general fund transfers and partially from grants; water management projects which are funded primarily through a transfer from the general fund; museum projects, again, a transfer from the general fund; parks projects, transfer from the general fund and parks impact fees; and road projects, primarily gas taxes and road impact fees. On page i-A, by board policy, the funding available from the general fund to support capital projects is approximately $7.6 million. You'll notice below that line, the various transfers to the capital and debt service areas are noted. The largest transfer is to the 301 fund. Next in size would perhaps be the 800 megahertz debt service at about $1.350 million and the campus parking debt service at approximately $1 million. The last line there, fund 001 reserves, indicates that some of the funding otherwise available for capital projects has been reserved in the general fund rather than put into capital projects. If there's no questions at this point, we can go right on and take a look at the individual projects that make up some of these budgets. On page two is a spreadsheet of the countywide capital 301 fund. This is primarily -- as I mentioned earlier, primarily funded from a transfer from the general fund. I'm showing for it your information the '95 budget as it currently exists, the forecast or estimated expenditures that will occur on those '95 budgeted projects, and then the last column to the right is the FY '96 proposed projects. The first line is the reserve line. The amount reserved in this fund at this point is $677,000. The next project that is proposed is air conditioning -- I'm sorry -- reroofing, major roof repairs, and that's to re-seal the jail, $35,000. The next project is air conditioning repairs at $15,000. The next project is Building W expansion at $774,000. The next project -- MR. DORRILL: And that's the warehouse facility here at the Government Center we have, and this is probably the single largest capital improvement project proposed for the coming year. The warehouse facility is just -- It's the metal building at the back of the Government Center site. We have a critical need for on-campus warehouse and storage space. I have two requests pending from constitutional officers, the clerk and the supervisor of elections, who are the major tenants within that building, and the expansion in part covers their need for expanded dead file, dead storage space that they need to maintain here on the site and I believe -- Mr. Camp is here -- also includes considering relocating a portion of the clerk's microfilm lab -- MR. CAMP: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: -- to that facility as well, and so that's the basis for what -- what's going to be the largest or one of the largest requests in the 301. MR. FINN: If there's no further questions on that, the next project that's proposed for funding is a project called environmental improvements at $170,000. There's actually two components to that. One component has to do with replacing some in-ground fuel tanks, and the other component has to do with changing some of our chemical treatment systems in our -- in our -- for our AC system to some kind of a magnetic system. The next project is the second year of a multi-year project. That has to do with some lighting retrofits. There is some pay-back on that, and there is some cost-sharing, I believe, with FPL regarding that project. Those projects that I all mentioned are -- are going to be handled by our facilities management department. If there's no questions about those, we will move on to the projects proposed by the IT department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Camp, the environmental improvements, one of them you said was replacing in-ground tanks. What was the other one? MR. FINN: The other one is converting our chiller building from a -- some kind of a chemical system to a magnetic system for cleaning the coolant solution, I believe. MR. CAMP: Currently we -- we pay about $10,000 a year for chemical treatment for the cooling towers, and we'll do away with that by using a magnet system that's in place now. For instance, Disney World, they manage a lot of water. Instead of using chemicals, we deal with magnets. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Can you state your name for the reporter? MR. CAMP: I'm sorry. For the record, Skip Camp, facilities management director. We'll deal with -- with huge magnets instead of chemicals. Chemicals are -- are extremely dangerous. We've had one employee injured significantly last year on this. We'll save $10,000 a year and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What -- MR. CAMP: -- reduce the potential for injury. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's that particular change going to cost? MR. CAMP: The change is $50,000. The pay-back is 23.9 months. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 23.9 months? MR. CAMP: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The employee that was injured, was it -- was it a preventable injury? MR. CAMP: It was possible. It was a veteran employee with almost 20 years. He had third-degree burns to the arm from the chemicals. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? MR. DORRILL: The other -- The primary portion of that is to replace some, I believe, 20-year-old underground storage tanks that provide the fuel for emergency generators here at the Government Center. And those tanks are in an advanced state of disrepair, and if we don't do those as soon as possible, we run the risk of having a much larger groundwater contamination problem. MR. FINN: And the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. MR. FINN: The split on that project -- The total project combined is 170,000. And as Neil and Skip both mentioned, 120 of that is for the tank replacements, and 50,000 is for the mag -- magnet program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. I apologize. I know this was just asked, but I was wandering out and missed it and the speaker in there -- 774,000 for Building W expansion, what -- what's that going to be? MR. CAMP: That's for storage retention and some space also for the clerk for microfilm, microfilming. There's -- will be space in there, a small amount additional space for the sheriff, the clerk, considerable amount, some space for Mary Morgan, and also for the board, a very limited space for the board though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many square feet is that? MR. CAMP: 15,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I'm just wondering, Mary Horgan's in about two and a half times, maybe more, the size she used to be in. How much more storage can she need? MR. CAMP: Our -- Our plan is to -- Currently Mary Morgan and the clerk have space side by side. In order to accommodate both, we'll put double doors right through that wall and give that to Mary Morgan and then put the clerk in the new space. They'll have both microfilm and record retention. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- There's no other empty space -- Didn't we have this request last year and we asked to expand this building the last couple of years? MR. CAMP: It's been three years now. We've kept deferring it to the point where it's pretty critical. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Skip, is that 774,000 for construction alone, or is that everything to -- to fill in? MR. CAMP: That's everything. That's site development, building, and interior space. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's coming up to $51 a square foot. I was hoping you weren't going to say construction alone. MR. CAMP: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other questions. The new county -- county maintenance facility, which is that? $300,000 down to the bottom. MR. FINN: Actually, Commissioner, if it's okay with -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not there yet. MR. FINN: -- with the chairman, we're -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. FINN: -- moving down the list, that we're -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going down the list. MR. FINN: We are -- Right now we've just completed the second grouping there for the department. Direct requests and all of those are FAC, facilities management department. We are essentially down through the lighting retrofit project. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we leave the top then, is everybody comfortable -- I'm not sure I am -- that -- with the -- and maybe you can make me more comfortable -- but with the W expansion? I'm just trying to picture -- I -- I'm -- I'm thinking of 15,000 square feet is how much we just added on to the community center in Golden Gate. It is a huge area. And I'm trying to think, boy, that's a lot of microfiche to -- to put in there. MR. CAMP: Most of it will be for hard files that will not be microfilmable. The clerk has consented to -- to use that facility instead -- instead of spending a lot of money to renovate the fourth floor for microfilm because of all the utilities we'd have to put in there. He's consented to condense his operation, both record retention that is in the current Building W now, and the microfilm that would normally go back into the fourth floor of this building. He's currently in temporary space on the fourth floor of Building L. He's consented to go ahead and use this site. Although less convenient than being in this structure, he's consented to go ahead and use that site for his consolidated operation of both record retention and microfilming both. And then also the -- This is the first year that we're going to have to go off site for some record retention just because we can't receive any more records. The sheriff has an acute need now, the clerk does, and Mary Morgan. So we'll consolidate Mary Morgan in the current building and then add the warehouse to the back of the current structure. MR. DORRILL: If you need more information in terms of just physical needs and -- and they're honestly trying to project -- How old is the building that we're in now? MR. CAMP: It's about ten years. MR. DORRILL: That your average constitutional officer knows the lead time, whether you're building a jail or a warehouse. They're -- They're asking for more than what they need today, anticipating that they may have to be there five or ten years in their warehouse and being that it's -- This request was prompted by constitutional officers and has been for the better part of the last three years, and I felt compelled to bring it to you just based on their individual discussions and concern with me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody is apparently comfortable with it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess so. We've been talking about Building W for three years now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we've turned it down each year. I just hate to break that streak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There comes a point in time. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You may continue. MR. FINN: The -- The next group of projects proposed for '96 involve the IT department. The first project, PC modernization, is to replace the central dumb terminal system we currently utilize with microcomputer work stations. This is year one of what is proposed to be a two-year phase-in. The total original request for this project was $1.2 million. The manager has reduced that to 600,000 in light of the pressure on ad valorem taxes. The next project is telephone equipment -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. How -- How -- How can you just suddenly cut a project in half and attain -- and attain the same goals? MR. DORRILL: You can by saying that we're going to phase it in over two years as opposed to trying to replace every single computer, and I didn't know that they could just physically accomplish that and then physically keep up with the training requirements. And -- And, frankly, some of the advice that we get from Mr. Lenane (phonetic) in the productivity committee was that we ought to phase our purchases in, in increments of really no more than 50 because of the rapid decrease in PC cost on a unit basis; that if you buy any more than -- than you can physically install from month to month to month, prices seem to be dropping and so we -- I asked him to go back and look at -- at phasing in that entire transition over 24 months as opposed to trying to do it all in 12 months. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: The next IT project involves funding in order to change the area codes on our various switches and to replace an old inter-building telephone cable on campus here. If there's no questions in that area, I'll -- I'll be moving on to the various OCPH projects proposed for next year. Hearing none, the first Immo -- I'm sorry. The first OCPH proposed project is to complete the Immokalee Government Center. The $108,000 budget you see before you includes $55,000 for an X-ray machine, $33,000 for some energy management expenditures that were not included in the original project budget, a hand-held magnetometer, and the completion of various project management-related fees in order to bring the building to completion. The next project, the sheriff's drill camp, the $15,000 you see proposed for '96 is nothing more than the carryforward of the funding that's expected to be unexpended at the end of this fiscal year. You may recall that was originally funded with surplus $400,000 turn-back from the sheriff. The 15,000 was simply keeping that 400,000 intact. The next project, the Immokalee health building renovation at fifty-four -- fifty-four seven, the additional funds are being requested to install a fire alarm system and to perform exterior building renovations. The next project, the new county maintenance facility at 300,000, the $300,000 funding is to complete the preliminary design and preliminary site work, including certain aspects of the infrastructure, including surface water management plans and things of that -- that nature. MR. DORRILL: This would be a new shared County Barn site done in conjunction with the sheriff or some other facility to replace that one that is currently on County Barn Road on a part of the some 300-plus acres that we own north of the landfill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? What -- What was the 105,000 in the current year for? MR. FINN: The 105 was for preliminary design that was started this year. You'll notice the original budget for that project is 180,000. The forecast of what actually is likely to be expended in that preliminary design phase is 105. The balance of that funding does, in fact, make up part of that 300,000 being carried forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The -- The preliminary design is roughly 25 percent of the entire project? MR. FINN: The -- I'm sorry, ma'am. The entire project -- and when we get to page four which shows the funding that the manager has reduced this project by, you'll see that the -- It will just take me one second to find it. The new county maintenance facility which is project 80515, there's an additional 5.8, almost 5.9, that's expected to bring that project to completion. So the actual scope of the project is dramatically larger than -- than you see before you here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $6 million for a maintenance facility? MR. CONRECODE: Well, if you'll -- if you'll recall last year -- For the record, Tom Conrecode from capital projects. Last year when we originally proposed the relocation of the maintenance facility, we looked at going from a 10.3-acre site to a 40-plus-acre site, and that's going to include the relocation of the fleet maintenance facility, relocation of the water management facility, the relocation of parks and rec maintenance operations, and the relocation of the road and bridge department. So it's over a period of years moving all those different agencies one at a time. As each agency moves out, it creates new space available at the existing County Barn Road site for some of the folks that are on that site to expand into. The $180,000 included land acquisition costs. If you'll recall, we're purchasing that land from ourselves. That was land that was previously purchased for landfill expansion but is now earmarked for -- at least a portion of it is earmarked for this particular site. The efforts that we put forth so far this year are the preliminary site plan work and the conditional use work that's gone into getting the zoning right for that parcel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's the square footage for the eventual construction of this building? MR. CONRECODE: Well, it's a series of buildings. The fleet maintenance building is 42,000 square feet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And you're looking at that as being most of the $6 million? MR. CONRECODE: That's what we have budgeted for this year. There's also 2,700 square foot of aquatic plant building which because of its nature is separate and distinct. It stores hazardous chemicals and some unique chemical handling requirements associated with it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What else is going to be there? MR. CONRECODE: The balance of it is a fuel depo, a wash rack, development of the water management, fire protection, potable water, sewer, site development-type things. I can give you a full-blown detailed breakout of that budget if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just -- Without considering comment that -- maybe from other commissioners, I just was not prepared for a $6 million price tag on this. MR. FINN: And perhaps -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He either. MR. FINN: Perhaps that's why the manager at this point has -- has recommended that we deal with this in a phase arrangement wherein the infrastructure is in place, and if the funding and the board's desire in the future is to go forward with any -- any particular component of this project, that the land will be prepared and will be in such a condition to move forward at that point in time. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but then it would be that, we've already spent all this money on it, how can we say no now. MR. CONRECODE: Well, I -- I think -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. MR. CONRECODE: -- when we made the presentation to the board last year, we said that we're looking 20 years into the future to go from a cramped ten-acre site which we're on now that's in a residential area to a more remote area with access to 1-75 and 951 which provides us our north, south, east, west access, and it's fully developable over 20 years. We're looking at it as a complete parcel set up in tracts based on everybody's individual needs over that 20-year period. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe and I know the board gave direction to look at preparing a campus-style location where all county services could eventually be located at once and what I understand -- I -- obviously a little -- I think it's strange to even see a line item for $6 million, and it should have been rejected. But my understanding was that as existing small facilities, isolated facilities, come up for either renewal or renovation that is -- is costly or expensive, they will instead be relocated to this site, but we're not going to go out and tear down good buildings or vacate good buildings on sites that work just for the sake of consolidating everything. Is that a fair assumption? MR. CONRECODE: That's fair. Let me elaborate on that through example. The water management facility that's currently in use on County Barn Road is going to fall down probably in the next large storm we've got. It's termite ridden. It's in bad shape. It's rotted out. That facility needs to be reconstructed and relocated. Perfect example of that. Fleet management's facilities currently aren't up to code in terms of providing for vehicle washout, handling of fuel, oils, even the maintenance racks and pits. When they move out of that into a new facility, the sheriff could then theoretically -- and this hasn't been finalized -- move out of their rental facilities and into a fleet facility. And the acreage that's currently taken up now by water management could be expanded into by parks and rec department, by the road and bridge department, and we're doing exactly that. We're moving one agency out, and we've allowed the other agencies to expand within the current 10.33-acre site. MR. DORRILL: The other alternative there, frankly, is to go back and revisit buying the sheriff the former PBA maintenance facility and having him at a -- a separate location and to begin to try and replace at the site that we are at the various facilities that -- that currently have the greatest need. And I would say that water management, parks and rec, road and bridge, and fleet management in that order would then be the schedule of the facilities that we would need to replace. Again, it's sort of the same problem. The -- The County Barn location as it exists today is essentially the same one that was there 20 years ago and the buildings are all -- The water management building is a -- a wooden building with a corrugated tin roof. The other buildings are all typical pre-engineered steel butler-type buildings that are 20, 25 years old for the most part and are reaching some reasonable end of their expected life and are going to have to be replaced or relocated at some point in the not too distant future but I -- I was not satisfied that the preliminary engineering and master planning on the site was complete enough to try and show that whole number. I think that's sort of an overly ambitious number, although I will tell you that my recollection is that the school board spent $6 million on their facility just adjacent to Barton Collier High School that is similar to ours but in that case for school buses. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode, let me just make sure I understand. Fleet Management is or has outgrown their facility; correct? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Water management building is useless pretty much, but they've outgrown that facility or it's -- MR. CONRECODE: I think disrepair is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. CONRECODE: -- more of the issue than growth. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Parks and rec is in the process or over the next several years is likely to outgrow their current facility? MR. CONRECODE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Road and bridge, similar problem? MR. CONRECODE: Similar, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The sheriff's department obviously -- they're outgrowing their rental property. I think the point is simply that if you did each of those as individual projects and added them all up over the next 20 years, you would probably exceed $6 million. And what you're trying to do is, as each of those happen, rather than have individual separate projects, is work them all together in a project or in one plan. MR. CONRECODE: The project that we have proposed -- the $6 million number is actually 6,586,000 -- includes the new fleet maintenance facility, the new water management facility, and all the site development and infrastructure work, water, sewer, water management, and a road into this facility, would include all of that in this fee, or in this budget. As we bring on future facilities, as the sheriff develops out the tract that's identified within this kind of mini industrial park, there would be additional costs for a facility that they wanted to build. The infrastructure would be there to serve it, but there would still be future costs. As you add other -- other agencies into this park, this industrial-type setting in the future, you would have additional costs. So this isn't necessarily the extent of the expenditure there if you're going to develop a 40-acre site. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that $6 million will be in use or will be -- the building will be utilized over how long? MR. CONRECODE: We look at it as a 20-year life for, for instance, the fleet management building, fleet maintenance building. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, the budget we're looking at today is $300,000 to essentially go forward with the infrastructure to make this site available for future growth, for future needs. And, as I mentioned previously, as those needs arise, they will be brought before the board. The board will have an opportunity at that point to make a determination as to whether the specific needs need to be met in that fiscal year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just -- I just think that -- that I was not expecting a $6 million figure and -- and I believe some others have expressed that too. And from Commissioner Constantine's conversation and questions, the -- the total build-out for this site is going to be considerably more than that. MR. FINN: That's a very good point. Actually, in the budget you're looking at, the manager has already taken out of this budget $500,000 for a sheriff's fleet management facility and $300,000 requested by water management for their aquatic plant control building. So already taken out of this budget is over $800,000 that could potentially be cited at that site if and when it's available and if the board determines that those facilities are, in fact, needed. I think what we're -- we're really discussing is -- is the overall direction. Is it to move that facility to another location, or do we want to simply try to make do with -- with the facility currently on County Barn Road in light of the build-up that's occurring around that facility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure it's an either all -- all -- at all, and I'm not sure that we should discuss it in great detail here. I'd like to know more about what the total plan is because this is the first time that I'm hearing $6 million, and now it's 6 million plus. MR. CONRECODE: 6 million is the -- the $6 million -- and I just want to make that clear -- is only for these two facilities and the infrastructure -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You -- MR. CONRECODE: -- to support the entire -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've made it -- MR. CONRECODE: -- 40-acre parcel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've made it clear. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frighteningly so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And -- And I -- And I think that -- I don't know about the rest of the members of this board but I would -- I would like to know your plans for this entire site, what's going to be on there, and the projected cost -- MR. CONRECODE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Of doing it that way. MR. DORRILL: My -- My suggestion for today, then, would either be to return this money to reserves or cut this money out of the budget and then ask for a -- a new presentation and to show the other alternatives that I mentioned which would be -- we need to meet the sheriff's need for a fleet maintenance facility and/or we need to move forward to replace the water management facility, and we can do that. So my suggestion to you would either be to cut this money and/or return it to reserves and then await a revised presentation before you decide what you want to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm a little confused because we sent a very clear direction to our staff in discussing the sheriff wanting to purchase the old PBA structure. We sent a very clear direction to our staff saying we don't want to piecemeal this. We've got acreage out there that we can do a campus-type facility. We can do the base planning for everything that has to be there eventually. And when we come to the decision of a particular structure needing to be refurbished or rebuilt or relocated, we have a place for it to go, and we don't have to deal with land cost. We don't have to deal with all those other things that we were dealing with in the sheriff's relocation efforts. And I thought at that time our direction was very, very clear, and that we're actually receiving the dollar figure for that now. What's being asked for is to do base preparation for a facility, not to do all 6 million at once. And as those other facilities need to come on-line, instead of chasing down where the property is, where are we going to build it, we have the location. We have the base planning set up for it to occur there, and now all we have to deal with is facility construction cost when we get there. So I guess I'm a little confused in that I thought we sent a clear direction and that it's -- it's being brought here for the most part today, although pared down substantially, and I -- I agree with that. But we said, put it all in one place so we don't have to deal with this piecemeal approach, and now we're saying, well, maybe we should go back and piecemeal it because we don't like the price. So, you know, we aren't approving 6 million today. What we're saying is we're going to lay the groundwork so we can do that campus facility that we had directed our staff to prepare for us. And, I mean, if I had to look at every improvement over the next 20 years, the sticker shock would occur to me too, but we're not approving the 6 million today. We're saying, let's go ahead with the concept of relocating into a -- a campus facility like we directed. So maybe I'm wrong but -- you know, it just seems to me we're going in the direction we -- we intended to several months ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any -- I'm not having any problem with everything being on one site. I know that's what we directed staff to do and not to scatter us all over the county. I'm -- I'm well aware of that. I -- I think that what I'm concerned about is the magnitude of the cost, and I'm -- I'm concerned about whether we have some wish list costs here as opposed to what we really need versus what people want and -- and that's -- that's my concern. It just seems like an awful lot of money that in the end is going to be several -- probably tens of millions of dollars more than the 6 million that we're talking about now, and I'd just like to try to get a handle on what we're dedicating future commissions to if we take this step. MR. CONRECODE: How -- How about if I come back to the board with the conditional use documentation that we've gone through, the site development plan that shows the tracts as they're identified, the road and infrastructure network as it's laid out, and we will develop to the extent we can -- for instance, with fleet management and for aquatic plant control, fairly detailed budgets, and some of the others where we haven't done the programming yet because they're three to five years out, roughly an estimate, $100 a square foot or some sort of a number like that to -- to meet with their -- what we expect their future needs to be, come back to the board and make a presentation during regular session in July and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'd -- MR. CONRECODE: -- see what the board wants to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to have an idea of all of the facilities that are planned for this site. I mean, originally we were talking about fleet management and the sheriff's office, and fleet management wanted to move, and road and bridge needed to upgrade their stuff and -- and -- and the sheriff needed a new -- new facility, and we kind of -- and we said, well, why don't we put all those together. They're really related. And now, you know, you're talking about parks and rec, and you're talking about aquatic plant control and -- and -- MR. CONRECODE: We have always -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I want to know it all. MR. CONRECODE: We have always talked about parks and rec, road and bridge, aquatic plant control, fleet management. We've always had them in that same package, and we've shown that on our site plan from the beginning, and we've assessed their needs on an acreage basis individually and brought them together. That's how we arrived at a 40-acre site. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? I -- I -- I'd like to ask the manager to move this $300,000 back into reserves so that when we get this full-blown plan, we can pull it back out again rather than -- MR. DORRILL: That's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- simply delete it. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, I -- I'm not -- I don't have -- have any problem that we're going to have to go forward with it, but I'd like to see more about it. MR. DORRILL: Before the beginning of the fiscal year, we need to decide either to stay the course here, or as Mr. Hancock said, we need to go back and begin to address these things and -- and take them off individually but -- but sort of fragmented, because the sheriff -- you know, the lease facility that he is in is extremely inadequate. And, frankly, we're being taken advantage of on the lease for what the otherwise associated value of that facility is, and we ought to pursue the PBA thing if -- if you have a reluctance to move forward with a -- more of an industrial park setting long term for public works and fleet-related maintenance programs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to disagree with moving it back to reserves. I think we -- this was a concept that we approved moving ahead with. And I think if we don't leave it here, if we don't plan for the facility expansion, then we're going to have to go back and deal on an individual basis, and it's exactly what we were trying to avoid in the first place. So if we move -- You said we can move it back later, but we're going to send out trim notices with this not being in here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It will be. It's in reserves. MR. DORRILL: It's in reserves. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's in reserves. It's there. It's just a matter of getting better detail so that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not cutting it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we can justify moving it back out again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah. So, in essence, we're talking about a paper move at this point, but I -- I strongly think this is the direction we need to go in and I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to know more about it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want my action to be interpreted as anything other than that. MR. CONRECODE: We can bring that back to you the first or second meeting in July if that would be okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. I appreciate that. MR. FINN: Very good. That item -- That item will be moved to reserves, and Tom will bring it back to the board. The last item under OCPH is for $400,000 for a new H.E. Facility, the medical examiner facility. The proposal is -- is for a 9,700-square-foot building to include a main morgue area, an infectious disease control area, and personnel offices. The funding you see before you, the $400,000, includes design and site selection funding. The total cost of this facility is currently estimated at $2.1 million. If we go forward with this, eventually the balance of the construction money will be requested from the board. MR. DORRILL: This is a project that -- that really needs the board's attention and concentration. We had originally hoped to be able to do a joint project with Naples Community Hospital. That does not now seem to be, nor will it present itself to us. I doubt seriously whether the current H.E. Facility -- which is in part a garage and in part the oldest funeral home in this town that has severe electrical, occupational safety, and plumbing problems -- would meet your adopted minimum housing code if we applied that type of code. So our -- our plan at this point is to try and address and do all of the architectural-related work hopefully on this site that we are on, and that we would attempt to raze the old funeral home and carport garage that is there now through a long-term land lease with Naples Community Hospital, and in the interim attempt to locate Dr. Yuranas' (phonetic) facility to the pathology department at Naples Community Hospital but they have -- They have some concerns with -- with -- and to what extent autopsies and that type of program can be done there and there's some -- The logistics of this are very complicated, and the facility is totally inadequate and needs some immediate attention. So the money that is here would cover the cost to do the demolition of the existing buildings that are on this site and to do the architectural and design work related to replacing this site. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does this mean we're going to buy the land that the building is sitting upon? MR. DORRILL: No. My -- My desire is that we enter into some type of -- of land lease with Naples Community Hospital or attempt to have them convey the site to the Board of County Commissioners, and those contractual details need to be more fully explored. I think we would like to keep it at its downtown location because of some of the obvious coordination with law enforcement agencies and the hospital and take advantage of the -- just the current location if we can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You -- You feel that it's necessary that this building stay in its approximate location that it -- that it is? MR. DORRILL: Based on the evaluation that -- that we have done thus far, and I'll let the doctor elaborate on that if she chooses to do so. A failure to have an agreement with Naples Community Hospital -- They own the site and the buildings that are there now. But failure to have an agreement on that site, then we would also have to look at site acquisition cost to -- to relocate somewhere else. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have questions, Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess, Dr. Coburn, maybe I'd like to hear from you on that because you and I had asked potential relocation at one point and the pluses and minuses of that. Maybe you could draw a clearer picture for me, because we were just talking about condensing county facilities in one location and eliminating land acquisition down the road and -- and I thought maybe this could dovetail into that but I -- I guess I look to your input for that. DR. COBURN: The latest meeting that took place between the hospital people and my administrator who is Mr. Ijams was last week, and the hospital did not seem at that time interested at all in -- in leasing. They -- In their words, they were not in the leasing business. They seemed to also not have a clear understanding of what we need. From the plans that I had given you which are merely just plans -- Like I said, I'm not an architect. But I think that what we would be needing would be somewhere in the vicinity of an acre. They are not willing to give us that entire area where we are at now which is not even an acre. So I don't think that, number one, they're going to be interested in leasing it long term, but in either case they've told us that they would give us a final response in a month, 30 days, whether they were going to be interested in doing that. In the meantime, they asked us to go ahead and look for other places. As I've explained to Mr. Dotrill and to you, I am not necessarily married to that area. There are pros and cons to being there. Some of the things that keep us there now would be taken care of with this new building. So we would be perfectly willing to relocate to land that the county already owns or that they can purchase at probably a cheaper price than they would down there where I am right now. The $2.1 million that is the total amount budgeted that we are asking for this project includes $350,000 for land acquisition which could be eliminated if we build it on county property that's already owned by the county. So that would be a savings there. At -- At any -- At -- At -- At least I'm sure it would cost less somewhere else in the county, and the farther east we go I'm sure would be cheaper, which is my favorite spot, somewhere out 951 and 1-75, somewhere out that way. Dr. Coburn, C-o-b-u-r-n. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think anyone who's been to the facility can say that we don't have a problem brewing there. So it's -- We're going to have to do something about this, and it's about time we -- MR. DORRILL: I apologize. I -- I didn't know that the meeting had taken place late last week but it's -- prior to that, it's -- it was my hope that we could stay at the site that we were at just because then we wouldn't have site acquisition, land acquisition costs. And I -- It is an easy thing to say that we'll go east to the 951, 1-75 corridor, but ownership and parcel configuration and rezoning associated with that is -- is not easy. My inclination would be we'd probably be better off with a -- a conditional use in one of the existing industrial parks and look for a site, just given the nature of what they do as opposed to trying to find a parcel. DR. COBURN: That -- That would be acceptable as well. The only thing that I might have some concerns with is if we were going to be housed with other services. Then I would have a concern, because of the nature of my business and the security situation, et cetera, but short of that, being on the same land is not a problem anywhere else in the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But a common building with some other service would be a problem? DR. COBURN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. DR. COBURN: I think more for the other service perhaps too. MR. DORRILL: Here again, my recommendation to you would be to stay the course with the plan that we have presented. And whether we're doing demolition and leasing with the $400,000 or if -- if we're going to have to go out and -- and try and acquire a site in an industrial park or wherever we can -- can find a reasonable site given the -- you know, the fairly unique land use that this is, then we're going to be faced with doing some type of interim borrowing or trying to pay cash for the -- the balance of the facility that is probably going to be in the -- in the neighborhood of a million and a half dollars to $2 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At a minimum, I think we need to pursue some type of design and site selection process on that. MR. FINN: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to start moving on it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we leave that page, I tried it once before and got no response, but I'm just going to try one more time, see if we can get any other votes to eliminate the B -- Building W expansion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the total budget for that, or is there more money coming later? MR. DORRILL: That's it and it's -- I think Mr. Camp cited you a cost at about $50 a square foot for a 15,000-square-foot building identical to the warehouse building that would move towards the north, towards the -- the health building but whose three primary occupants would be the -- the sheriff, the clerk, and supervisor of elections expanding over into the area that the clerk now has and the clerk's microfilm lab. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And somebody's already done a cost comparison for leasing similar space for something like that? MR. DORRILL: In the fairly unique nature of the sole source records and the -- the flow and process control from the clerk's side as to court records and/or real property records, original, you know, deeds and things that are all recorded in the official O.R. Books and then how they flow control over to have microfilm taken. It's -- yes, Mr. Camp has done that and looked at other off-site locations as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And in that comparison, he found that this was less expensive? MR. DORRILL: In given the unique nature of these needs, the answer was yes, because they have real reluctance to move a lot of those things off site. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't doubt any of that. I'm just -- Again, I'm picturing -- If any of you have been in the new Golden Gate Community Center that's opening this week, that's 15,000 square feet, the addition, and I'm thinking that is a lot of space. I just -- I'm -- I can't believe that we have -- Even you -- You had mentioned earlier, even -- they're looking five or six years down the road. I can't believe we have enough records to fill up 15,000 square feet that are just crammed somewhere we don't know today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, obviously I think this building is looking to the future. MR. DORRILL: Right. And the honest answer is, no, they can't fill it up today, but they know that it takes almost ten years to convince the commissioners to hand over the -- provide a facility. And I think they're -- they're anticipating that once you build it, they're going to be stuck there for another ten years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've only been saying no for three years to this one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got about seven years more of no's. MR. DORRILL: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One other -- Let me ask this. Then maybe it will satisfy all of our concern. Is it -- Is it possible to design this building to be built in -- in phases or -- or is it -- MR. DORRILL: The answer is yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- a large butler building? MR. DORRILL: The answer is yes. Now, I don't -- As you add width segments -- you know, the -- the -- the steel support, and they're different size widths that you can buy, and the answer is yes. We can -- We can do it incrementally. I don't know what the widths are and how that would then begin to compare here. MR. CONRECODE: The original design was designed to have this expansion. That's all this is, and it would be per bay. MR. DORRILL: Do you know how wide a bay is? I mean, are they -- MR. CONRECODE: About 50 feet. You can get a wider bay if you want or a nattower bay. MR. DORRILL: And we are going higher than what is normal because typically what we do in the interim is we come in there and build a mezzanine level with some type of pre-fab or modular steel. It's an erector set that you go in and you -- and that way we can build an interim mezzanine level so that they can haul stuff up to kind of a second floor within that area that they have. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there some sort of fireproofing or something fancy about this building to protect it? MR. DORRILL: I would say the only thing fancy about the building would be that one portion of the building that needs certain plumbing and electrical and exhaust requirements to serve as the microfilm lab and then they process of all their own film. So they're developing the film from the microfilm shots that -- that they take and there's maybe some unique plumbing requirements and electrical requirements. But other than that, it's just a warehouse building. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just seems odd to me that documents that are so important that they can't leave the campus aren't -- don't have to be stored in a fireproof space or somehow -- I mean, one thing about leasing storage space is that you get all these protections and insurance and all that stuff. MR. DORRILL: Well, I -- I don't disagree with that and we do -- some of the space is -- is sprinkled but we don't -- we're not into sophisticated halon gas systems there either. I just -- I want the record to show that the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nobody else is these days either. MR. DORRILL: -- The extent to which I'm going to bat for the constitutional officers' warehouse because there ain't nothing in this for me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I, Tim, would -- would -- wouldn't mind seeing this -- hearing from the constitutionals on Wednesday or something about just how important this is and why it's more cost effective to do it this way than to do some off-site storage and -- MR. FINN: Actually, Commissioner, the sheriff's -- representatives of the sheriff's office are here right now as -- the clerk will be here this afternoon. Perhaps you can ask them as they stand up to the podium. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I also would -- I think I would -- I would like to hear more and -- and I'm sure that we're going to hear more when the contracts are actually -- and the bidding is done, more -- but more about building this in a phased construction. MR. FINN: Is -- Is there some specific direction on this other than keeping it in the budget at this point in time? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to have more information prior to putting it in the budget for sure. Three-quarters of a million dollars for 15,000 square feet of space to put microfiche is hard for me to grasp. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I too would like to see more discussion about it on Wednesday before it makes it into the budget. MR. DORRILL: Okay. So let's just flag this one, and this will need to be a wrap-up sort of discussion, and we'll need to extend the various rationale and courtesies to those three tenants or occupants to the building to be here to help convince us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just kind of a general comment, I guess I'm a little frustrated by -- and this isn't directed at anyone but just in the process itself. We all talk tough about the budget, but so far with what we've done, the only way we're going to keep the budget or the ad valorem rate at or below where it was is by, among other things, juggling beach revenues, including that in as -- as part of the process. We really haven't cut beans so far today or last week, and I don't like to say no to groups or things any more than anybody else but we've spent the -- We got a report six months ago that said if we're not careful, we're -- we need to do the cutting, and we've all talked about it for six months, and now the time is here and we're not cutting anything. And I provided my little list a week or so ago of things I felt were fairly low priority items, and I don't expect the entire board to agree with all those items, but I would hope at some point between now and the end of the day Wednesday we're going to make some cuts. You may or may not agree with those specific ones, but we seem to be going along here on -- If we're going to do zero-based budgeting, it seems like as we prioritize those, then we might see a few things that are low priorities, and we don't seem to be seeing any yet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate your lecture, Commissioner Constantine, but I believe I understand my duties. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on, Mr. Finn. MR. FINN: Very good. On page three you'll see a continuation of the proposed budget for the countywide 301 fund. The projects on 301 are designated by department as the SO. These are projects proposed by the sheriff's office. The first project is a carryforward of funding for some preliminary work for jail and Building A design and space planning. That was approved last year. The sheriff's office requested carrying that forward into '96. The next project -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. Wait. Wait. MR. DORRILL: I support that. That is to complete the programming or any of the necessary preliminary design and Department of Corrections approvals in order to keep some semblance of a jail and sheriff's administration expansion project moving forward. I'll -- I'll call this seed money, if you will, anticipating that the -- the main project is a $19 million project who is currently scheduled for a general obligation bond referendum in MArch of 1996, and you'll see that in just a minute. It's going to be on the same page. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the 19 million? MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this 150 is -- is designed, though, specifically to expand the existing jail? MR. DORRILL: And sheriff's administration. The building that is there is an all-in-one building. Miss Kinzel can assist. And I apologize. I keep getting everybody's latest married name incorrect today. I've done that twice. There are three additional vertical floors that can be expanded under what I call sheriff's administration and the support side of the building, and then the jail expansion would go off towards the northeast and add another 300 or so, Mr. Conrecode or -- MS. KINZEL: Two fifty-six. MR. DORRILL: Okay -- 256 cells as -- as part of the correctional area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my only question is -- is with the talk of the regional jail and -- and -- is this one fifty money that gets thrown away if we ended up with a regional concept -- MR. DORRILL: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or is it wasted? MR. DORRILL: No, because if -- if we move forward, you're -- you're either going to -- If we participate and do -- and expand on the consulting agreement that either Charlotte and Lee County have for their projects, we're probably going to be spending this money in support of what I call a supplemental agreement to the architectural contract or the correctional consulting contract that Charlotte and Lee County already have engaged, and I think they're waiting for us to determine what we're going to do and, thus, Commissioner MAnning's offer to spearhead some evaluation. That's what that money is intended to do, to either identify our specific needs as part of a multi-county correctional assessment, or we're going to use that money in support of expanding our jail and our sheriff's administration complex here in East Naples. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we're budgeting it, and then we'll make a decision at some point on whether to spend it on our jail or on the regional study? MR. DORRILL: You're either going to hire your own architect or space programmer to undertake that type of analysis prior to a bond referendum, or you're going to joint venture with Lee and Charlotte County on the consulting agreements that they already have. Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or I guess conceivably both. MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, finance director for the sheriff's office. We did have a few comments for the record on this, and I'm glad to hear Mr. Dotrill include the jail administrative space because the most recent numbers that we got from capital projects boosted that 19 million up to about a $24 million project if we included the administrative areas, and we wanted for the record to make the board aware that we need to do both. If we have the inmates in there, there's records requirements, as indicated before, in Building W and some of that space for storage, but we also have ongoing needs for personnel and other things associated with the increase in those beds and increase in road activity. So the estimate that we got from capital projects is actually 24 million for all encompassing area for Building J as the project, and we want to make sure that that's considered by the board or might need more information from capital projects on that. The Building A -- J designed, what has been explained on the one fifty, the estimates again from Capital Project are that we really need about two and a half million dollars to do the design phase for Building J expansion. And what we're concerned about -- I know the sheriff has sent you numerous memorandums. He asked me to make some points for the record today regarding the regionalization issues, and a lot of those expansion issues that are on the forefront, but we've been planning this facility for about ten years now. It's been through the planning corrections code committee. We knew that these beds were on-line and need to be built. He's -- I think he's expressed his interest in working with you on the regional issues, but that doesn't eliminate our immediate need for bed space that we already know will take three years to construct on the average. So if we don't put in at least two and a half million to get started on the design starting October 1, if we wait for the referendum until March, you're really pushing the project out another four years from today, and we'll be at a critical bed need. So I think Commissioner Hac'Kie might have hit it when she said maybe both because this two fifty-six beds has been on the drawing board. It's been planned. It's something that has been recognized here. The regionalization issue, it will probably take a year or two just to get the consultant on-line for that major project and probably another ten years before the facility is built. That's been our experience in getting consultants -- at least to get -- if -- Once they study the need, then you have to bring in the architectural and design. It takes another year. You know, that is something to look for, for the future expansion and what type of inmates we put in which facility. This may be a larger discussion than the budget workshop, but we needed to bring points for the record that we probably need more for design regardless of the referendum issue. Whether we put the referendum on in March or we find another revenue source for the funding of a jail expansion, we need some additional funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have a little concern dedicating two and a half million before we know what happens at that referendum. MS. KINZEL: Well, I think the bottom line is, all of the planning, all the indications, all the consultant studies to date have said you have to have 256 beds. So even if the referendum fails, we have to have those jail beds at some point in time. To at least get the design phase and -- and those preliminary fundings in the budget, you're recognizing the need and you are addressing the problem. That also helps you when DOC and your overcrowding issues come to light, that you have made an effort, and you are still working on going forward with additional beds. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the bond issue fails, what is the alternative funding? Because -- And that's really the question. If we have an alternative, then sure, we can budget that, but we can't budget something if we don't have a source of revenue for it. MS. KINZEL: Well, unfortunately the sheriff's office asks for the facilities. We indicate our need, but the funding element is -- is the county manager's side of, what do we do. It's my understanding bond was indicated in the growth management plan, but we agree and actually support looking for alternative methods of funding this. That serves the sales tax so we can avoid the referendum issue. This is a necessity. This is something that we need to do for Collier County and the -- just the growth in the county. We're projected to grow probably 37 percent over the next ten years in our population. That's going to put a major strain on the jail cells. In addition, that 85 percent mandatory sentencing at the state, that's going to put a great demand on the local beds, and we need to address that. Some of these law changes greatly fluctuate what we have in the inmate population. And, like I said, this might be a larger discussion, but we do need to bring those issues, exactly what is the alternative if the bond fails because the beds are a necessity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, in federal law it's not like we can decide we don't have another source of funding so we just won't build the beds. I mean, we don't have that option. Then a federal judge will come down here and tell us how to do it. MS. KINZEL: And that's all we're asking, is to make those considerations so that we're not caught short for housing inmates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just heard something that I thought the voters might find interesting, and that is more or less we're going to have to build it whether you approve the referendum or not. You know, why are we going to a referendum? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because our growth management plan said that we would do it that way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let's change the plan. It just -- It just -- You know, that -- that almost takes away any reason for either supporting it or not supporting it or even voting for it if it's going to be done anyway. So there's a -- you know, that doesn't make sense, and maybe you can provide me a little history. MR. DORRILL: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other question is, Mr. Dotrill, what do you anticipate for a calendar? You've had a chance to talk with Mr. Stilwell more than we have. What do you anticipate for a calendar to actually know whether the regional facility is realistic or not? Because Crystal said, you know, we may be two years out on a consultant and talking about seven or ten years before it's built. Obviously that doesn't -- That's not going to do us any good. MR. DORRILL: Preliminarily what they were anticipating was about six months. Now, the change in that plan to go through these -- some consortium of the local correctional planning committees -- and I know I've got that name wrong -- may have a delaying effect on that. But there is a meeting that has been tentatively scheduled for August, and it was our hope that with the joint county meetings -- as part of your lobbying consortium, it was our hope that we would have some type of decision as to how we're going to move forward at that same meeting, that that would also be on the agenda. HS. KINZEL: I -- I think, though, Commissioners, experience has shown us, even with the construction of our local facility, that just -- even once the plans are done and once everything is done, it took us almost five years to get actually into Building J. Now you're talking about working on a regional plan which involves three boards, three sheriffs, the entire corrections planning. There's a lot of work to be done. I don't envision that's going to happen -- Six months is probably the consultant to come back, but then you still have all the contracting, planning, who's going to run it. All of those issues are going to take years realistically, I think. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Kinzel, specifically who is it that says we have to have 256 beds? MS. KINZEL: There have been numerous studies. Primarily there was -- A consultant hired originally under the jail bed design for Building J as opened in '85 had provisions for expansion, and Tom was hired for the expansion. So I'll turn the technical square footage over to him. Okay? MR. CONRECODE: For the record again, Tom Conrecode. To give you some background, the 256 beds is a unitized number that's derived from POD (phonetic) construction of jail cells. They're built so many units at a time. That was somewhat arbitrary. The number of jail beds that you're required to have is driven by your growth management plan. You currently have adopted as a part of your plan .0024 beds per capita or 24 beds per thousand and -- or 2.4 beds per thousand, wherever the decimal point is in that. In any event, that's your adopted level of service standard. As your population goes up, the number of beds that you're required to have goes up as well. 256 is -- just happens to be the next unit that you would add to the jail. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But -- MS. KINZEL: Excuse me. But we are right now at 3.1 beds on -- on the capacity loading per population. That's as of the last state report. And, again, our jail captain can bring you more information on capacities and -- and jail levels, but our population has increased well over that 2.4 level that the growth management plan is based on. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So the answer to my question then, is the growth management specifically -- the growth management plan specifically is, who says we have to have another 256 beds. So then the question becomes, is there an opportunity to modify the growth management plan. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, you've already done that. It was originally -- the adopted level of service standard when the growth management plan was originally adopted in 1988, if that was your adopting date, was 3.3 beds per. You've -- You've hired a consultant to come in and study it and say, how can we reduce that. They recommended it through case management and the courts, through release programs and whatnot. You could reduce that to 2.4 beds per thousand and -- MR. DORRILL: Ultimately -- excuse me -- what would happen is that failure to have a reasonable number of beds would then entail you being cited by the Florida Department of Corrections and/or entering into some type of consent agreement with them to begin the design and construction process to expand the jail, or beyond that, some federal court order. And there are a lot of counties in the state, predominantly rural counties, that are working under federal court orders to expand their -- their county jails, but at the moment none of those are problems. And I do agree with Ms. Kinzel, that it can take to three to four to on the outside five years before you could actually, you know, get through the design, the financing, the construction process and move in, but at the moment we do have an excess of jails. One of the better things we ever did was take the advice of Aubrey Rogers who made sure that we built our original cells to the configuration where they could be double-bunked, and they have now double-bunked all of the 322-plus cells that are over there. And our current rate of jail capacity in this county is 700, and on any given day at the moment, we probably have five or 550 people in jail. So we've -- we've got some capacity that is there. Now, it's not just as easy saying, well, we could add another 150 because they have classification problems. You want to put so many people in the juvenile section or so many people in the misdemeanor section. But this county does not nor are we under any impending jail crisis at the moment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was just going to see if I understood. If we're talking about adjusting the level of service standard in the comp plan and what we've adopted is 2.4 and in reality we have 3.1, so it would be kind of paper games to be playing if we were going to reduce it from 2.4 in the face of reality of 3.1. MS. KINZEL: That would mean that we'd need to build them actually sooner than we're projecting now to get this all done in time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we want to move forward, or how far forward do we want to move toward spending 20 million if we're still discussing regional? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, also Ms. Kinzel has asked us to include 2 -- 2 million-plus in this year's budget. Mr. Dotrill, where would you propose that we would find $2 million to do that? MR. DORRILL: Well, you need to keep in mind that we already cut $40 million out of your capital improvement budgets to -- to make them balance. So we're going to have to go back and either cut $2 million worth of other projects, or we're going to have to raise property taxes in these funds because these are all property tax funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we really don't have it in the budget at this point? MR. DORRILL: My -- My advice is to keep your programming or planning level funding in here at 150,000 and -- and wait and see. I'm -- I'm very hard pressed to recommend to you that -- that we need to go ahead and -- and engage an architect and sign an architectural contract for two and a quarter million dollars for a facility that -- that may not or may be approved at the polls or may be delayed or deferred depending on what you want to do on a regional correctional facility. And I think for the most part you'll -- you'll at least have those initial decisions made before the start of the fiscal year, and then that's my recommendation to you, to keep your -- your funding level with the programming phase. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I agree with that. I hate to jump off and spend the -- the two-plus million dollars on planning something that we don't know how it's going to be funded at the moment or if it's going to be funded. The -- The proposal today would require funding from property taxes, and this may very well end up being paid for in total through local option infrastructure sales tax, for example. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the -- The nature of the referendum that we keep referring to, is that a sales tax kind of a referendum? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It's a -- MR. DORRILL: Property taxes, general obligation referendum. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, general obligation bond has to be approved by the voters -- MR. DORRILL: Must be. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- correct? MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's required. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And so if we're going to do a general obligation property tax bond, this must be a successful referendum to do it that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other than that, the other funding mechanisms would be the local option sales tax, the -- and we have additional millage available in our capital -- countywide capital tax, I believe, not a whole lot, but a little bit more. MS. KINZEL: I guess our concern primarily is, Commissioners, that we don't have to expand the 2.5 million today, but we are in the funding cycle for October 1 of next year through the end of September. Even if we hold the referendum in March and it fails or it doesn't fail, if it fails, you have no then funding until October 1 of the next year. So you are then almost two years out from your growth need for the beds. If we at least program in the design funding, you don't have to spend those funds today, but they are in line and invested for next year if the referendum fails. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Ms. Kinzel, but we have to budget them, and that means we have to appropriate them, and that means we have to raise people's property taxes to put them in there to not spend them, and I just don't think that's a proper thing to do. MS. KINZEL: Well, that's assuming we won't spend them. If the referendum doesn't pass and then we have to build the jail beds, you're two and a half million dollars short of a funding. That's the alternative. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there much desire on this board to put this two and a half million dollars in the capital budget? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm probably the lone ranger but I -- I think that -- that we're putting our heads in the sand if we pretend like we're not going to have to do something -- you know, we're going to have to spend this money and -- and it could be -- Frankly, we're going to have to spend this money whether the referendum passes or fails because we're going to have to do something about our jails. So I'm -- I think I'm going to be for putting it in. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Negatory. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No surprise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't go in. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, we have -- currently the project that we're all discussing is budgeted at 19 million in the budget. That's supported by a loan of bond proceeds of 19 million. Miss Kinzel has just told us that the actual project cost is estimated to be 25 million or so. Is it the board's direction -- 24 million. I apologize. Is it the board's direction to leave this in with any bond proceeds in order to expedite the discussion, or are we going to take it out at this juncture? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do you have a recommendation? MR. DORRILL: I -- I haven't seen the benefit of any of the rationale behind the $24 million. So let's leave it in here, and after I've had a chance to meet with Mr. Conrecode and the facilities staff and the sheriff's department, I'd be -- be happy to come in and make an adjustment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we were to make an adjustment in this as late as September if it's borrowed -- borrowed proceeds, it really doesn't -- MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- affect the millage. MR. DORRILL: It has no millage implications other than the budget and management tool implications. And, as I said, I'd be the first one to admit if we need to make an adjustment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't need a full explanation now, but perhaps as we move forward this summer. When you said there need to be administrative offices, there are $5 million in administrative offices. Just -- I don't need it now but just sound really posh, and so I'm sure we'll get a full explanation on that between now and then. MS. KINZEL: Just very quickly, administrative space is probably the bad word. It's operational space. It includes all the investigative operations, and I would like to get that in the record because there does seem some ambiguity, and administrative sounds so palatial, but it is not. It includes all of the sheriff's operational units, and I think that's important. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move forward. MR. FINN: There are two -- two additional projects under the sheriff's request. They include Immokalee jail, laundry, and kitchen equipment at $53,000. That includes some walk-in freezers and cooler units, replacement of existing units and the replacement of washers and dryers for doing laundry. The jail video photography is computer -- computer-generated video images instead of using Polaroid cameras. Benefits to be gained include less space required to store the records and just better -- better photography in general. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you show me $110,000 worth of benefit? MS. KINZEL: Actually we can. In part of the records retention, one of the major difficulties that we're having right now is the deterioration of Polaroid film. And what we're finding is that by putting those in the file records, they're actually deteriorating within about a five-year period which is below our records retention requirement. So this will not only allow for the videoing of the person from a picture, but it will also enhance the identification through an automated system so that we will know -- if they say, I'm John Doe, and we've had them on record or fingerprinted or processed under another alias, it will really reduce our manual hours required to check those people because the system will automatically identify them through some other records matches. I can get you more detail on that type of automated system, but we believe it will save money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is we just had a discussion over $774,000 expansion for warehousing which the sheriff was a part of. MS. KINZEL: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And now we're being asked for 110,000 to reduce -- basically, in essence, going to reduce what has to be warehoused. In addition, you're telling me there's a reduction in manpower and so forth. I'm asking where that -- where that shows MS. KINZEL: No. It won't reduce what's going to be warehoused. What it will do is replace the deterioration we have in the records, the hard records and another issue on the Building W, it's not microfilmed records. Unfortunately we don't have that many of our records microfilmed. What we have are monumental boxes and boxes of paper, and that's what takes the floor space. Not all of us are automatically microfilmed on everything that we do. We've asked for those processes, and we do have a small portion of our records on microfilm, but we don't have all of our records. So that's hard storage. What we're talking about in the savings is, A, manpower and time and identification and the actual integrity of the records being retained because of the deterioration of the Polaroid film. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Show me where the manpower MS. KINZEL: But I'm not the expert. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where does the manpower reduction show up? MS. KINZEL: Okay. I'll be glad to -- in -- It would be in what's happening with the jail, investigators, and records, but I can get you a better analysis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're not seeing a reduction -- We're going to see a reduction in personnel or no growth in personnel in a certain area because of this 110,0007 MS. KINZEL: No. I would not guarantee that, no, because of the volume increases, and so I can't say to you we won't be back for more records people, but it will be on a different basis for that, and we'd defend that personnel at that point but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the same thing like the federal Medicare stuff. The increases in spending will be decreased. It's -- it is. MS. KINZEL: Well, it's -- the growth factor is playing a major component, that we've got growth, so you're not going to see it reduced, but you're going to see a more efficient operation in what we're doing, but I'll be glad to give you more. I'm not the video expert either. This has all been relayed to me technically, and we'll be glad to get you more information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About 19 months ago we approved and y'all spended .... spended .... spent out of the confiscated trust fund somewhere in the neighborhood of $24,000 for film development machine and so on, so that you could do all '- MS. KINZEL: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your own development right there in house. I'm going to guess regular film, Kodak film, once developed, has a lifetime longer than five years, and I'm wondering, since you have a facility in house, if that might be a more economical and efficient way to do it. You've already got the facility, and you can snap that picture every bit as easy as a Polaroid. MS. KINZEL: Well, again, I'm not the technical expert, but they have worked with both CID investigations records and jail records, and I'll get you more information on it because I just don't know all of the details to this project, how it -- but I -- I'll get you some more information. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we pull that one out, and then if they convince us Wednesday, we can put it back in? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'd like to flag it for more information if that would be okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: Very good. That concludes the projects the manager did recommend in fund 301. If the board cares to turn to page four, there's a list of projects that the manager has previously not recommended for inclusion in the budget. There's a large number of them. A few of them have been moved to other funding sources. If there's any need for us to discuss those with you, we'd be happy to do so. Ms. Kinzel is standing at the podium. I presume she wants to discuss the two near the bottom that were requested by the SO's department. MS. KINZEL: Again, for the record, Crystal Kinzel. We did hear a little bit about the fleet facility addressed in the last discussion about the whole all-encompassing plan, but I just -- just want to bring to the board's attention that we will have a need for that facility. And what I heard in the priority listing puts us out about five to seven years for moving because we would be doing the aquatic site first and then the County Barn, and so we need to maybe look at alternatives to that if it does end up that we're pushing that project out that far. We have a more urgent need than that for space for fleet management. And the only other one is on the computer-aided dispatch system. Again, it was a very technical area and the county -- I probably didn't explain it very well to the county manager, so I asked for the opportunity -- I did bring two technical people with me today. This is associated with the dispatch for emergency calls at the sheriff's office and how those are handled. And I believe the sheriff sent you a memorandum this morning so you probably did not have time to read it in total, but it includes some pictures of the current system that we're using and some of the justification for this request. I brought Chris Nind who's the manager for the communications center, and Damia Deandra (phonetic) is our director of data processing, and we would like to include this as part of the capital 301, and they can give you some of the reasons why. MR. DORRILL: Before we get into that, maybe we can do a little damage control on the balance of your schedule this afternoon because I notice that all the courts people are beginning to arrive, and my hunch is we probably have an hour or an hour and a half worth of capital improvements to go. And rather than them sit here until five o'clock, a -- a suggestion would be or an alternative would be if we're not going to hear the Hideaway Beach PUD amendment at tomorrow's county commission meeting and since we're all going to be here, that maybe we could do courts tomorrow or we can press on and -- but my hunch is that you -- at the current rate, we'll be here until five o'clock doing capital improvement budgets. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We also have the sheriff's budget scheduled today and the clerk's budget prior to courts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But tomorrow's agenda even without that is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- is large. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a huge agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a time -- It's going to be a time-consuming agenda even without this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then Wednesday afternoon is public hearing, public comment now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I suspect we're not going to have three hours of public hearing or public comments. If we're only scheduled to be here until noon, why don't we just stay as long as we need to stay in the afternoon to finish up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, last year I remember it was only about 15 minutes of public comment, if that. We just didn't have any. Perhaps we can -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do it after that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do it after that, yeah. We're obviously not going to stay on schedule today. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we're talking about moving courts and something to Wednesday. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would say it looks that way because I think tomorrow's agenda is going to be as long as it is. MR. DORRILL: I don't disagree. I just -- I see people beginning to arrive, and I don't want them to sit here all afternoon, especially, you know, to be told that -- that you're just not going to do them today. JUDGE WILSON: Another thought, but I have been in a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you're a judge so -- JUDGE WILSON: I've been in a van for four days driving, and I drove back here just to be here for this meeting at three o'clock today. I have trials scheduled the rest of the week. Needless to say, I would suggest that you all stay within the speed limits. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stay out of your court? JUDGE WILSON: Don't buy any drugs. Don't drink and drive. And this is probably just because I'm tired but -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stay out of your courtroom if we don't hear your budget today? JUDGE WILSON: No. I wouldn't threaten anyone obviously but -- MR. DORRILL: You just did. JUDGE WILSON: I've been -- It's not anything you can take to the bank. I do want to express to you, though, that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good thing we're all going on vacation next week. JUDGE WILSON: -- there are a lot of people that were counting on this, and it would be very, very difficult to just, like, maybe tomorrow or the next day or maybe the day after. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we take something out of order in deference to a judicial calendar? MR. DORRILL: Absolutely. I just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We can. MR. DORRILL: I just was trying to tell you that at this point you're probably three hours behind where we intended to be, and as people begin to arrive in the back of the room, I don't want them to sit here until 5:00 and then have us cash it in at that point. MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, just for the record, and based on the way I drive, we could come back and do the sheriff's office on Wednesday with no problem if that will accommodate your schedule so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Insurance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Blatant kissing up right there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That could work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does this board want to consider the courts immediately after capital projects and -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Works for me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and then based on that, we would probably hear the sheriff and the clerk of courts on Wednesday. MR. DORRILL: Or -- or in order to give the courts more time and not run too late, maybe we could just do our -- get to the -- to the end of the property tax-based capital improvement budgets that would take us after we do these -- We're at the bottom of 301. We'll do libraries. We'll do parks. And then the transportation, water management ones, we can do those on Wednesday as well. Then you can go ahead and do the balance of the afternoon with the court folks, and then we'll -- we'll hold the sheriff and the rest of the capital improvements until Wednesday afternoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you suggesting we hear the clerk of courts also this afternoon? MR. DORRILL: That's at your discretion. I don't know how long that might take. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no idea either. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's go in that order and see -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's go in that order and -- and finish up with our ad valorem-based capital projects. Then we'll move to the courts. MR. FINN: Very good. Madam Chairman, if you turn to page five, I think at this point things will begin to move a little faster. On page five is a summary of the library capital projects. There's actually two funds that fund library capital projects. One of them is fund 307, and the other is 355. Fund 355 is supported by library impact fees. The projects proposed for next year include books and publications at $712,000, 269 of which is funded with ad valorem fees, and AV and other materials at $106,000 funded with ad valorem taxes. The balance of the expenditures include debt service and some refunds of miscellaneous expenditures, and those are funded primarily by -- or completely by impact fees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions on the library capital? Nope. MR. FINN: If there's no question, there we'll move on quickly to -- Page eight, if you would like, is the airport authority capital fund, and this is partially funded by ad valorem taxes. You'll notice in the middle of the page are the projects proposed for next fiscal year. They include a taxiway at the Everglades Airport, terminal office furniture at the same airport; sheriff's dwelling, security fence, and terminal office furniture at the Immokalee Airport; terminal rehab and expansion at MArco Island, aircraft ground power at MArco Island. In summary, the general fund match required for all those projects is $122,000. The balance of funding for those projects will be provided by FDOT grants. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's a sheriff's dwelling? MR. FINN: A sheriff's -- Mr. Drury is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's a sheriff's dwelling? MR. DRURY: It's a caretaker's facility at the two remote airports, Immokalee and Everglades. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody will live there? MR. DRURY: Someone will live there, bring the sheriff's vehicle home and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. DRURY: -- the big gold star, and we won't have the vandalism and all the problems we have at those two airports. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've seen almost all of this somewhere before. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any questions. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: Excuse me? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: I've got one -- I just wanted -- Are we going to discuss the non-recommended items? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to recommend them, but, yes, we can discuss them. MR. DRURY: I'll take them in order of priority. The remote control lighting system for the MArco Island Airport, we need to open up that airport at nighttime now so that we can increase our revenues. We need to address our safety items at night. We were requesting $10,000 to open up the airport at night. It is the only airport that is closed at night of the three-airport system and, of course, the most profitable airport and it will -- I think the revenues will significantly outweigh the investment of the $10,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Having had to race back to beat the clock coming into MArco, I would recommend doing that. MR. FINN: That project is 100 percent funded with ad valorem taxes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The remote control lights? MR. FINN: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Is this the Unicom -- MR. DRURY: It's Unicom operated. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- the landing light -- or the runway lights, I mean? MR. LAZARUS: Slick -- Slick system. Monte Lazarus. MR. FINN: If the board's considering that project, the budget office would recommend that that be included in the airport operating budget where it could be funded by offsetting revenues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I was hearing Mr. Drury say, that he's anticipating revenues that would offset the cost, and it would seem to me that that's where we should move it to, to the -- to the authority. MR. DRURY: We also have reduced overtime cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry? MR. DRURY: Reduced overtime cost for sending employees out there at night, you know, to turn lights on and it's just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have agreement to include that but move it to the airport authority budget? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the understanding that it's going to be a wash? Is that what I'm hearing? I mean, with that expectation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe not even a wash. I mean, positive revenue. MR. DRURY: Yes. A lot of airplanes do divert to other airports because they can't come into Marco Island at night which means we lose significant fuel sales, particularly with the jets. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dorrill, did you have something that overrode that? MR. DORRILL: That's fine. We can leave that one in, in the interest of time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about in the interest of good judgment? MR. DORRILL: Well, I like telling them no. I mean, the board gives them everything they ever want. So I tell them no once in a while just to keep them humble. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Am I correct in saying the direction is to include it, move it to the airport authority budget and offset at revenue? MR. FINN: I have that noted, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DRURY: The second item -- and this all went before the authority, and they all prioritized these. And, of course, it goes before the county manager, and then he obviously has to prioritize them. We're just -- I'm just reflecting what the airport authority board has gone through in their budget committee. The second one was the pilot flight planning and rest rooms. They're in unbelievable disrepair, particularly the rest rooms, you know, with the mirrors being cracked and the rest room being -- You can flush the toilet once. If you flush it more than once, it overflows. They're 20 years old. It's supposed to be an executive-style airport. We're trying to attract an -- create an image there where we are upclass, first class, and those rest rooms need to be rehabilitated. We have no flight planning room and no pilots lounge whatsoever which means that pilots would rather go to other airports to do their flight planning and to do their resting when their CEOs are in town conducting business. It's crucial in order for us to begin attract our corporate pilots and -- and give the image that we are a nice airport to re-do those rest rooms. Any of you have walked into those, you'll -- you'll know what I'm talking about, and certainly to provide the pilots a flight planning room and an airport's lounge. The price of that was $35,000 to do the flight planning or the pilot's lounge room, the women's room, and the men's room. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: $35,000 seems a bit expensive for rest rooms. MR. DRURY: Well, we're looking at about $8,000 or $7,000 per rest room, and we've got some plumbing problems, some tile problems and the whole rest room in general. And then we're looking at building the flight planning room and the pilot's lounge room with the remainder. I think it broke out to 7,000 for the men's, 7,000 for the women's, 12,000 for the flight planning room, and 7,000 for the lounge. That requires moving out a wall and a petition and putting in some petition and putting in some weather equipment so that pilots can at least get the weather before they depart. Right now that's not available at that airport. These are things that are kind of standard at airports like Naples and Fort Myers and -- and those types of airports. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forgive me, Mr. Drury, but aren't we constructing a new facility on MArco? MR. DRURY: Yeah. It's going to take about two years to redo the terminal building. We're looking at expanding the terminal building and rehabilitating it as well, and the intent here was to get the rest rooms and flight planning room on board October 1; whereas, in the grant process of redoing the whole terminal building, we're looking at two years down the road before we get the whole thing completed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All of this $35,000 is ad valorem-supported? MR. FINN: Yes. Again, if it's the board's direction to include this, we would in this case propose reducing reserves in this particular fund so as to not have an impact on ad valorem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I could go along on that basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reserves get pretty skimpy though. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are your comfortable with that, Mr. Drury? MR. DRURY: In putting it into the reserves? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Taking it out of reserves. MR. DRURY: Funding it from reserves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Your reserves are dropped from 150 to 105 or 115. MR. DRURY: That's the reserves for the next capital program. I would -- I would say that that would be sufficient as long as we identify it as a specific project. Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. I would -- I would say that that would be -- We're trying to be very cost-effective. We're going to the military, base closures and trying to get equipment from them. We're working with our purchasing department to try to find furniture that's in our surplus property. So we're going to try to be as cost-effective as we can in -- in getting this terminal building rehabbed with the -- with the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we do it that way, we're not actually increasing the budget at all. We're just putting it towards a specific project so -- MR. LAZARUS: We're trying -- We're trying to save some money on some of the projects which have been recommended. For example, the GPU, the ground power unit, we're contacting the Air Force to see if we can get a surplus one. So we may be able to come back -- I can't make you any promises, but we're trying desperately to see if we can find some -- some places where we can get some surplus equipment and cut back some of the things that have already been recommended. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It looks like we're ready to approve that out of reserves. And, Mr. Drury, you could probably tell the ice is getting pretty thin for the next two. MR. DRURY: Yes. The public parking lot at Everglades City, we're building a terminal building. There will be no public parking lot, so it will be grass and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Back to nature, Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: Very good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a wonderful idea. MR. DRURY: And then the other one was a computer system design. That's a 50/50 match, and that was the lowest on the priority for the authority. And I'll -- I'll go with what you've given us. Leave it at that. Thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, I think in the interest of time we'll skip the water management fund because there's an extensive number of projects there, unless the board feels that they could do justice to those on page nine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Let's -- MR. FINN: They are, however, ad valorem-supported. There's a significant amount of ad valorem support in this category. At the board's discretion, we'll move on. MR. DORRILL: I sent them away so let's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's skip that and do those Wednesday. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Brock will not be here on Wednesday, and he'd still like to come this afternoon. MR. FINN: I think we can wrap this up and bring back the balance of it if you'd like. On page ten is the museum capital improvement funds. There are two projects that are funded for next year. They include some museum general improvement for 10,000. That, I believe, is for a security system and some lecture hall improvements at $35,000. Those are funded through -- partially through ad valorem taxes amounting to thirty-two, six for next fiscal year. That's the proposal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the lecture hall we just built? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are we doing to improve it for $35,000 when it's been open -- MR. OLLIFF: If you'll recall, that was when it was -- it was built partially by county money, partially by donations raised by the Friends of the Museum. They actually handled the management and construction of it. The two things that we just simply didn't have the money to do as part of that project -- and I think you realized it when you met there for your one meeting -- was acoustical panels or some sort of acoustical sound control on the wall. It's just a hollow shell of a building. And the other portion of those capital improvements was a sound system. Neither one of those could we afforded to do in the building, and it makes the building not as functional as -- as it should be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many meetings have we had there since it opened other than the Board of County Commissioners? MR. OLLIFF: I can't tell you, but it's scheduled on a regular basis, more for small groups. We have not been able to do lecture-type meetings there, the ones that we would -- had originally intended to do because of a lack of a sound system. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, what is the sound system and what is the acoustics? What's the split on those two? Because I -- I -- I would prefer to stave off the acoustics, to be honest. The sound system -- you know, you can sacrifice a little bit, but this isn't the year to get it all. MR. OLLIFF: The entire breakdown is here. It's actually probably eight different items. The acoustical wall carpets, the wall trim and moldings was $6,000. Public speaker and address system was $6,000. Projection screen was 1,500. Track lighting, 3,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be comfortable with a quality sound system, but when we're getting into track lighting and some of the extras -- particular like you said, the acoustic panels and so on, I don't think now is the time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The sound system would probably allow for some lectures, and if we sacrifice some sound, I -- I -- I'd like to see the sound system, but the rest I think we're going to have to stave off. That's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suggestion then to cut the thirty-five, five to 6,0007 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Strictly for a sound system. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question. Let's think about what we're doing here. We already have a -- We already have a room whose acoustics -- acoustics are not good and -- and if you introduce a sound system, it would seem to me the reverberation is going to be even worse. And if you're not going to do the acoustics, I wouldn't think the sound system would be in order either, only -- only because it's going to be worse, not better. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not a noise engineer, but if you locate small speakers throughout a hall, faced properly, with the volume lower where people can hear, the reverberation is reduced. We're not talking about one big booming speaker -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I know that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from a source. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think you would actually be able to hear -- hear better rather than projecting from a single source which is what you have to do right now because there is no sound system. So for 6,000, it sounds like it is a true system that's installed with small speakers, and it seems to me you could keep the volume down and avoid the clutter. So maybe we need to revisit the -- the -- the whole thing as a package but I -- I'm just not comfortable putting 35,000 into that right now. Is there any specific direction? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the 6,000 for the sound system and look to the others sometime in the future. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I would be comfortable with. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's okay. Just don't be surprised if people stop using it completely for -- for headache purposes but -- MR. DORRILL: We'll -- We'll take it all out of here then and put it in his operating budget because if we're just going to do that small portion, it doesn't qualify to be in this fund. This is a major capital improvement fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And, frankly, that may also help and -- and could become a project for the friends for next year to -- to want to work with us there and let them do acoustical panels, and we'll try and do the P.A. System. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, the balance that we have left is really fairly large in scope. That would be the parks projects and road projects and we're also -- We've also left the water management projects. I would recommend that we wrap up the capital for now and allow for the higher priority items to be heard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one question on the projects not recommended, and that's the Everglades City laundry. That group, I believe, is -- Mr. Olliff, correct me if I've misunderstood. But they're continuing to look for grant monies? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. I think the board just approved a grant application three weeks ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the 40,000 may be needed to match the grant? MR. OLLIFF: It is, and I think the manager had a discussion and suggested that should we get the grant, then we should come back to the board and perhaps do a requested budget amendment at that point, but rather than setting aside and then requiring us to budget for the monies before we actually know whether we have the grant and the match requirement may be premature. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where would that come from if they were to get the grant? Because I see the reserves are -- MR. DORRILL: General fund reserves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- depleted. General funds? MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, our -- our reserves are now up by $35,000 unless we spend them somewhere else, aren't they? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought that was cut, not just put in reserve. You're talking about the lecture hall? MR. DORRILL: You would cut the transfer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to cut the transfer. Okay. MR. DORRILL: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I certainly would hate to see all the work go for grant and to have grant money come from some other source only for us not -- not to produce the matching funds. MR. OLLIFF: I agree, and I -- I think the original amount of funds that were used to actually make the grant application were provided by the Everglades City friends group down there. So the grant application was made through a professional at no cost to the county. And I think obviously if the county were to be awarded and we actually upped the application to over $300,000, that I would think that, you know, it would be a good investment to spend 40 to get over 300,000 back from the state for that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree, but I think Mr. Dotrill is right. The time to do that is when we know that we've actually got some sort of award, not to do it now and have that money floating. And if we don't get it, then it's still budgeted and we've still taxed for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me? I -- I'm -- I'm missing what you're saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you put $40,000 in the budget and you don't use it, you still have to derive -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the revenue from somewhere. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just am not feeling very good at all about having encouraged the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades to spend their time, effort, and money to apply for a grant in excess of $300,000 only to knock their feet out from under them by not funding the matching portion should they get it. I mean, if they don't get it, they don't get it. We don't spend it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't think that's what's being suggested. I think what's suggested -- MR. DORRILL: We've supported the project to the tune of $45,000 already. That's in this year's budget and forecast to be either spent or carried forward to next year. And I would be the first to say that if they -- if they are successful in getting a $300,000 grant that requires us to, you know, submit a 15 percent match on -- on that, then we'll be back and we'll show you how we'd make that happen. I don't want to predetermine whether we're going to get the grant or not because it's just -- it's difficult from the budget perspective that way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the -- in the past we -- this board has taken a very favorable look upon multi-hundred-thousand-dollar grants that require a minimum fund for matching, and I can't recall in my short history refusing those. So I think we've all signed onto the project that it's a good idea. The question is, do we want to tax people for the $40,000 not knowing at this point whether the grant's even been acquired. I don't think we're, in essence, telling the people in Everglades City we don't support you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I understand what you're saying. I -- I'm just trying to remind you what the perception will be. The perception in Everglades City will be that you don't support us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let's make -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And I'm -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the perception very clear then. I agree with the suggestion Mr. Dotrill made, that if this comes back approved, then let's look at taking it out of reserves and that we should leverage 40,000 for 300,000. It couldn't be any clearer. I'm not saying let's not do this. I'm saying let's not budget it until we know that we're going to move forward. And if we have that opportunity, let's take advantage of it when it comes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What I'm looking for from this board is a clear commitment that if the grant is received, that -- that we will fa -- that we will more than likely favorably look on removing the money. I can't commit this board, I realize. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a clear commitment, that we will probably -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we will probably favorably look at taking the $40,000 -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: look at it that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: that that might happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's fair. I assure you that I probably will Favorably. Probably favorably. That's true. I'll make a firm commitment here That might happen. Yes. Because I certainly want to be able to respond to the phone calls favorably. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: take a break? Probable phone calls. No. They won't be probable at Okay. Let's move on. Are we going to MR. DORRILL: I think then we'd go on to the court's budget, and then we will arrange to have the clerk here after that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we -- Why don't we just take a quick five-minute break and -- and get -- get right back here. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the budget workshop. MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Jean Gansel from the budget office. The first budget that we have to review is the State Attorney's budget. The counties are required to provide operating expenses for the State Attorney's Offices located in their county. The state does pay the salaries. The public -- I'm sorry. The State Attorney's budget as you can see going down almost 11 percent. Some of their operating costs are increasing; however, such things as electricity, water, and sewer, things that are not really within their control. Are there questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not on an 11 percent decrease. MS. GANSEL: I'll introduce Mr. Dennis Pearlman and Debbie Stanbro from the State Attorney's Office in Fort Myers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't -- I don't think we have any questions on this particular budget. MS. GANSEL: Thank you. MR. PEARLMAN: Thank you very much. MS. STANBRO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Public defender. MS. GANSEL: Public defender, again, the counties are required to provide operating expenses and space for the public defender. In addition to the operating cost, Collier County does pay for three state employees, two attorneys and one clerical position. Essentially the -- a couple of years ago it was decided to be the most cost-effective way to handle this. The public defender had certified to the county that he was unable to handle the caseload that he had in Collier County with the positions allocated to him by the state. When that situation occurs, we would have to pay for private attorneys to represent those people. So sometimes that gets confusing, but that's one of the major costs in their budget. Additionally, this year there is a request for a witness interviewer. The current situation is that we have about $17,500 in another budget that's handled through a contract. The public defender has requested that this become a position under his control. It would be handled similar to the way the attorney and the clerical position where we pay the state, and the witness interviewer would be a state position. Mr. Sullivan is here from the Public Defender's Office and would be able to address any questions you might have about this position. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for Mr. Sullivan? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, but I have one for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. MS. GANSEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These budgets that we are seeing here are already taken into account, I assume, when we were told this morning that -- that overall we have 1.1 percent reduction in budget from rollback. MS. GANSEL: The budget -- the -- the expanded request as well as the current, yes, are taken into consideration. These are general funds. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So everything we are seeing here is -- is already then taken into account when you made that -- that calculation? MS. GANSEL: (Nodded head.