MEETING: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BUDGET WORKSHOP

CALL TO ORDER: July 6, 1999, at 9:40 a.m., in the Palm Beach County Governmental Center, West Palm Beach, Florida.

ROLL CALL

MEMBERS AND OFFICERS PRESENT:

Chair Maude Ford Lee

Vice-Chair Warren H. Newell

Commissioner Burt Aaronson

Commissioner Mary McCarty

Commissioner Karen T. Marcus

Commissioner Tony Masilotti

Commissioner Carol A. Roberts

County Administrator Robert Weisman

County Attorney Denise Dytrych

Deputy Clerk Linda C. Hickman

I. STATUS OF PROPOSED FY 1999-2000 BUDGET

A. REVIEW OF TENTATIVE BUDGET DOCUMENT. DISCUSSED WITH DIRECTION 7-6-99

B. ADJUSTMENTS SINCE MAY 26TH WORKSHOP INCLUDED IN TENTATIVE BUDGET. DISCUSSED 7-6-99

C. ARTICLE V COSTS - 10:00 A.M. TIME CERTAIN - See Pages 9-12.

County Administrator Weisman commented that staff had submitted information addressing the Board's concerns from the last workshop meeting. Mr. Weisman commented that:

• The budget situation was good.
• Were it not for the issue of intangible tax dollars being taken away, the County would be in an outstanding situation.

• Staff did not know what the future held in terms of revenue coming from the state, which was the big unknown concerning future budget years.
• The final assessment roll had come in from the Property Appraiser and was $2.6 million higher than the expected $5.5 million, and was higher than the last eight years.
• The increased assessments added several million dollars to revenue which staff had proposed to place into reserve to offset the revenue cuts expected for next year.
• All of the other categories listed under Adjustments Since May 26th Workshop Included in Tentative Budget, had similar increases.

• There was an increase in the transfer to community redevelopment agencies (CRA). Statute mandated that when the tax revenues increased, the CRAs would get a bigger portion of it.
• The Property Appraiser's budget was less than staff had expected and was reflected as a reduction in funding for the Property Appraiser.
• The Public Defender indicated he would have sufficient revenues which should pay most, if not all of the $300,000 expenses that had been budgeted. Staff had removed the expenses from the budget.
• If the Public Defender's Office came up short, funding would come from contingency.
• Adjustments to the Court Administration budget showed that seven psychological services positions were transferred from Public Safety without a budgetary impact.
• There were adjustments for corrections and the additional tax revenue allocations for those, which included the increase in appropriations to the Sheriff for the $5 million for his computer program.

• In the current year, the County should generate more revenue than anticipated.
• The County was expected to receive $3.5 million in intangible tax revenue for the current year but lose $6 million for next year.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO:

• Look into including with Truth In Millage (TRIM) Notices, a brochure informing the public of state-mandated costs and revenue reductions, giving legislators' names and telephone numbers.
• Acknowledge when constitutional officers have worked with the County to keep down their budgets, as well as submitted considerable funds to the County.

• Inform the Property Appraiser of the County's rollback in reductions in response to his comment that since the County had extra money, it could refund some of the funds submitted by constitutional officers.
• Contact Florida Association of Counties to confirm its report that the state had collected considerable intangible taxes for this year and would submit the surplus back to the counties.
• Report back on the anticipated intangible tax revenue shortfall for the 2000-2001 budget year.

II. OTHER ITEMS

A. ITEMS APPROVED BY THE BOARD SINCE THE MAY 26TH BUDGET WORKSHOP NOT INCLUDED IN THE TENTATIVE BUDGET. DISCUSSED WITH DIRECTION 7-6-99

County Administrator Weisman stated items consisting of changes in land development, changes to positions for the Environmental Resources Management and Facilities Development and Operations departments to handle the land program, Community Services positions for Head Start, and the sector plan had been approved by the Board but not made a part of the budget. Staff would make them a part of the budget as a result of today's discussion.

B. OTHER PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET. DISCUSSED WITH DIRECTION 7-6-99

County Administrator Weisman commented that last year, the Board gave $175,000 for the Cultural Enhancement Program. Five commissioners had given $25,000 each out of district budgets and the remaining was funded out of the General Fund. This year's request was for $285,000.

Commissioner McCarty said the money should come from all commissioners out of their recreation funds or from the General Fund. If the money did not come from the Commissioners' recreation funds or the General Fund, the project should not be funded, she said. Cultural Council President Will Ray said that:

• The Council requested continuation of the non-Tourist Development Council (TDC) revenue grant program.
• Their grant money was disbursed by a committee made up of community representatives.
• Funding went to cultural organizations ineligible for TDC funding and who specifically served minorities, children, and families. Those were the two areas of the 1997 cultural plan the Board chose for the Cultural Council to put emphasis on for the future.
• In the past year, the council board had put cash into this program. It would not do so in the coming year in order to use all cash contributions toward a $360,000 match for state funding of $240,000 under the state's Fine Arts Endowment Fund.

• The council would add the $600,000 to its $700,000 endowment principal to fund the cultural program in the future.
• The endowment was a way to draw people to give the cultural council bequests in the future for children, minority, and family activities.
• The TDC was contributing $115,000 and endorsed the council's request to the Board.

Commissioner Aaronson said the proposed $3 million in excess revenue from intangible personal property tax for this year should be carried over and placed into the General Fund for next year's shortfall. Commissioner McCarty stated that in planning for the anticipated shortfall, the Board did not anticipate to roll back taxes. Mr. Weisman informed the Board that funding for the Cultural Council had not been allocated. Commissioner Masilotti expressed concern with using TDC money to fund organizations and events outside the County. Commissioner McCarty commented the Miami City Ballet was a wonderful addition to the County's cultural program. Commissioner Masilotti said $120,000 from the TDC to the Miami City Ballet to perform one show was unwise. Commissioner McCarty interjected there were four shows. She supported the $285,000 because it was another way to give activities to children. There was no other place for groups to go to serve the children in the County.

Commissioner Roberts said she would support $285,000 for the Cultural Council. The cultural program was a great benefit to the County and should be supported whenever possible. Mr. Weisman said the funding would come out of reserves. Commissioner Newell said approval of the cultural program funding was for this year only and would be readdressed next year. Commissioner Aaronson said he would not support such a large increase in funding from last year. He called attention to the fact that his district did not receive aid for the program. Mr. Weisman clarified that last year the total money out of ad valorem taxes was $175,000, but $125,000 had already been budgeted in the Commissioners' individual recreation reserve. Commissioner Marcus supported $175,000 in funding. She said this year money was available, but it might not be available next year. During difficult economic times, the Board had to find ways to cut back.

Mr. Weisman said eight years ago the Board was concerned that employee salaries were too high. He had restricted the growth of salaries for management personnel to address that concern. There were employees who were making $15,000 to $20,000 less per year than they would have if the basic County pay plan applied to them. When comparing other agencies it was evident the County was lagging in management compensation. He requested approval of senior management pension costs of $52,523. Commissioner McCarty said the County had a top notch management team and should have the benefits to match. Commissioner Lee stated there was new legislation that provided employers with an opportunity to set aside money for staff that could be used to pay for medical expenses after retirement. Several counties had pursued the program, and it could save money for the County. If the Board were to consider placing a portion of the merit increases into that fund, the County would not have to pay the matching FICA.

Mr. Weisman reported staff expected to receive $3 million above the projected FY 1998-99 estimated collections of state revenue sharing. He had attended a seminar at the Florida Association of Counties meeting regarding the intangible tax. Staff at that meeting was unsure of what the outcome might be. Commissioner Marcus commented that from the Florida Association of Counties leadership perspective, the intangible personal property tax would be removed. There was a stronger commitment from the governor to ensure counties were held harmless as a result of that action. Mr. Weisman said the Board had asked to have better coordination with the Tax Collector regarding occupational licenses. Approximately $50,000 of the $74,000 would be used for an additional person for the Code Enforcement Division for that purpose and the remaining money would go into the General Fund. Staff had been directed to try to get the San Castle drainage project accomplished, and $288,050 was provided for that purpose, he said.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO:

• Allow $285,000 funding for the Cultural Council.
• Remove the funding of the Cultural Council from the Recreation Assistance Program and make it a separate line item.
• Look into the new legislation that provided employers with an opportunity to set aside money for staff that could be used to pay for medical expenses after retirement.
• Ensure there was a means to verify the amount of time being spent on cases handled by the Public Defender's Office.
• Meet with the Public Defender's Office to consider what other fees could be charged through that office.