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's my only question. MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: On page three we have court-ordered costs. This budget is always very difficult to put together because we have very little control of the cost in this budget. Judges order court-appointed attorneys. We must pay the clerk of courts for court operations, and these costs are funded through this budget. We have seen reductions in this budget over the years through better management, contracting with private attorneys, and we are projecting about a $50,000 decrease overall in this budget for next year as you can see from the forecast. We have been cutting back costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that cost reduction is for moving the Collier County court administrator to the state payroll? MS. GANSEL: No. That is not reflected in this budget. That's in the next page. What we have been doing is having contracts with local attorneys, and there's been a reduction in the overall cost for the court-appointed attorneys because of these contracts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. Other questions? The next one. MS. GANSEL: The next page is court administration. Now, this is where we show a reduction in the personal services for the current cost, and that reflects the -- that we are not -- the county is not paying for the court administrator, that it is now a state position. Mr. Middlebrook is the new court administrator. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to -- to talk with him. The current service budget is actually a reduction over last year's budget; however, they have requested an expanded program. The domestic violence unit that was discussed during the program budgeting was ranked as discretionary by the board at that time. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have, and I know Judge Wilson would be glad to address any questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The domestic violence unit, I would request that we don't hear that until we have the full board out here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Domestic violence. I've pushed the call button three times now. I'll push it again. I mean, they both -- they both knew we were going to be hearing the courts. JUDGE WILSON: I'll be happy to go and ask, if you would like. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Can we go forward and come back to that one in a second when they get here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me? JUDGE WILSON: I will go and see if they are -- are -- are going to be able to come back in while you're doing something else, if you would like. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess. I pushed it again. MS. GANSEL: Would you like to move on and then go back to that or -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe they're coming right out. I hear something. I hear a door. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hear something. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're wondering where the Tims are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're wondering where the two Tims are. We rang them three times. I don't know how much longer we can hold up the hearings. Do you want to move on and hear something else, or do you want to wait? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can count too, so I want to do this while they're back there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's wait for Judge Wilson to come back, and then we'll proceed with the domestic violence. JUDGE WILSON: They're coming, they said. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Judge Wilson, we're going to proceed with the -- with the domestic violence unit. We've tried several times to get our other two colleagues to come here, but they seem to be occupied at the time. JUDGE WILSON: I didn't mean to preempt Mr. Middlebrook. I believe all of you have met him. He's our new deputy court administrator, and he is certainly capable of answering any questions that you have other than the domestic violence unit. He can answer those as well, but I think he's just letting -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only expanded service we have as a request is the domestic violence unit, and I believe we talked about how the funds for it had been identified. Can you -- JUDGE WILSON: Well, when I was here at the earlier workshop, at that time we advised you that there were the possibility of some fund savings within the overall budget, one of those being the court administrator's position that is being funded by Lee County, and it appears that there are also a couple of other positions that within the overall budgets that are no longer necessary positions which give us $102,000 that are -- is not new money. So basically for us to have the unit the way that we are envisioning it would only be what I would call new money of 27,500. I want to emphasize that this is not a victim assistance program. It is not a social agency. It is a method of processing a particular type of case within the judicial system. It is not duplicated anywhere else. It is not duplicated by the sheriff's office. The sheriff's office only deals with victims in their victim advocate program, and they deal with victims with all crimes, not just domestic violence. It is not duplicated in the State Attorney's Office. The State Attorney's Office has a diversion program that would work more effectively with the domestic violence unit, but it would not basically do what this unit is envisioned to do. It is only there to help the judiciary -- actually make it possible for the judiciary to process these types of cases more efficiently and will save you money down the road. That's the -- That's the entire purpose. It is -- Just to re-emphasize, it is not a duplication of efforts, and we did find more money. Last time I was here we had, I think, 72,000 that we had found, and now we have 102,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What you mean by that you found it is that you found a way to cut $102,0007 JUDGE WILSON: Well, no. What I found -- What we had found within the budget that you have budgeted last year, within those funds, we have monies that we can use for this instead of the positions that they were previously funding. So, in effect, it looks like we're asking for a hundred twenty-nine, five, but we are actually only asking for twenty-seven, five. We will not be increasing your budget by more than twenty-seven, five. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: $27,500. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need some help there. If we didn't -- If we did not have this program, would we then see a decline of 100,0007 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I can answer that. For the record, I'm Mark Middlebrook, deputy court administrator. No, because we would need to fill some of those positions that we won't need to fill should we have this program. In essence, we're saving $103,000. We're transferring the funding of $103,000 to this program that normally -- except for $53,000 -- would have to be spent anyway. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where would it be spent otherwise? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: In -- In the probation department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the probation department doesn't need it if you're doing this? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct. We will not -- We believe that there will be a savings generated by having this program to where we will not need these positions any longer in probation. JUDGE WILSON: There will be -- There will -- theoretically will be fewer people that will be monitored through the probation department by the utilization of -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Theoretically? JUDGE WILSON: Well, actually -- I'm not supposed to use the "F" word. It's been used in other ways. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? JUDGE WILSON: Oh, the "F" word being Fort Myers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, thank God. I thought you were going to put me in my place just like that. JUDGE WILSON: In other places where this unit has worked, that has been what has happened. There have been fewer probation officers that were -- that were needed. The sheriff's office has shown a decline. To some people, Fort Myers is -- is more of the "F" word than the "F" word so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- How long of a history do the places -- What other places other than Fort Myers have you looked at, and how long of a history do those places have at this? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Allow me to introduce Wendy Stephenson. She's also a deputy court administrator in charge of family law. She's an attorney that oversees the domestic violence program, and she's in charge of this. So she can give you a little more information regarding that. JUDGE WILSON: She's the one who set it up in Lee County and made it operational there and has -- Because she is the deputy court administrator, she will be able to set this up for us and save us a lot of time and money. MS. STEPHENSON: Approximately a year and a half ago I was asked to set up this court because of the need for the services for the court and for the litigants. We are a neutral party. We do help in providing information to the litigants. We investigate on the civil end where the sheriff's department does not have any jurisdiction. We help the court make better well-informed decisions in these areas. What we did was we looked at Dade County. They funded a pilot project. It's been going for five years now. They have, of course, more resources than the twentieth, and we've also -- We were the second circuit to set up this type of program. Since then, many other circuits have set up the program, set them up following our lead as opposed to Dade's. They -- Dade County -- Dade County's program is more of an advocate. It takes more of an advocate-type role. We are more of a neutral party in providing services to the court and to the litigants. But there are other programs that are up and running. We are the second longest running program in Florida, and I believe we were the third program in the entire United States to be set up, and we have been very successful so far. JUDGE WILSON: The other thing to re-emphasize that we talked about last time was that this does free up by setting up -- and probably it's a better term to call it a domestic violence court because it combines civil and criminal, and it frees up -- Two of our circuit judges that are doing injunctions now would have the time available to them to do other circuit cases, and so it is a better utilization of your judicial resources and -- I mean, there are a lot of side benefits, but that's the primary reason why it's appropriate, it's appropriate within this budget, and why I -- I truly believe that it's going to be a cost savings to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- So establishing this domestic violence unit will free up two -- two judges that are doing other things related to this problem. JUDGE WILSON: Centralize it into one -- one, maybe two, but -- but fewer judges will be doing this type of case. Wendy, did you -- MS. STEPHENSON: What we did in Lee County, we originally had three judges signing and hearing the injunctions for protection. Now we have one judge, and he has more time to devote to each and every case which is needed in the civil area now that they've made the penalties more -- Well, actually, now there are criminal penalties along with the civil injunctions. So it's more important to the litigants, to the respondent, that there is a proper investigation done, that the people filing are filing for the appropriate reasons and not because they're getting a divorce or for other reasons. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: While, you know, it's very interesting how the program is going to operate and I respect your opinions on how it's going to operate, we need on this board to work with the dollar figures in the budget, and I heard you say that this -- this definitely saves $102,000 in some other area that we were just shifting to this area, but at the same time then I hear Mr. Middlebrook say it's 53,000, and I also hear you saying this is only theoretically saving, and so I'm not sure where we are on this. I mean, if it's not hard savings, I can't support it -- I mean, if it's not a hard transfer from one department to another. Where are the positions eliminated that you -- you're saving $102,000 from? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay. We're asking an expansion, I believe, of approximately $129,000. We can -- From last year's budget to this upcoming budget, we have identified $102,000 in salaries that will not be filled if this program is approved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Where are those salaries? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Two of the positions are in probation. One is the $53,000 savings that is generated by the State of Florida picking up my salary versus the county picking it up. So if you don't approve this program, it's not that the county is going to save the $102,000 that we're identifying. You will save merely the $53,000 that you are saving by not paying my salary. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now -- JUDGE WILSON: One of the -- One of the incentives for -- Our new chief judge come July 1st is Judge Hugh Starnes who is the judge handling the domestic violence unit in Fort Myers and who has been very supportive and, as a matter of fact, will probably come for one of the hearings that we have here, and one of the incentives for Lee County -- or I'm sorry -- the Twentieth Judicial Circuit to pay the salary rather than Collier County having to pay the salary for the court administrator is so that we can free up some money in Collier County to devote to this because he is very committed to us being able to get our unit here. And I want to apologize officially on the record. I did not mean to be rude in asking that we be heard today. I -- I am very sorry about that, and truly it's probably because I'm a little -- a little tired and that maybe why I'm, Commissioner Norris, being confusing in explaining this to you. The savings are not theoretical. The ones that Mark has just explained to you are not theoretical at all. They are -- Basically those monies are already in that budget. It's just a matter of filling positions for domestic violence unit rather than filling the positions for probation and court administrator. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me understand now the salary of the court administrator. If we do not approve this project, it will be definitely 100 percent a county salary. If we approve this program, it will automatically change to a state -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, sir. JUDGE WILSON: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. JUDGE WILSON: It's already changed to a state. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It's already a state position. JUDGE WILSON: They're not going to take that back. That's -- They won't take that back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We save the $53,000 no matter what we do. The 53 is already saved. We can do the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It sounds like to me that we're really -- you're really only telling me 49,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Theoretically. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Theoretically, yes. You're correct, but you already are saving that. JUDGE WILSON: One thing to remember is that Fort Myers has been paying the salary for this person for quite a while, so we've saved you that money this budget year. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: This budget year. JUDGE WILSON: So we have money to actually return to you, and how much that is going to be I don't know, but there will be money that you're getting back from the budget year you're finishing up. So, yeah, I think it still is pretty much an actual savings of the amounts that we're talking about. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: In addition, sir, I might add that most of the additional expense, other than the salary, is non-reoccurring which means that we won't have to be buying equipment anymore. So after this, our -- our -- most -- the most money that we're going to need is for the personnel as well as a minimal operating budget so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you've already told us the personnel are people you would have in probation otherwise anyway. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this -- Let me ask the question this way. In the court administration, how many employees do we have today? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 44, 45. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: "We" meaning the Collier County Commission is paying for, or "we" meaning that -- or totally reporting through court administration? There's 44 -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Only the ones that are associated with this budget page that I'm looking at right here. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I believe it's -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That Collier County is paying for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's six on that budget page. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Six. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Six. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If we approve the domestic violence unit, how many employees are we going to have? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Nine. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ah-ha. That sounds like a 50 percent increase in employees to me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you don't approve the domestic violence unit, how many employees are we going to have? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Six. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Six with us. You're going to have the two additional with probation. Probation falls under our -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Different -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Middlebrook, can we feel comfortable -- Two pages from now on page seven we get to probation, and it has 22 employees. If we approve the domestic violence, can we knock that down to 20? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That is -- Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have one position that is not filled right now. We have another opening that we are told is going to be occurring that we will not fill. So we will knock it down to 20 employees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So there's a net gain of one -- one position -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We are adding one additional position to court -- and when I say "court administration," I'm talking 44 employees that we have operating the court system. We will actually only add one more to make it 45. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that one position is the position that Mr. Brigham used to occupy and no longer occupies because you've taken his spot, and you are paid by the state instead of the county. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: It will be filled -- It would be like the -- the domestic unit coordinator. I mean, if you want to, you know, kind of figure out in your head, it would be like now having that position filled by a domestic violence court coordinator, and the two probation will be the investigator and a clerical person. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So does that help, John? It's on a different page is why. I hadn't understood that either but if -- you know, that -- that -- JUDGE WILSON: Court administration and court services are different. Court administration is a small part of court services. That's what the confusion is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But from a tax dollars perspective -- JUDGE WILSON: Right. Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. MS. GANSEL: Can I just mention one thing on -- on the probation page? We already have reduced it by one position, so it would be one additional. We have reduced that. I don't want to overstate. I think that's -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That would be my misinterpretation then. MS. GANSEL: But it would be a reduction from last year's budget from -- It would be from 23 to 21 positions. So it's two less positions in probation overall, but one is already shown. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now I'm confused. Go ahead, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My question is -- and this is whether or not you have the numbers in front of you. That reduction from 23 people that were funded last year to 21 that would be funded for the upcoming year, assuming we adopt the domestic violence unit, those two people, their salary and benefits package total is how much? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: 27 and 23,000 respectively for the positions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're talking 50,000. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: $50,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we have 53,000 that we're not going to be paying because the state is now paying you. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's $103,000. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're seeing a real personnel cost reduction of $103,000 this year? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: believe him. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: cost. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: personnel costs -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct. No. No. That is correct. If he says correct, I'm going to That is correct. You said a personnel reduction Personnel -- A reduction in Costs, dollars, from last year to this year of $103,000 and that -- HR. HIDDLEBROOK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how we come to the conclusion that this unit we can have for 26,000 real new dollars. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the -- but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But, now, wait a minute. JUDGE WILSON: Well, two of the positions he was going to fill if we don't have the unit. So you're -- you won't be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The problem, Commissioner Hancock JUDGE WILSON: You'll only be saving the 53 if you don't fund the unit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we don't fund the unit, these two people in probation -- those two positions need to be filled if we don't fund it. JUDGE WILSON: And -- And I have a colleague here that has asked to help, and I said, please, I would love for you to. MR. BROCK: Commissioner I can't speak to -- My name is Dwight Brock. I'm the clerk of the circuit court. But one of the things that this particular program will do, as Judge Wilson has said, domestic violence issues arise in different jurisdictions. For example, injunctions are circuit jurisdiction issues. Those matters are dealt with by my circuit court clerks, but yet they deal with the same matters that take place in county court in such things as battery, assault, and things of that nature. To have this handled in the manner that Judge Wilson is suggesting in one court will certainly make life simple from -- simpler from a record-keeping standpoint for the clerk's office. And to that extent, I wholly support this concept. Hopefully we will be able to realize dollars as this process develops through that process also. It is not measurable at this point, but I've had conversations with Judge Wilson, and in the conceptual scheme of things, I think that this will eventually be beneficial to everyone. JUDGE WILSON: Something else to remember is that Lee County is roughly twice -- twice as large as we are in population, but last year they had -- These are just criminal. These are not the injunctions, but just criminal. They had 1,200 cases. We had 1,000. Our cases here are being filed very rapidly, and what this is, is a way for us to manage our caseload because the way it is increasing, we are not managing it very well. It is -- It is managing us basically, and we need to figure out a way to manage these cases, and they are not going to go down if we don't do something to manage them. They're just going to continue to go up, and obviously Collier County's problem is -- is -- is actually greater per capita than Lee County has shown to be. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, another thing that I think we all should keep in mind is that I hope the total objective here is to provide relief from those who are victims. One of the problems that we currently have is because things arise in different jurisdictions, they have a tendency to get lost. If you have it all in one unit, then that possibility is diminished, and we're able to afford to our citizen a greater degree of protection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Further questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think that this -- that it's rare that we have proposals from the judiciary saying here is a common sense solution to a problem where we have mixed jurisdictions and -- and we have judges who are hearing cases and making decisions that affect the most basic safety and welfare of citizens in Collier County without adequate information to base those decisions on, and this is a way to solve that problem proposed from the people who deal with it on a daily basis. So I -- I hope that this is going to get support. I know you guys already know that I'm a strong supporter of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other comments? Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many counties have this program in place? JUDGE WILSON: In -- In Florida just two. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No. That's not right. MS. STEPHENSON: Actually four counties. JUDGE WILSON: Oh, four? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Four counties. JUDGE WILSON: There are two that got ahead of us. MS. STEPHENSON: Afterwards. JUDGE WILSON: After. After. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My only -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry. The four counties are doing this. JUDGE WILSON: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what is the -- You've said in Lee -- and I apologize. I heard -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dade. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- part of this over the speaker as I came -- MS. STEPHENSON: Lee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to get -- You have to be on the microphone. MS. STEPHENSON: Lee County, Dade County, Palm Beach County and Broward County. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in Lee you have realized some real dollar savings of how much? MS. STEPHENSON: Well, we -- we haven't been able to measure that at this point, only because we've only been up and running for a little over a year. The cases are coming in at such great volume that we only have five -- five actual full-time equivalent personnel working in the area, and we have not had time to do any type of reporting at this point, but it appears that we are making a difference. We are helping these people. We are definitely helping the judiciary. As I said, we freed up two judges who were spending approximately three days, maybe four hours, twelve hours each a week on the injunctions at injunction hearings signing the injunctions. So we have realized, I guess, in full-time equivalent in terms in our judges' time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know if there were any or what they are -- the real dollar savings in Dade, for example? Are they the oldest? MS. STEPHENSON: They are the oldest. JUDGE WILSON: They are the oldest. MS. STEPHENSON: I haven't -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I would suggest, sir, that we not even -- I don't think we need to compare ourselves to Dade because our program is a little -- much different than the way they do things over there. Their entire court system operates on a different -- MS. STEPHENSON: Manner. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- different manner than we do. So everything is different. I might add that we have identified freeing up basically one judge's time out of the two that serve Collier County in this manner which -- at a $104,600 which is what their salaries are next year plus benefits. They're going to be able to address other problems that we are not able to address in a timely manner right now. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I -- I've been beating around it, but I think one of the problems that you're having in getting a quantified number as to the savings that this will generate is that the increase in volume in domestic violence cases throughout the nation has been in such a dramatic increase that you're not measuring apples to apples. I mean, you look at the program today in terms of its dollar cost, and you look at it tomorrow in terms of its dollar cost. And because you're dealing in such differences in volume, it's very hard to quantify the dollar savings that you are making by implementing a program like this in any static position because it is so volatile. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a recommendation? I'd like to keep it in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My only -- There's a bit of a shell game going on right now that I don't understand in the budget. Okay? Help -- JUDGE WILSON: Not intentional. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No. Help -- Just help me with this. As I'm looking on page seven, which is where we're going to see these additional two positions come from, okay, the difference between the adopted budget of '94, '95 and the forecast expenditure revenue is $53,000, presumably Mr. Brigham's position. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Maybe I can clear this up. JUDGE WILSON: Maybe Jean can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think if we all knew where the money was really coming from, it would make the decision easier. JUDGE WILSON: Maybe Jean can explain. MS. GANSEL: On page five in personal services, this is where Mr. Brigham's salary is not being shown. It was shown in adopted budget for fiscal '94, '95. As you see in our forecast, we have reduced personal service cost. That's to account for the six months of savings -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a half a year. MS. GANSEL: -- from his position. And then in the current year, we have $238,500. It's not exact because you have some increases obviously in the existing salary. So where you have 53,000 -- you're not going to see exactly 53,000 because some of the existing employees with the 3 1/2 percent increase, but I think you can see the -- the net reduction there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Jean, now, take me to page seven where -- MS. GANSEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- where we were told that there would be a reduction in personnel if we adopted the domestic violence unit. MS. GANSEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Help me walk through the personnel service and show me those reductions. MS. GANSEL: Okay. In -- In probation there is one reduction as shown in this budget. If you adopt this program, there will be an additional position that will be reduced, and I understand that position is 27,000. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am. MS. GANSEL: Okay. So, here again, we have $792,800 for personal services in probation, fiscal '95, 23 positions. When we go to the current services for '95, '96, we have $780,500. So there is a reduction of one position from last year's budget to this year. We will further reduce it by an additional position if the domestic violence -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me follow-up on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Adopted last year was seven, ninety-two, but forecast is only seven, thirty-nine. We've only had 22. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Down one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're down one anyway. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have not filled that position, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Which is my point. We're not actually cutting when it's not filled anyway, and the forecast is seven, thirty-nine. So it's an increase again of $41,000. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We -- We agreed not to fill that position pending this domestic violence unit. That's why it hasn't been filled. JUDGE WILSON: We've been working on this for a while trying to get people to -- because if you recall, what you told me when we -- when I first came was, go -- go forth and find money and -- and find positions that are somewhere else that won't be there if you do this. And even though the clerk and the sheriff think that they're going to have savings, they can't -- from a budgetary point of view, they could not tell me, I'm going to delete this position for this, but the places that we could I've -- are what we have shown you. And so, yes, that position is one that they were not intending to, but that was because we wanted to leave it open. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has that position ever been filled? JUDGE WILSON: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because there was -- I noticed the year before it was only -- there were only 21 positions, and then you were budgeted for 23, but it only ever went up to 22. I'm wondering -- MS. GANSEL: That was a different position. That was an intensive supervisor. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: January, sir, is when that position came open, and we did not fill it as of January. So that position that is already shown to be cut which was tentative, but it's already reflected here, came open in January. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One -- A bit earlier I think you also said that of the 22 current employee -- or positions, one of those is vacant. And how long has that been vacant? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, sir, we're in a treading water stage right now. We've been told that that position is going to be vacant. At this time, though, it is not, although that position is not filled. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's not vacant, but it's not filled. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a tough time following that. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: There -- There's not a body in that position, although we are still funding that position. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. JUDGE WILSON: Well, it's kind of in limbo. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's not then a real savings because we're not filling that position anyway. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, sir. I -- I --I can't -- I don't know if I'm going to be able to state this clearly enough for you. There is a position that has been identified -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you state it clearly, I guarantee you I will understand it. But what I see happening is you're asking us to accept the fact that unfilled but budgeted positions are what we are using to fund other positions. Now, you could -- You could budget an additional half a dozen positions and not fill them, and then next year you could eliminate those and tell us that's a big savings, but I'm not buying it. JUDGE WILSON: That -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That's not what I'm saying, sir. What I'm telling you -- JUDGE WILSON: That -- That position is one that will not be filled for someone in that -- that person that was in that position is not going to go back to probation. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: There's a person being transferred. We will not fill that transfer, is what I'm saying. But we are still paying that position. That person is still employed. They are just transferring to another position. So it's not that we've added positions into this budget just to remove them. There are -- There are viable positions. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In answer to -- to Commissioner Hancock's question, Miss Gansel took us through and -- and that was trackable. I mean, all of that could be easily followed. I mean, I guess what would have been clearer is if you had not made the assumption and left two positions in probation so then we could be very dramatic and "X" them out. It would be clearer but -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We can't "X" these positions out if we don't have this unit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm just simpler than you, but I didn't follow it very clearly -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With Jean? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what Jean said. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do it again. JUDGE WILSON: Maybe it's your French, your budget French. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I say do it again because I -- I -- I think it's clearly there and that we're -- we're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. MS. GANSEL: Maybe if we look at it from total positions adding probation and administration for fiscal '95, we had 30 positions that were budgeted for -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the adopted budget? MS. GANSEL: Adopted budget, right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 30. Okay. MS. GANSEL: And then for the current service for fiscal '96, we are showing 28 positions; however, if this unit is approved, we would show 27. So from adopted budget last year to the current service for this year, we can show a reduction of three positions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- if we -- if we take the column adopted budget '94, '95 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. What page are you on? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm on seven and five. If we take the adopted budget column for '94, '95 on page seven, there are 23 positions, and on page five there are seven positions. You add those together, and it is 30 positions. MS. GANSEL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We go over to FY '95, '96 total budget on page seven. There are 22 positions. If we adopt the program, there will be nine positions from page five. Add those together is -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: to delete one of the 22. 31. 31. -- 31. Net of one addition. But they have said they are going So it's still 30 positions. HR. HIDDLEBROOK: Right. So we still have 30 positions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the total number of positions adopted budget does not change because one of those positions is Paul Brigham. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the other two are approved budgeted positions from probation. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But here's the problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here's the problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here's the problem. We've already saved the $53,000 administer -- administrator's salary no matter what we do with the rest of the program, and we're using funded but unfilled positions to fund the rest of the program, a minus -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of those. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- 27,000, or whatever it is, which -- which includes mostly capital costs that will be a onetime non-recurring fee. So, you know, it's really difficult to say we're saving anything by doing this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. When you look at actual for fiscal '93, '94, you're seven plus 21 is 28 positions. Don't compare it to adopted, but compare it to what's forecasted this year which will be actual for this year, and that is six plus 22 is still 28 positions. So over those two years, you had no increase, you'd still have 28, and the next year would be 30. So that's an increase. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The $53,000 is a problem if you're going to say that's a savings because it's not. You're -- You're -- You did save it, but now you're saying, well, we'll spend it -- since we saved it, we're going to spend it on something. So where's the savings? JUDGE WILSON: You know what? It's really hard for me because this is not the language that I speak to -- and I -- and I -- I want to apologize to you if -- if it appeared that I was trying to do a shell game, as Commissioner Hancock said. It's not that at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not an accusation. JUDGE WILSON: Well, no, no. I know it wasn't. But what -- what I was trying to do is to make it palatable to you. That's all that I tried to do, to make you understand how important this is. There are a lot of things that we do in the judiciary that I can't assess a dollar value to that we save you money. The three county judges have just started using a new judgment form that we fill out in court each and every time we sentence someone. And if Dwight is still here, I'm sure he can tell you that that has made a big difference in what -- how he is able to handle his resources. I think, Dwight, that it's fair to say that that has freed up people in the clerk's office by us using a different kind of form. It also has freed up people in the probation department because George doesn't have to send -- is this right, George? MR. DROBINSKI: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: He doesn't have to send a probation officer to court each and every time there is a county judge there. That's because the three county judges decided to do this, and it's a savings that I don't know how to quantify. I know that it's there. I have the two department heads who have said that they have it. But, Dwight, do you know? Could you quantify that? MR. BROCK: No. JUDGE WILSON: No. It's something that we do to manage our caseload and make things work more efficiently, and that's all that I'm trying to do here, and that's all that all of the judges -- and, by the way, I -- I do want you to know that the other judges that would be involved in this are the two county judges who handle domestic violence criminal cases. That's Judge Turner and Judge Ellis, also Judge Blackwell and Judge Rosman that handle the civil injunctions. They are all supportive of this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me that -- Let me interject this thought. The one thing that -- that we've tried to do in the last year and we're still trying to do it and will continue to try to do it is to provide better services either for less money or for nominal amounts more, and last year we agreed to fund court administration to the tune of $53,000 of which we only spent half because Mr. Brigham resigned and Mr. Middlebrook was appointed to that position and paid for by the state, and we agreed last year to fund $49,000 worth of positions in the parole and probation department that we're now being told can be moved over to this domestic violence unit. Between those two or those three positions that we agreed last year to fund is $102,000, and that $102,000 is more than the $98,000 in personal services that we're being asked to fund for this project, and that seems to me that we're -- by doing that, we're providing a better service for less money for the citizens of Collier County, and that's what we agreed to do. I can't -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It's very succinct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- seem to find any problems. I mean, we've -- we've got some operating expenditures. We've got some onetime capital outlay. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. You know, everything that we do certainly isn't going to save money, but we as a community do not want to remain stagnant. We want to try to improve the service level that we provide our citizens. That's the objective that I think the judiciary has tried to do and has involved the sheriff's department, has involved the clerk of the circuit court, has involved the state attorney, and this is simply one branch of the program that we as a combined body are trying to develop to provide the domestic violence protection to the community as a whole. It may not save us money, but it's nominal in the increase that we would have to spend if that's the situation. And I think we're all sort of walking around not knowing exactly where we're going in terms of how much money it's going to save us, but we all believe that ultimately once we get the program in place and once that it's -- it is operational, that it will, in fact, free up labor resources to provide other services to the community. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, and then I'm going to poll the board to see where we go with this. We've spent enough time on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: can't argue with you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Commissioner Matthews, I Yeah. That's three. What you -- What? That we're going to poll it? Arguing polling the board? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What you said makes a tremendous amount of sense. I understand Commissioner Norris' argument, that, in essence, we're taking positions that weren't filled and counting them and so forth and so on. But what I hear is, if we don't do the domestic violence unit, at least one of those positions is going to be filled. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Two of them, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two of them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two of them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're going to spend the money one way, or we're going to spend it another, and the difference is, do we get $53,000 back. And that -- that -- If we don't do the domestic violence unit, we get $53,000, and our probation system continues to operate the way it has with three judges still juggling a caseload. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: With less service. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five judges. JUDGE WILSON: Five. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And less service. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We get -- I mean, that $53,000 is gone no matter where -- which way the -- the other question goes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the two positions that would otherwise be funded -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Middlebrook, is your salary going to continue to be picked up by the state? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So next year you won't be coming back as a county employee? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, sir. This is a -- going to be a state-funded position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, John, this -- I mean, Commissioner Norris, this -- this -- if -- if -- if the only way you could support this is by virtue of a savings, then I don't think we're going to get there but -- but this is one of those where we might have to spend a little bit more, but we're talking about providing significantly greater services at a most fundamental base level of health and safety and -- and I think it's our job to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Judge Wilson, I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- have a question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Wrap it up real quick. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Judge Wilson, would you be able to have a functioning unit with a lead coordinator and investigator and one -- In other words, with two people. Would you be able to have a functioning unit with two people? JUDGE WILSON: No. No. That -- That's not a place -- because you have to have -- The coordinator is in court a lot. You have an investigator that's going to be in the field a lot, most of the time, and you have to have the other person that's there to deal with victims, to deal with defendants, to deal with all the sheriff's office, the State Attorney's Office, all those -- the paperwork. The paperwork is unbelievable. So it -- this is the bare bones -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. JUDGE WILSON: -- As far as personnel is concerned. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm going to poll the board. No. Commissioner Hancock? Yes. Matthews. Yes. Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can count to three. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to get to say my yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm counting your yes, so the answer is it's moot. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, how did you vote? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's moot. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did you vote? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He's not going to tell you. JUDGE WILSON: Don't leave us in suspense. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, Tim. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a moot point. JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's as good as a no, Tim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's as good as a no. Let's go. JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consider it whatever you want. It's a moot point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It doesn't matter. The project moves forward. Next item. MS. GANSEL: Next, page seven is the financial information for parole and probation. We have discussed this quite a bit already. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll be cutting seven positions here. MS. GANSEL: We will be reducing the budget by the $27,000 in one position as has been discussed in the other. There are some operating reductions not at all associated with the domestic violence unit that are in the current. They had some data processing costs that had been reduced by $16,700. There is an expanded request. It has two aspects to it. The first is to expand their office automation which was a recommendation of the clerk of courts and performance audit, and there is a request for a second -- is an additional vehicle as was requested by the court administrator. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is an -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- additional vehicle, not a replacement vehicle? Because we just took -- We just eliminated two of your positions, and now you need an additional vehicle. MR. DROBINSKI: George Drobinski with the county probation. The additional vehicle, we had requested a vehicle last year to be utilized by our intensive supervision officer. To this date, we are still awaiting arrival of that vehicle. And, as result of the field contacts that we do on probationers, we're still utilizing our own vehicles in the field, had mileage reimbursement expenses and wear and tear on our own personal vehicles to accomplish those field contacts. The secondary -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a second, George. Why are we waiting a year later for a vehicle? MR. DROBINSKI: Apparently there's difficulty with the part that is being -- with the vehicle, and we have not even received it at motor pool. I speak with Mr. Pucher on a regular basis. The money has already been expended basically from that particular object code for the purchase of that vehicle. I was normally instructed that it would be three months for a delivery time, and the last call I made to Mr. Pucher was approximately -- less than a month ago or so, and apparently it is at the construction side of it, the -- where they're assembling it, which is the problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What kind of car is this? MR. DROBINSKI: It's -- It's a standard vehicle. We wanted a little light vehicle truck with good suspension. A two-wheel drive is all we needed, and apparently it is at the assembly line where the holdup is. And we could go to a higher bid. That's something that we had already discussed, but I -- I've done a lot of that, going bloop, you know, why so long. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I've got to -- Just a question. Does anybody know why we don't have anybody from the manager's office here while we're doing this budget? Because this would be a question I would ask him as to why the heck haven't they got their car yet. Does anybody know where -- We have nobody? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have the feeling that based on that statement, there's someone running up or down some stairs right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I sure hope so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because, again, I -- Okay. You're having problems with getting a vehicle. So you're asking for another one. Well, if this one were to come today, do you still need another vehicle, in the face of a reduction of staff? MR. DROBINSKI: We have ten opportists, ten probation officers, and what we've done is that we were able to reconfigure the way we do our court procedures. We are able to save time management by about 50 percent on how we manage our court. I was able to also reconfigure how we do our county -- county duty seeing the people, and that's a savings like 40 percent which gives more time for the field opportists in the field to see the probationers who work with the cases because working with these probationers in their home environment is essential to bring about better behavior modification. The second vehicle is merely to allow more officers in the field with less wear and tear on their own personal vehicle. It's not that we're asking for one additional because we haven't received the first vehicle. It's that two vehicles would basically be better miles -- more miles covered. And, yes, even in regards of the -- you know, more efficient way that we're dealing with our time, you know, Commissioner Constantine had a question before. We had 21 people on the -- on the payroll last year or two years ago, and then we went up to 23. It's because this board saw fit to go ahead and improve our program by adding on another officer for intensive supervision and a part-time secretary which is a half position that wasn't counted to a full position. And, as a result of that, Commissioner Norris made somewhat of a comment of where's the savings. I'd like to address that question, that by increasing that intensive supervision program by 25 people by having an additional officer, taking those people out of the jail at a normal cost, around $44 a day, that's about $400,000 a year from that program. And that's why when we look at programs such as domestic violence which probation officers have to deal with as well, that is assisting us a great deal. This is in the -- not in personal services. We're asking for this increase -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we add another one and not build a jail? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's add five more of those, and that equals 256 beds. MR. DROBINSKI: But we have seen a substantial savings. And also on the forecast too, I'd like to touch upon the budget, unless, Commissioner Hancock, you wanted to probably go more on this subject than that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me, I -- I -- I don't know where -- I just asked why are we asking for another vehicle when there's a reduction in staff. MR. DROBINSKI: It would allow more probation officers in the field because we're not eliminating any probation officers. In fact, we find that we're getting more complex cases. The eliminations to a large degree -- Even prior to the talk of the domestic violence and even prior to the Fort Myers issue looming and such like that, we were working hard in increasing our efficiency with the program, and I owe a lot to Dwight Brock when I asked for an audit on the department sometime ago and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, George. How many cars do you have right now? MR. DROBINSKI: Zero. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We're allotted one. MR. DROBINSKI: One on the way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Never mind. MR. DROBINSKI: But we were able to, you know, understand how we can operate more efficiently, and I approached this board sometime ago, and the last time I said that we had an office assistant two position that vacated, and I was able to restructure the office where we could compensate for that vacancy, and that if there should be another clerical position that it ever left the office, I feel that I can as well compensate and not have to fill that position at more savings. Now, we still came to revenues. How do we work around that. We had a deficit. This year we will have one. Last year we had one. So the solution for that is I approached this board and said we're going to have a more aggressive collections campaign. We are also going to go forth and reduce the amount of waivers that we do, and some of the numbers that I ran up on the way over here is that from the first two months of this fiscal year, we were averaging about $37,587 in collection revenues, probation fees, on a monthly basis. We increase that by 17 percent in the next three months on an average, and in the last three months we've increased that by 32 percent. Now, we're collecting about $58,266 average monthly in probation fees. That's going to get us part of the way as far as meeting our expenditures. Here comes the good part. On County Manager Dorrill's desk right now is an executive summary that I'm asking the board to consider within the next 30 days or so that I'd like to raise the probation fee to $45 a month, not to assess it to the taxpayer, but put it back to the probationers on probation. That would bring in an additional $104,000 on an annual basis. That should allow us to be a self-sustaining entity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $45 per -- per month? MR. DROBINSKI: As opposed to $40 a month. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought 40 was the maximum we could charge. MR. DROBINSKI: No. The statute says that -- by statute -- and I have it. I can pull it here -- that any person placed on misdemeanor probation by county court must contribute not less than $40. The statutes that we had back in the previous book was $50. We currently are assessing $50 per intensive supervision office probationer on intense supervision because the service is so much greater. We're seeing these individuals three times a week as opposed to once a month. So with the standard probation, and as well, again applaud the insight of this board that allowed us to expand our profile system. We're able to put more of the lower-end offenders on a computer-monitoring system which allows again -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, George. MR. DROBINSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't mean to interrupt again, but does anyone have any questions with this budget? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I don't have any -- any major problems except I don't feel good about funding $12,500 for another automobile and have you wait another two years for it, but I think that's a purchasing problem and not a court problem. MR. DROBINSKI: Correct. Correct. We would still be utilizing that vehicle. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we can ever find somebody from the manager's office, we can probably ask that question and try to solve that problem. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We tried to light a fire under somebody to get this vehicle over the last two months. We just can't really -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If this board doesn't mind, I'd like to flag this 12,500 for wrap-up Wednesday because I want an answer to why you haven't gotten a car in a year. MR. DROBINSKI: You probably also want to include I believe it's 3,000 or $3,500 that comes out of motor pool. That's related to the vehicle. That was also in the expanded, just so -- you know, we're talking more like $15,000. That's kind of a package deal. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consider it flagged. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not in an issue of whether or not to fund, just use it as an opportunity to find out where the heck is the car. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Use it as an opportunity to find out where your -- where your light truck is. MS. GANSEL: If I could -- If there's consensus on the board to increase the probation fees, we would be able to reduce '- I'm sorry -- to increase the revenues from this department by -- by 75,000 or so. MR. DROBINSKI: 104,000. MS. GANSEL: 104. Excuse me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 104,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got -- You've got my vote. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll tell you, if -- if -- if -- if we could make this self-funding, I wouldn't mind see it go to 47 or $48. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or 75. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you can collect it. That's part of the problem. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, that -- that's the problem, ma'am. If we go too high, we're not going to ever collect it, and we're going to show a major deficit as far as fees outstanding. MR. DROBINSKI: Also, when I was writing this up, I wanted to make sure that we were fairly consistent with other counties as well and that we are providing services far more efficient now, and $45 should allow us to be self-supporting, especially with these very encouraging revenue projections and collections we've done so far just in the last quarter alone. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, let me add something to what George said about the collection process. I mean, we're in the process of running the judiciary reports, and just through the efforts of the probation department and the clerk of the circuit court in the collection, we have gone from approximately 61 percent of outstanding due fines and costs over the -- 1994 to approximately 82, 83 percent collection rate. So, you know, part of the process that George is involved in in conjunction with working with my staff and with the judiciary, we have increased the collectability of those fines and costs by 20 percent and it's growing. We have implemented a program that George and his staff are working with that we call a mediation program -- it's not really a mediation program -- with Judge Wilson's courtroom, and we're collecting somewhere in the neighborhood of 93 percent of those fines and costs that have been imposed by her in placing this program where we're making them sign an agreement, and then the clerk of the circuit court is monitoring that process. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do you think about the $45? Is that collectable? MR. BROCK: It is as collectable as 40. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm for 45. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Same here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got no problem with 45. I just as soon see it go higher. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We have to have a -- We have to have an agenda item on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Yeah. They're going to bring it in a week or two. Jennifer, the reason we asked for some to come to the county -- come here from the county manager's office -- and you can make a note of this because we want an answer Wednesday in the wrap-up -- we've just heard that the probation department has been waiting a year to get a light truck through the purchasing department, and we want to know more about what the problem is. Supposedly it's hung up on an assembly line, and I know I can go to Bob Taylor's tomorrow and buy a light truck and -- and I -- I know the bid might go up, but I want to know more about -- MS. EDWARDS: I did check with our fleet manager before I came up, and he said that it's been on order for about six months and that it is a special order. It's -- They have requested an automatic transmission and that those are on back order. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Those are pretty fancy. Not too many of those around. MS. EDWARDS: That's the reason I was given, and if we -- and if we look elsewhere, the '96 prices aren't available now. So we can't go to another vendor, is the explanation I received, but I will get additional information for you for the wrap-up. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I heard -- I heard the funds had already been expended. We've already paid for it. MR. DROBINSKI: Well, it's already shown that it's -- it's taken out of our object code. MS. EDWARDS: They've been -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They've been appropriated. MS. EDWARDS: -- encumbered. MR. DROBINSKI: Yes, they are. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But we haven't -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Encumbered. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Expended and encumbered are different. MR. DROBINSKI: Excuse me. MS. EDWARDS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. DROBINSKI: And just -- just a quick addition is we're collecting about 80 percent of our probation fees, and by this restructuring that we just underwent, we should be able to make that $45 even higher than 80 percent, probably as much as 84 percent or 85 percent because more officer time to deal with each case. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Bring in more money. MR. DROBINSKI: Will do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item is court counseling. MR. DROBINSKI: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Court counseling on page nine is the fiscal information. They do have an expanded program to automate their files, and this was ranked as essential by the board during program budgeting. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions anybody? Thank you. Witness management. MS. GANSEL: Page ten, witness management, we do have an overall decrease of 8 percent in this budget due to some office -- I can take a hint. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Enough of that, huh? Okay. Court security. MS. GANSEL: Okay. In -- In -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ouch. MS. GANSEL: In court security the addition -- the expanded program here was not reviewed during program budgeting, and it was a request from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit to adequately staff the Immokalee courthouse to be completed. We do not have full-time security there at this particular time. To do so will be two full-time positions -- actually, changing some of their part-time positions to full-time portions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I can't help but feel that that project is taking so long to do. I know right now it's supposed to be finished in December? January? MS. GANSEL: I'd heard January when I asked about that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And January might quickly become February or MArch. My suggestion is, since this is all general revenue money and so forth, I would just as soon see those two part-time positions go back into reserves, and when you need them, get a budget amendment for it because I -- I -- I'm not -- I don't feel real good about putting money into the court system and then we virtually lose control on it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Until we know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Until we know that you need them. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that makes sense. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are -- Are you suggesting that we cut these positions today and then take it out of -- of the reserves? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I'm -- I'm suggesting that we take these positions and any monies associated to them, put them into the reserves -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: MA'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- increase the reserves. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I -- I believe we're asking to convert two part-time to two full-time. We still need the part-time position because we do hold court in a building out in Immokalee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And not much of a building at that. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm talking about the associated revenue with the increase to full-time positions, and then when you -- when you -- not to cut them, not to reduce our overall budget, but to replace them back in the reserves because this -- this Immokalee courthouse renovation, it's running six or seven months behind time now. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And -- And that's -- that's the reason why I'm questioning what you're asking for because it seems to me if your -- if your concern is that this completion date is going to be extended until well into next year, we'll be -- have more than halfway through our budget cycle at that point, our budget year, and if you don't eliminate these positions, there's no point in really moving them into reserves. I mean, it's the same amount of dollars one way or the another. It doesn't help anything to put it back into reserves. On the other hand, if you take this increase and just eliminate it, that does reduce the total budget a bit. And at some point in time, if they ever get this thing on-line, then you can go from the existing reserves and fund these positions for a part of the year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's true. There's -- There's adequate reserves to -- to fund them no matter what, but I'm -- I'm not particularly anxious -- Well, let me ask Ms. Gansel a -- a question. When we approve the -- the budget for the courts which are now and probably by the end of this fiscal year will be totally within the control and perusal of the court administrator for the judicial circuit, how do we handle that money? Do we just give them a monthly check based on whatever the budget approval is or what? MS. GANSEL: I'm going to defer to -- to Mr. Smykowski. He's been working with the contracts and the other counties. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I have not actually seen contracts from the other counties, but that is my understanding how -- how that arrangement works where they have a total agreed-to dollar figure, and then they would receive allotments on either -- probably a monthly basis -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- So we would agree to a total budget amount, and then each month they would receive one-twelfth of whatever that budget amount is, and they don't particularly have to report back to us exactly how they spent that money. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think that could probably -- it probably is built into -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: My understanding is it's still going to be -- We'll still be sitting here like we are, next year, explaining our entire budget request to you. You fund the money, and then we -- the clerk cuts one-twelfth draws to our accounts and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. But my -- my question, Mr. Middlebrook, is, once we cut that one-twelfth draw each month, who dictates precisely how you spend it after that? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I -- I believe -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And you smile. You just told me. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- that the circuit does that, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You smiled. You just told me. So with -- with that, that's the -- that's what I have in mind for taking this -- this amount of money out because I -- I for one am not interested in giving them $53,000 when I don't know when they're going to need the bodies. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: As long as we can come back to you, I believe is what you were saying -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah. We would have no problem with that at all. No need for the money now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can always come back and ask for more money. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We don't like to do that, sir. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So the direction is remove the sixty-five, sixty? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is -- Is all of that related to the increased personnel? MS. GANSEL: There's -- Yes, or the Immokalee courthouse. Some are for radios. One thing that we can eliminate -- There was a contract. $6,400 is for the contract on the scanning machine. And when I was talking to them, I indicated what kind of warranties are there because we'd have to purchase one new one, so we wouldn't need the maintenance contract for the first year. So of that, 64,000 can be -- 6,400 can be eliminated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- MS. GANSEL: We'll do that, and put the other in reserves? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Let's eliminate whatever is not -- whatever is related to the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: To the security. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- increased security. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Okay. Page -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Page 13. MS. GANSEL: Page 13, we have the circuit court judges. Their budget is going up a little bit this year. Some of our circuit judges have new responsibilities in the circuit, and the increased costs are associated with those increased responsibilities. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not -- I mean, you're the closest I have to a circuit rep. That's not -- They give -- The circuit gives the judges new responsibilities, but we have to fund the cost associated with the new responsibilities? It seems like the circuit would do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: funding. Welcome to it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's called article five To government. So Judge Blackwell -- Welcome to state government. HS. GANSEL: Yeah. The operating cost is that they would have more stationery that they need, some of those types of things which we do fund. It is a -- you know, not a major cost, but it's a big increase. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It does benefit the county to have somebody like that here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So Judge Baker and Judge Blackwell got promoted and we get to pay for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then my other question is, do the other judges have computers and Judge Blackwell is the only one who doesn't or '- MS. GANSEL: No. This is a new computer for him. I believe he does have a -- I'm sure they all have computers. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I do not know if Judge Blackwell has a computer. MS. GANSEL: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I can't say that he does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll have to explain our article five to you one day. County court. MS. GANSEL: County judges are a little more frugal. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless them. MS. GANSEL: year. for? They're kind of status quo budget from last COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job. MS. GANSEL: Showing a $500 increase in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you pare that back to 250? MS. GANSEL: If we round to the nearest hundred. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is $600 in capital outlay MS. GANSEL: This is for software. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Software. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know like robes and -- JUDGE WILSON: We buy our own. MS. GANSEL: Actually -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK They do purchase their own robes. MS. GANSEL: I must say that once we got female judges and dry cleaning -- we had dry cleaning bills for them. The male judges were not having their robes dry cleaned. So we've increased the budget a little bit with females, not to be sexist. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The nuances of your judgeship. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a hygiene question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any further comment on that, Commissioner Hac'Kie. I believe there are representatives from the media here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Economic crime rehab. MS. GANSEL: The economic crime -- This is a program where adult offenders are referred to classes. We do receive revenue from this, and we project about $200 to the general fund over our expenses. The next budget on page 16, a similar type thing, alcohol information program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: People are -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public guardianship. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who provides these classes? MS. GANSEL: We contract. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With David Lawrence or somebody? MS. GANSEL: No. I -- I believe it's -- Actually, Sal Gardino does one of them, I believe. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have trained people, master-degreed people we hire to do these. They're court-ordered. MS. GANSEL: That's their only cost. Public guardianship. This is a special revenue fund. Filing fees. There's an additional amount of money on filing fees, and we matched that with general fund revenue for -- to provide guardianship services to indigent incapacitated adults. We have exceeded in the filing fees what we have had a need for in the services, so we will be eliminating the filing fees until we use up that money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. MS. GANSEL: Drug abuse trust fund. This is a trust fund. A judge may assess up to the amount of the fine in drug abuse cases. We collect this and distribute it to a drug-free program in the county. In the past the drug-free foundation has received that. Criminal justice trust fund. Also, this is additional court costs that the state allows the judges to impose which then can be -- we transferred into our general fund to offset state attorney, public defender, and medical examiner costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is money transferred into our general fund? MS. GANSEL: Into the general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do that more often? MS. GANSEL: Can we do that more often? Again, whatever we get we transfer in, and it nowhere near covers the cost. Should it exceed the cost, we need to return it, but we've never been in that position. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But the $2.1 million price tag on the H.E.'s office is coming up, Judge Wilson, so see what you can do about that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Send up some funds. MS. GANSEL: And that concludes the courts. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you very much for taking us out of order. Appreciate it a lot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Middlebrook. Thank you, Judge Wilson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to now move to the clerk of the court's budget. MS. GANSEL: If we can just run through the debt service funds very, very quickly, I think they're at the beginning of the clerk's budget in your three-ring binders. Essentially the debt service fund reflects prior action of the board. These are the funds that we set up to pay the principal and interest payments of any of the borrowed funds. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Race track. MS. GANSEL: Revenue. Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that? MS. GANSEL: Okay. Race track revenue, we receive the exact amount of race track revenue from the state every year in paramutual betting. It's 400 and some odd thousand. The money that we don't need for this debt service fund is transferred to the school board, and at the point that this debt is paid off, the school board will then receive the full amount. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: we get some of the money. HS. GANSEL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MS. GANSEL: Yep. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: encourage it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: experience. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when people bet on the horses, Uh-huh. Okay. But that doesn't mean we should When they lose on betting. We don't give it back. Sounds like the voice of Only on cruise ships. MS. GANSEL: In each of the funds it's identified what the purpose of them, how much is outstanding. One of -- The only point that -- unless you wanted to go to any of the funds, I just wanted to point out that in Marco Island we have budgeted for debt service for their renourishment, and should the board take some action on including them or not including them, that fund would obviously be adjusted accordingly, but at this point since that action hasn't been taken, the debt service for Marco Island renourishment is included. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's in tomorrow's agenda to be included in which case this would go away? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, not necessarily immediately though because -- MS. GANSEL: Yeah. It would be adjusted. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In order for that to be appropriate, we'd have to go to the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually get the cash. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- qualify them and so forth, don't we? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. MS. GANSEL: So that whatever action is taken, then that would be adjusted, but at this point it assumes status quo. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a separate HSTU anyway that pays that, isn't it? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's money in and money out. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That gets us to page eight where the clerk's operating budget is. MR. BAMIATZIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name is Spiros Bamiatzis. I'm budget analyst for the OHB office. What you have before you is the first part of the clerk of court's budget, and that will be the part that will be financed by general fund money. The second part you will see it on or before September the 1st. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the second part? MR. BAMIATZIS: That -- That part will be financed mainly by revenues fees. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's per Florida statute in terms of how the clerk will be required to submit his budget in the two component pieces. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And we -- we have what level of jurisdiction over the clerk's budget? MR. BROCK: In terms of your funding, you have absolute control of appropriation transfer. It's only the fee portion that the state court administrator controls. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the part that we have today, we have complete -- Okay. MR. BAMIATZIS: Okay. Based on this, the clerk's budget is increased by about less than 1 percent. The overall contribution from the general fund is increased 9.7 percent while the balance which will be paid by fees is reduced by 24.2 percent. What that translates to is that the general funds will increase the contribution by $377,200 while the contribution from the clerk department will be reduced by $407,700. From the five departments that or the sections that we have before you, two of them are funded 100 percent by general fund money, and that's the clerk of board, and that is the clerk of county court. The other three departments are funded partially by transfer from the general fund and also by contribution from the clerk's budget. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. MR. BAMIATZIS: Please. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I swear I'm trying to go fast, but the budget -- the budget has increased by less than 1 percent, but the general fund request is almost 10 percent higher. MR. BAMIATZIS: Right. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's because you're funding less of your operations with fees and proposing to fund more of them with -- MR. BROCK: Which section are you talking about? MR. BAMIATZIS: Page eight. That's the summary. MR. SHYKOWSKI: He's talking in total. MR. BAMIATZIS: In total. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The little summary here at the bottom of page eight. MR. BAMIATZIS: The very first. MR. BROCK: You're talking only about HIS; correct? MR. BAMIATZIS: No. That was the overall budget for these five sections. MR. BROCK: Okay. The difference here is a consequence of the way that HIS services were funded in the past and the way that they're funded today. And, you know, I use the word "difference" very loosely because in the past, because we were dealing with internal service funds as well as direct operating units of the Board of County Commissioners, the cost to the solely board operations, we ran through the fee portion of the budget as opposed to the transfer since -- because of the reorganization that took place by the board, we're no longer dealing with internal service funds or revenue funds. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which reorganization? MR. BROCK: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because of the reorganization that -- MR. BROCK: IS. Because of IS assuming responsibilities for utilities -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: IT. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: IT. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever they are, the computer thing. MR. BROCK: Okay. It all comes out of the same pot. I mean, there's no difference the way it was done before as opposed to the transfer by statute which takes place in a certain manner. It was transferred to the board in the same amount on a quarterly basis. The only thing that we have done is just lumped them all into that one transfer that takes place pursuant to the statute, and it's merely a matter of convenience as opposed to being a difference, is the bottom line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It -- It's -- It's coming out -- It always did come out of general revenues? MR. BROCK: Absolutely, with the exception of those enterprise funds in which it came from the enterprise funds. It all -- always came from the Board of County Commission, either through enterprise funds or from the general fund. And because there are no longer any enterprise funds and it's all coming out of the general fund, it is, in essence, just one transfer. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is less a fee -- There is less fee support of MIS in FY '96 than there was in FY '95. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why? MR. BROCK: I'll let him answer that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think it's more appropriate for you to answer that. This is your budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Somebody -- MR. BROCK: That's not true then. I mean, it's all coming out of a transfer from the board or a board agency. I mean, the way the HIS department is funded, Commissioner Mac'Kie, is we determine how much it's going to take us to operate HIS next year, and then that is allocated to all of the users based upon a formula. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the users include people in your department and other agencies? MR. BROCK: That is correct. So you have always in the past funded all of the board departments that use HIS, and because it was run through the fee portion of the budget in the past, and that was solely because there were those enterprise functions that we were supporting also, that we didn't want to be taking in a transfer out of the general fund. Those are no longer there. So, in essence, all we're doing is just taking it from one place and putting it into another. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: everybody get this but me? getting it, I'll -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And those are no longer -- Does Because if I'm the only one who's not I think I have it now. Okay. They're not -- It's not enterprise fund funded anymore because -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because IT has taken over some of the functions that HIS used to do. MR. BROCK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So our IT department is now performing those functions; therefore, it appears that the fees have been reduced and they're being paid for out of general fund instead. Now -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, shouldn't it also be, though, that the services that we're requesting from you are being reduced since we have this IT department so that there would be a concomitant balance of reduction of service and reduction of fee? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Still managing his system. MR. BROCK: That would be true if all of the costs of running int -- running HIS were variable, but the overwhelming portion of the costs of running HIS, with the exception of personnel costs, are fixed. So whether I'm running one system or I'm running two systems, those costs will remain the same. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So here I am with no county manager again, and what I don't understand is it looks like IT is duplicative in some respects, that some of the savings that we were supposed to see from this information technology aren't there because we have to still pay what we were paying all along in the clerk's office and pay what we're now going to pay in the manager's agency. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to that, what comes out of enterprise funds is not coming out of ad valorem-based funding balances. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: increase -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So, in essence, we're seeing an Right. -- in the ad valorem funding of -- of the clerk's office because of IT -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: valorem. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: are you? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. -- which is also funded by ad Right. Big -- Hello, Neil. Where I need to -- to discuss this a little more so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's after five o'clock. I probably won't get an answer. MR. BROCK: To give you some more insight -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let's be fair to the county -- There may be something going on right now the county manager has to attend to, but I would like to see Mr. Hargett or somebody in his stead. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we have to sit here -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just -- Just so I understand, Mr. Brock, the enterprise fund used to basically pay your HIS department for certain functions. MR. BROCK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those functions -- Some of those functions are now handled by IT. MR. BROCK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Therefore, you will be short those funds, but it doesn't reduce the cost in your operation of your HIS system at all. MR. BROCK: Well, no, I can't say that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BROCK: I mean, my staff analyzed what removing the systems that IT will assume October 1, and the hard costs or fixed costs will be nominal. The reduction in personnel cost will be approximately 4.4 percent of my personnel resources or approximately 1,050 hours out of a 30,800-hour operation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Negligible. Not enough to eliminate a position. MR. BROCK: No. It is enough to eliminate a position. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, it is. MR. BROCK: As a matter of fact, as a consequence of that, I think we have managed to eliminate two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many hours difference? MR. BROCK: 1,050. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you've eliminated two positions on that? MR. BROCK: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's pretty good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one-half of an FTE. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you get two FTEs for one-half of the hours. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, is it anticipated that the enterprise funds will make a corresponding donation to the general fund to make up for the increase in general fund revenues that we have paid to the clerk? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. The IT department is supported, in fact, in part by direct operational support from utilities and community development, et cetera. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: one time. HR. SHYKOWSKI: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But they're only going to pay it Every year. A user fee -- No. No. I mean -- I mean, one -- You're only going to pay it once in each budget year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I think what the clerk is trying to tell us is that he has a base of operations that was built upon certain expected services to be performed, part of which were enterprise functions which he's now not going to get that money; is that correct? MR. BROCK: That is exactly correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that money instead is going to go to the IT department, but his systems still functions -- still has to function so the county general fund is, in essence, paying him for what he is no longer doing for the enterprise funds. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I don't see any savings with the IT. MR. BROCK: Well, I mean -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, I don't want to -- You know, I need to know more exactly where those savings are because -- MR. BROCK: Commissioner, my budget was approximately a million four last year. My budget this year for -- and understand that this is not final because this contains certain fees portions of the budget -- is approximately a million one. Now -- So anything over $300,000 to provide the level of -- same level of service that we were providing last year for IT will cost this county more money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hear you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: IT is going to provide a lot of valid functions -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A lot of extra services, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in addition to -- I mean, getting us off the dumb terminal and all that business is good, but I need a flag either here or back on IT to do this comparison. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is, IT funding was approximately $652,000. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are the enterprise fund payments to IT going to be in excess of $350,0007 If so, then we're talking a wash. If they're more, we're talking benefit. For less, we're talking cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Huh-uh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a second here. The very last sentence on the last paragraph of page eight says, the department requiring the most significant increase in general fund support is MIS which is requesting 128,000 increase. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the whole -- So it's not 300. It's one twenty-eight. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. BROCK: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'm saying is that -- that the increase that you're asking for in MIS is $128,000. So instead of comparing the million four to the million one and saying it's a $300,000 difference, we would be more accurate to say it's $128,000 additional MIS funding required as a result of IT. MR. BROCK: General fund. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: General fund money. MR. BROCK: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The balance being fee-based. MR. BROCK: The cost to the taxpayer in toto, however, is going up more because where -- whether I get it in terms of fees or whether I get it from general fund, it's still coming out of the pocket of the taxpayers. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you've got to remember, Board Members, that the clerk has a different perspective on where this money is coming from than we do so -- you know, to him it comes all in one check. From us, it comes from a number of different sources. We have to be more concerned with that. He doesn't have to be concerned with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I am concerned, though, about an apparent -- I don't want to say doubling-up because I don't think it's quite double at all. It appears to be $128,000 more. But certainly it's a measurable amount of money, and that's money that the clerk -- clerk's office needs to operate the HIS system which heretofore was -- was funded out of enterprise fund money and -- and no longer is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And -- And the question I asked before is, are the enterprise funds making any contribution to the general fund which will offset this $128,000 overage that they're now CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But only -- only what the IT department bills them. MR. BROCK: Commissioners -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's my question. Right. But the IT department -- How much? -- is consuming it. But that's my question. Okay. I mean, if -- All right. -- if the enterprise funds are putting it into the general fund at the request of IT, fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Still going -- Still going in the general fund from enterprise. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, the -- we -- Did we take out the enterprise funds? So we're talking just general fund money. The -- The total general fund increase for HIS to the clerk of the circuit court this year would be $44,100. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where are you? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Say that again. MR. BROCK: Okay. I'm looking at the budget that I submitted to the budget office, and the difference between what the budget office is talking about and what I'm talking about is last year a portion of the tran -- a portion of the money that came out of the general fund of the county to fund my int -- fund my HIS department was money not given to the clerk of courts in a transfer from the general fund pursuant to the statute but, rather, included the transfer and a quarterly payment to general fund board departments and enterprise funds that gave me money on a quarterly basis. Am I making any sense? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be too late today to make any sense, Dwight. MR. BROCK: But, I mean, the bottom line is that general fund money that will go in to operate the clerk's HIS department will increase by $44,100 over last year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we need our budget office to track down what we're looking at. You know, is this money all going to -- in the long run, to the same place, and are we seeing an increase or a reduction in the end run? That seems to be the big question that we canwt get answered from whatws in front of us. Although what Commissioner Norris says makes a lot of sense, you know, someonews got to tell me if thatws a fact or not. MR. FINN: Edward Finn, budget office. I did the clerkws budget last year. Itws always difficult -- This budget is difficult to deal with because they submitted it in two parts, as previously discussed. The last year, the portion that we should be talking about here that involves the board paying was $670,000. This year that same portion is $714,000. The page you see in front of you represents the entire department. The difference between the entire department you see in front of you and the six -- the 714 that we should be discussing is supported by circuit court fees. So thatws kind of off the table, if you will. So what wewre dealing with is a budget that was six seventy last year and itws seven fourteen this year. Within that change is also a change in how itws funded. Last year the direct general fund support for that portion of the MIS budget was $434,000. This year itws five hundred sixty-two six thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Say it again. MR. FINN: Five six two six. Thatws an increase of approximately $128,000. Last year the balance of funding for this portion of the budget was inter-department payment from BCC departments. That payment last year was $235,000. That same payment this year is $152,000 which reflects the IT department taking over some of those functions. So does that bring us any closer to understanding? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It does. Now net that for us in terms of direct general fund payments. Net it for us. MR. BROCK: $44,100. MR. FINN: No. This portion of the budget has increased 4,000 -- 40,000, but the general funds direct support has increased 128,000 which reflects a decrease in department support for this part of the budget. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls fine. Now, do the departments make that same proportionate contribution to the -- directly to the general fund to supplant this -- MR. FINN: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and make up that 1287 MR. FINN: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we have an actual $128,000 further general fund, direct general fund obligation this year than we did last year? MR. FINN: In my opinion, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thatls what we were trying to answer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think thatls what welve been trying to get to. The fact that because the IT has taken those responsibilities, the clerkls office has an obligation to continue the information system to the tune of 128,000. Okay. Now, we -- what we -- we need to make sure that our IT department is providing $128,000 worth of service that welre willing to pay for. MR. FINN: The IT department you will see tomorrow, and the IT department -- I think itls been the direction from the beginning with the IT department that they will be providing an enhanced level of service which will be reflected in their budget. The clerk's HIS budget has also decreased by two positions which is '- I'm not sure it's a direct result of the IT or an indirect result, but nonetheless they have decreased by two, and the IT in that same area is proposing to add two or three positions, but we will look at that in some detail tomorrow. Wednesday. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wednesday. Where is the IT in here? It's in support services, isn't it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I thought. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have it yet? MR. FINN: No, ma'am. You won't -- You won't find that in there just yet. That will be put in there tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. FINN: I'm not sure we're closer to resolving this particular issue. Perhaps -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we weren't trying to resolve it. We were just trying to understand it today. Could you explain to us -- I guess maybe, Mr. Brock, the general fund contribution in total increases by three seventy-seven. One twenty-seven of that is attributable to the HIS. So that leaves two fifty. Where is the two fifty in general fund additional revenues? What happened? MR. BROCK: Total for HIS or in toto? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. This is for your entire budget. It has nothing to do with HIS. MR. BROCK: Okay. It's increasing one hundred thirty-three nine. MR. FINN: No. That's incorrect. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. $250,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It goes from three eight eight five six hundred in the adopted budget to four two six two eight hundred. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page? Where is this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Page eight. Middle of the page. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Transfer from general fund, fiscal year '94, '95 forecast, 3,885,000. '95, '96 total budget's 4,262,000, a difference of three hundred and seventy -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's three seventy-seven. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: $250,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's three seventy-seven. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Minus the one twenty-eight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Minus one twenty-eight. MR. FINN: If we break this into components, we've identified 128 increase as HIS-related. If you look at page eight and see that 41,000 of that increase is associated with the expanded positions that have been requested -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now down to two o nine. MR. FINN: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's still 209,000 out there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Two thirty is the way I counted. MR. FINN: Let me attempt to break it down in total. The clerk of the board activities went up $81,700. Clerk of circuit court, a very small increase. It was about $300. Clerk of county court went up sixty-nine seven. Records management went up seventeen nine. HIS went up the number we're talking about now. MR. BROCK: Which is? MR. FINN: One twenty-eight, I believe. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One twenty-seven six hundred, but who's counting. MR. FINN: One twenty-seven. We always count. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, what's happening is they're backing out what was fees last year but in reality is nothing more than a transfer from the general fund last year and is in it this year, and it's skewing the figures to make it appear like it's increasing more than in reality it is. MS. HANKINS: For the record, Commission, I'm Kathy Hankins, finance director. There's one other item that -- that is at issue with the budget office, and that is this starting amount that's transferred from the board to the clerk for the year that we're in. What they've done is they've basically taken the four million two eighty-one one hundred that you see on the summary page from the clerk as the fiscal year 1995 budget. They've subtracted from that. MR. FINN: I'm sorry, Hiss Hankins. If I could interrupt, if you look at the adopted budget, it is the 3.8. MS. HANKINS: I'm -- I'm getting to that. They've subtracted from the four million two eighty-one one hundred those monies that are called the fees to HIS for board departments, that $235,900 figure. Then they subtracted from that 79,800 which was the cashiers, and then they subtracted it one more time, 79,800 for cashiers. The amount that's showing in the adopted budget, the 3.8 million, is not the amount that this board had approved in the actual first run tentative budget, by a difference of $79,800. So we do have a difference there in terms of being able to understand why the 79,800 comes out two times. When we compare that to the -- to the base budget that they're looking at for the new '96 request, certainly you could you use that same formula again. The bottom line is going to be that the clerk is coming to you and asking for 3.1 percent increase, and that speaks to the transfer from this board and the money that comes from the board departments for HIS. So we can have 29 percent up here and 32 percent down here and 15 percent there, and we can go through and re-analyze that and do it on charts for you if it would be helpful, but the bottom line is we're looking for 3.1 percent increase in county dollars for county -- MR. FINN: Direct transfer from the general fund is increasing 9.9 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this is interesting. We have our own clerk's office telling us one thing and our budget office is telling us another, and we're not going to iron it out in the next 15 minutes. MR. BROCK: I don't think we're telling you different things other than he's saying that because in the past, we called that transfer from other board departments fees whereas this year, because it's nothing more than a transfer from the board of county commissioners and never has been anything other than that, then we're just calling them a -- calling it a transfer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we -- Can we just compare? Can we do apples and apples, just for the heck of it do -- compare this year's calling it the same thing as you called it last year? MR. BROCK: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if you do that, then you agree with him? MS. HANKINS: Except for the 79,000. MR. BROCK: 79,800. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Except for the $79,000. MS. HANKINS: With the exception of that, we're in total agreement. MR. BROCK: We're in total agreement, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So I'm not going to care too much about accounting procedures. Do I need to, John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me ask -- Yes. Yes, you do, because let me ask a question here. MR. FINN: If we go back to the -- Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why are -- What happened to our fees that we're not transferring fees this year, we're transferring general fund money? MR. FINN: That is occurring in the HIS area. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's totally HIS-based? MS. HANKINS: Totally. HR. FINN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: HR. FINN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing else? Okay. If you guys are happy with it, Are we finished? Any other questions on the clerk's budget? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've been beaten to submission here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we may need to get the $80,000 figure resolved. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Figured out, yeah. MR. FINN: The $80,000 figure is actually fairly easy to resolve, believe it or not. It has to do with cashiering functions which were supported by transfers from non-general fund departments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll tell you what. Between now and September, why don't -- why don't -- MR. FINN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- you and Kathy figure it out, and let us know -- MR. FINN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- what happened with it because we're not going to figure it out today. But I would -- I would expect the two of you to work on it and get it figured out to each other's -- MR. FINN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- each other's satisfaction. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mutual satisfaction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay? MR. FINN: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And one other thing I'd like for you to, in the next week or so, explain to me is why the general -- why it says on this page anyway that the general fund budget went up or general fund contribution went up by three seventy-seven and -- and only 128,000 of that is attributable to HIS. I want that conflict resolved if you could, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where the rest of where the two fifty -- MR. FINN: I think we're in agreement on that aspect of it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But that doesn't reconcile with the question I most recently asked which was, why are we paying more general fund revenues in the transfer than we did last year, and the answer was, it's all attributable to HIS, and this page says 128,000 of it's attributable to HIS. MR. FINN: And the clerk had indicated -- has responded to that. I'm not sure whether the budget office is in a position to contradict what the clerk has told you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we have an unexplained difference of $208,000. MR. FINN: Actually -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The two -- The three seventy-seven less the 128 less the 41,000. MR. FINN: It's very late. I believe the only thing that's unexplained at this point, aside from the distribution or the allocation or how HIS is being funded -- the only other thing that's somewhat up in the air is the seventy-nine eight, and we do have the answer to that. I don't think that's a significant issue. I think the question that Commissioner Norris is asking is -- is a good question, and in light of the IT and the overall rearrangement of those operational areas, I think perhaps we could put our heads together with the clerk's department and see if we can come up with an answer. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We'll go department by department and show the old general fund transfer, the new general fund support, and the net, and work it down, and I believe that we'll get down to this seventy-nine eight, and we'll also attempt to explain that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the only way I'm going to get it. MR. BROCK: He's calling what were fees last year fees this year, but it's a transfer from the board, and it's 79,000. So really the only thing at issue is the 79,800. Everything else is agreed upon except the way it's being presented, I think. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: two o eight. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: fund contribution is higher. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, it doesn't matter to the clerk whether it's a fee or a general fund contribution. matters to us. MR. FINN: We'll do the best we can. Thank you. Except that we'd like to know the The IT. Two o eight. Yeah. We'd like to know why the general It only CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. BROCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Finn. And you do a wonderful job. Thank you, Mr. Brock and Kathy. Thank you, guys. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:38 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: Cathy Hoffman and Christine E. Whitfield