III. FINANCIALLY ASSISTED AGENCIES - 2:00 P.M. TIME CERTAIN - See Pages 12-15.

IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. USE OF ROAD IMPACT FEES AND GAS TAXES. DISCUSSED WITH DIRECTION 7-6-99

B. ROAD BEAUTIFICATION AND IRRIGATION. APPROVED 7-6-99

County Administrator Weisman stated the Board earlier discussed allocating $7 million for infrastructure beautification improvements that were qualified for gas tax funds. The question was whether the funds would be expended per district or Countywide. One of the beautification issues concerned whether or not to establish an irrigation system. Before the recent drought, which caused considerable damage, he would have recommended not establishing an irrigation system, which was a tremendous ongoing expense. Maintaining a higher level of beautification was a notable expense in terms of maintenance staff. If the Board allocated funding for beautification, next year, they would have to allocate funds to maintain it.

Mr. Weisman advised the Board it did not have to make a final decision today as how the $7 million would be spent, but it was important to decide whether to spend it. Staff could place any amounts into reserve for future allocations.

Commissioner Marcus noted that during earlier discussions it was brought out that by raising impact fees, the County would generate enough funds to recapture the $7 million from the gas tax. She supported staff's recommendation to allocate a certain portion (up to 100 percent) of the available $7 million gas tax to individual commission districts to be used for any capital project that can legally be built (with the restrictions on gas taxes), without ongoing operational costs. Commissioner Aaronson said he could support that recommendation. Without irrigation, there would be a problem sustaining planted materials in the case of drought. Considering the costs to replant after a drought, the most prudent action would be to irrigate this year for $6 million, and in future years, if money was available, do the beautification. Commissioner Marcus said she had discussed with staff the possibility of coming up with an additional $6 million for irrigation besides the $7 million for beautification. Commissioner Masilotti agreed to the recommendation suggested by Commissioner Marcus because it would give him the flexibility to prioritize projects to assist in the Glades areas, Stacy Street, Fruity Acres, and other areas built prior to the implementation of road impact fees. There were areas that needed road improvements which were not included in the regular budget. Lush landscape and irrigation maintenance costs were approximately $20,000 per mile annually. Streetscape with trees and irrigation maintenance costs were approximately $6,000 annually, he said. Commissioner Newell concurred with the recommendation stated by Commissioner Marcus and suggested approval to allow additional assessment percentages by the County for Countywide Community Revitalization Team (CCRT) areas because many roads would never get the necessary 50 percent County share of project costs. He was concerned that maintenance costs could be different per district and suggested the Board ensure that operation and maintenance be covered under either a combination of Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) money, developers' money, or part of the $1 million. Commissioner McCarty recommended as a requirement for beautification of County roads within municipalities, that the municipalities become a partner with the County and be responsible for the maintenance of those roads. Mr. Weisman recommended standards be set for Countywide beautification instead of per district. Commissioner Roberts stated concern with utilizing a portion of the recommended $1 million per district for landscape maintenance, because costs would be greater for districts that had minimum or no roads within municipalities.

Commissioner Aaronson noted that the municipalities received a portion of the gas tax and were required to use the money for transportation. Many were using the funds for other purposes, however. He said because there were no municipalities to share in the road beautification project for his district, there had to be some way to make the project funding equitable. The original concept was to use the $7 million for beautification but that had changed with the funds to be used for roads, street lights, and other things. It should be a Countywide beautification project, he said.

County Engineer George T. Webb reported that:

• The County currently had approximately $28 million in gas taxes, along with the other funds consisting of impact fees.
• The Board was considering to raise impact fees to recover the $7 million from the gas tax for the beautification issues discussed.
• Approximately $21 million of the gas tax would remain to be matched against approximately $14 million in impact fees.
• Many times there was not enough money in impact fee zones to fully fund a road, and the difference was made up by using gas taxes.
• Impact fees could not be used for non-road capacity related improvements. The gas tax could be used for those.
• Approximately $0.5 million of gas taxes for transit funding had been taken out of the road program.
• Continued utilization of the gas taxes would affect the timely progress of the road program projects.

Commissioner Newell stated there was a shortage of impact fees for improvements to three roads in his district. He stated concern with utilizing money for landscaping instead of for improvements for two of the roads which were overcapacity. He previously suggested that the $7 million be spent Countywide based on need. Mr. Webb said that when the Board decided to use impact fees, staff had to find out how much impact fee money would be available and in what impact fee areas, as well as how much gas tax money would be available to match it. One particular impact fee area in Commissioner Newell's district contained approximately seven projects. So, the majority of the work for the next five years would be in the central area of the County. There was not enough money projected in impact fee revenues to cover all of those projects, nor was there enough money in gas taxes to make up the difference. Staff had to determine which projects would have to wait. Commissioner McCarty suggested establishing a maintenance fund with $1 million this year and $1 million next, if possible. She suggested utilizing the interest accrued from the maintenance fund along with contributions from developers and Commissioners to fund the landscape maintenance budget. Consideration should be given regarding contributions by the Commissioner in the unincorporated areas.

Commissioner McCarty also recommended a partnership with wealthy homeowners associations in the unincorporated areas for landscape and maintenance. Some of the roads in the eastern areas that had been without improvements for 30-40 years should not be cut from the road program. If there were insufficient impact fee revenue for the improvements, gas taxes should be used. Commissioner Lee asked why some of the CCRT areas were not kept up to standard with the rest of the County. Mr. Webb responded some CCRT areas were allowed to develop under the old requirements which did not allow for plats or subdivision. Approximately 40 years ago, the County had covered some of the roads in the San Castle area and installed a very rudimentary drainage system in anticipation it would be improved in upcoming years. That improvement, however, never got high enough on the Board's priority list to be accomplished. It had been a policy call over the last 30-40 years as to where the limited amount of capital money would be spent. The $10 million recommended to fund CCRT areas for street improvements, could be funded out of the gas tax money which included the proposed $7 million beautification funds. The CCRT areas would not have road improvements unless an individual Commissioner decided to allocate a portion of that district's share of the $7 million into its CCRT. Commissioner Lee interjected there was no equity because based on the needs of the CCRT areas, the recommended funding was minuscule.

Commissioner Roberts contended that priority should be given to CCRT areas. Mr. Webb said the Board was currently considering CCRT improvements from the same funding source being considered for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the beautification project. Commissioner Masilotti stated concern there were areas that were not designated as a CCRT, but were in greater need of improvements. Attention should be given to readdressing impact fee zones and to prioritizing Countywide improvements, he said. Commissioner Newell suggested from the $7 million allocate $2 million to Keep Palm Beach County Beautiful to be administered according to its matching funding requirement; $2 million for improvements for CCRTs or other needy areas; and $3 million to remain in the road budget and/or for Countywide irrigation where necessary. Commissioner Marcus disagreed with placing the money back into the road program when it was originally removed to be used for other purposes. Commissioner Lee noted that four Commissioners were in support of Commissioner Newell's recommendation. Commissioner Masilotti said the intent of the impact fee increase was to free up gas taxes for the beautification program. Mr. Weisman commented the beautification was anticipated to be a multi-year program, but the Board was split on the issue. Some Commissioners had never favored using the money for beautification but wanted it available for infrastructure improvements. The question was could staff formulate a multi-year program that would provide capital for beautification and capital for infrastructure as well as provide for the operation costs. Commissioner Lee noted that Chief Judge Walter N. Colbath, Jr., had arrived, and Item IV would be continued after the 2:00 p.m. Time Certain item.

(CLERK'S NOTE: For continuation of this item see Pages 15-18.)

I.C. ARTICLE V COSTS - 10:00 A.M. TIME CERTAIN

County Administrator Weisman commented that:

• All of the reported court costs were not Article V (mandated criminal justice costs).
• Staff had reported on the estimated reduction in court costs under Revision 7 (unfunded state mandates).
• The issue at hand was current increases in court costs and was the Board willing to fund those costs.
• There were three categories of additional funding which consisted of Reclassification of Visitation Monitors from Contract Employees to Permanent Status Employees for $103,359, which was later eliminated by Court Administration; Four Additional Positions for Court Administration Domestic Violence Unit for $109,898, which was a mandate from the State Supreme Court, not a state legislative mandate; and an additional $23,000 for facilities for a new judge.

Chief Judge Colbath commented that:

• The Florida Supreme Court had adopted new forms for civil petitions for domestic violence.
• The forms were inappropriately complex for 85 percent of the cases.
• The Family Division handled the domestic violence petitions, except during the end of the work day and weekend when the duty judge handled the task.
• The legislature further complicated matters by passing amended language requiring certain responsibilities for the Clerk's Office.
• He and Court Administrator Susan D. Ferrante were of the opinion the Clerk's personnel were not capable of handling those responsibilities.
• Victim Services provided the Clerk with some relief, by utilizing the intake section of Victim Services to assist with petition filing.
• The intake process, which should take 20 minutes would, last from one to three hours.
• That was not an effective use of master social workers' skills because clerical workers could handle the intake work with proper training. That was the reason for the request for additional positions for the Court Administration Domestic Violence Unit.

• Court Administration could do the preliminary intake work more efficiently than the Clerk's Office via the additional personnel. Afterward, the Clerk's Office could handle the mandated responsibility in five minutes as opposed to much longer without the Court Administration preliminary intake assistance.

During the discussion that ensued it was brought out that:

• Although Court Administration could do the work cheaper and more efficiently with added personnel, the legislature should fund the mandate.
• The Supreme Court had created several committees to implement the transition into state funding pursuant to Revision 7.
• The Trial Court Performance Based Budget Committee was identifying the core functions of the judicial system on the trial court level.
• In January 2000, that information would be given to the state's Chief Justice, who would go before the legislature and report on those core functions that should be funded by the legislature under Revision 7. If a county wanted to continue to provide those services for its citizens it could, but did not have to.
• The Board needed to send a clear message to the state that it would not fund the state mandates concerning the civil domestic violence forms.
• The funds the Clerk spends for the domestic violence petition filing could be used instead to fund the additional Court Administration clerical personnel, thereby relieving the social workers from that function.
• The state would not reimburse the County for funding mandated court costs.
• Current funding for the domestic violence petition filing came from the Clerk and from the Public Safety budget.
• Due to the new state mandate for the petition filing, a funding increase would have been requested from either Court Administration, Public Safety, or the Clerk.

• The Clerk stated last year, that if she provided the mandated domestic violence petition filing service, at the advice of her staff attorney, she would hire full-time attorneys to provide the service, which was deemed as giving legal advice.
• It would have been very expensive for the County to assume that responsibility, and Victim Services attempted to absorb that responsibility under its existing operation.
• There was no money in the Clerk's budget to take over completing the forms which had been done for the last two years by Victim Services.
• To continue providing the reporting requirements, staff recommended those services could be better coordinated within Court Administration as opposed to the Clerk or Victim Services.
• The Board questioned the desire to hire attorneys to complete the domestic violence petition forms that Court Administration and the Chief Judge suggested could be completed by clerical personnel.
• The Clerk was concerned with the liability issues in completing the forms.
• Court Administration had recommended creating a domestic violence petition filing process similar to the pretrial intake process whereby: (1) Court Administration would complete the intake portion of the process and escort the petitioner to the Clerk's Office. (2) The Clerk's staff would go through the usual filing process. (3) The petitioner would be escorted to the Victim Services Division to secure other needed services.
• The requested funding was for salaries for the additional Court Administration personnel and not operational costs.
• If it were not for the assistance of Victim Services, the Clerk's Office would have requested additional funding several months ago when the mandate was established.
• The Board would not fund the state's domestic violence petition mandate and was willing to oppose it before the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
• Until the domestic violence petition forms were revisited by the State Supreme Court, the judges had to comply with the mandate.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO:

• Determine if the Clerk's current funding for the program was sufficient for salaries for the additional personnel requested by Court Administration.

RECESS

At 12:34 p.m., the Chair declared a recess.

RECONVENE

At 2:12 p.m., the Board reconvened with Commissioners Aaronson, Lee, McCarty, Marcus, Masilotti, Newell, and Roberts present.

III. FINANCIALLY ASSISTED AGENCIES - 2:00 P.M. TIME CERTAIN

Staff reported that:

• Seventy-eight funding proposals had been received for a total of $9,355,297.
• There was $5,980,644 available, which consisted of the base funding of $5,803,538 plus a 3 percent increase of $177,106.
• Staff tried to address the concerns expressed by the Board during the May 25, 1999, meeting.
• Staff submitted funding recommendations and funding sources, a 10-year budget history of the Federally Assisted Agencies (FAA) process, which included population growth and percentage of increase in funding over that period.
• Two new agencies were recommended for funding: Café Joshua, Inc., and the Community Resource Center of Coleman, Inc.
• The recommended base funding was $5,905,298. If additional monies were available, the second tier recommended funding was $1,191,378 and the third tier recommended funding was $110,000.
• The Citizens Advisory Committee recommended support of the second tier of funding, and if possible, the third tier.
• There were some applications received whereby an agency did not meet basic criteria, an audit was not in place, other legal documents were not provided, or the agency's program was inappropriate for the FAA program.

During the discussion that ensued, it was brought out that:

• The increase in funding for certain agencies was based upon their explanation of need and staff monitoring.
• It was unknown as to what funding the agencies would receive from Florida Department of Children and Family Services. If they did not receive additional monies from the state, either fewer patients would be served or fewer services would be provided.
• Administrative costs for South County Mental Health Center, Inc., was 7.5 percent, with no administrative costs charged to the County.
• 45th Street Mental Health Center, Inc., was the single point of entry for the north County area for anyone entering the mental health system under the Baker Act, and requested $136,000 for that purpose. South County Mental Health Center was the single point of entry for the south County and did not request funds for that service.
• Commissioner Aaronson was concerned with funding agencies if 50-75 percent was used for administrative costs.
• Commissioner McCarty called attention to the fact that the organizations assisting male substance abusers received greater funding than those assisting females. She requested more money for the organizations assisting females.

• Gratitude Guild, Inc., and Wayside House, Inc., were facilities for female substance abusers but were unable to provide additional beds because of space limitations.
• The most comprehensive social services needs assessment would take place with the 2000 census.
• It would be difficult to address the needs of the homeless who may not be accounted for in the census.
• Staff was working with the Department of Children and Family Services to determine if there was a duplication of substance abuse services. There was insufficient resources to check for duplication of all the other services provided.
• There was a need for a formula to determine funding based on population.
• Additional funding was needed because of the population increase.
• It was necessary to ensure that funds were spent on successful programs.
• Consideration should be given to job placement for persons completing a program, to avoid their possible return.
• The Board had earlier agreed to have the United Way do a comprehensive needs assessment.
• Commissioner McCarty suggested: (1) Approval of the recommended increased funding and $500,000 for second tier proposals. (2) The Citizens Advisory Committee decide how the second tier funds would be allocated. (3) Not to fund medical costs which should be addressed through the Health Care District (HCD).
• The United Way would consider matching County funding up to $200,000.
• Staff was compiling data on the actual medical costs incurred by the agencies and anticipated discussions with the HCD to have it fund those medical costs.
• It was unlikely the HCD would approve funding of the medical costs incurred by the agencies this year because it would have to revise its governing regulations, which stipulate that it pick up health costs after Medicaid or other insurances have rejected a client.
• It was recommended that the HCD not pay on a per client basis, but pay for the salaries of medical personnel.
• Commissioner Newell contended that all medical services currently managed by the County should be assumed by the HCD.
• Staff had submitted to the HCD, medical costs in excess of $2 million for persons deemed eligible for services under the district's program guidelines.

• Staff would subtract the costs for medical services from the recommended funding.
• Commissioner Aaronson disapproved of an increase from 3 percent to 11.5 percent.

MOTION to approve the 3 percent increase of $177,106, plus an additional $322,894 for a total of $500,000, and to exclude the funding of medical costs. Motion by Commissioner Aaronson, seconded by Commissioner Masilotti, and carried 5-2. Commissioners McCarty and Newell opposed.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO:

• Report on the total administrative costs for the agencies.
• Report on the cost per patient for services by each agency.
• Determine what percentage of the population uses the provided services.
• Report on the success ratio of people completing a substance abuse program.
• Report on the national average cost per bed for a substance abuse facility and the costs in Broward, Dade, and Martin counties.
• Develop standards to assess the effectiveness of the participating agencies.
• Get input from the participating agencies regarding needs and deficiencies for the program.
• Schedule a workshop with the Health Care District to discuss medical responsibilities the district could assume.

IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. USE OF ROAD IMPACT FEES AND GAS TAXES. DISCUSSED 7-6-99

B. ROAD BEAUTIFICATION AND IRRIGATION. APPROVED 7-6-99

(CLERK'S NOTE: For earlier discussion of this item, see Pages 5-8.)

County Administrator Weisman said that:

• Staff had anticipated a multi-year funding commitment by the Board because it would be impossible to complete all of the proposed projects in one year.
• A multi-year approach would allow the Board to take operating costs out the future year funding commitment.
• It was recommended that projects be submitted for the Board to decide the priorities as done for the pathway program.
• Staff had submitted a list of the Countywide Community Revitalization Team (CCRT) areas.
• Water and sewer projects could not be funded from gas tax revenue or regular Water Utilities Department sources.

Commissioner Masilotti stated approval of the concept that each Commissioner would decide how the available gas tax funds would be utilized within his or her district. He recommended: (1) The focus be on a recurring revenue source. (2) Creation of a formula to allocate funding for operation and maintenance of landscaping based on a cost of $20,000 per linear mile. (3) Allocation of a certain percentage of the $1 million for each district toward long-term maintenance and operation costs. (4) If funds were not needed by one district, they could be utilized in another. Commissioner Roberts maintained that beautification of areas could instill a sense of pride into residents, but attention should be given to the areas that were in need of water, sewer, paving, and drainage. Mr. Weisman said there was a potential to use Community Development Block Grant dollars to fund public water installation for some areas. Ms. Roberts approved of allotting each Commission district $1 million without limiting its use for landscaping. Her district would benefit very little from an increase in impact fees because of lack of construction.

Commissioner Aaronson suggested that developers be assessed by the liner foot on the roads where they build and be required to contribute into a sinking fund for Countywide maintenance and operation. Because his district did not contain municipalities to become partners for maintenance and operation, he would have to go to the individual developers and homeowners associations for contributions. He suggested if a Commissioner used the $1 million for beautification, a portion be used for operation and maintenance. Mr. Weisman said that once the capital improvements had been completed, gas tax funds could be allocated for operation and maintenance. Commissioner Newell stressed that the focus should be on Countywide improvements, instead of by district. One district's impact fee zone may be insufficiently funded for road improvements while another zone had funds being used for beautification, he said. County Engineer Webb stated the Board could fund the road improvements with gas taxes without relying solely on impact fees. He noted other road projects may be delayed in the process. Commissioner McCarty suggested: (1) Each year a project be chosen for improvements from an area that might be annexed by a municipality, that has redevelopment, and has been on the waiting list for improvements longer than others. (2) Use money from the general fund if available, to finance the improvements. (3) Make an arrangement with the adjoining municipality that if the County made improvements to an area over a certain number of years, the municipality would annex it.

MOTION to allocate $1 million for each Commission district from the available $7 million from gas tax revenues to be used for any capital project that can be legally built (with restrictions on gas taxes) without ongoing operational costs. Motion by Commissioner Aaronson and seconded by Commissioner Marcus.

Mr. Weisman recommended that Commissioner McCarty's suggestion not be on an annual basis. He recommended as an alternative to safeguard ad valorem funds, a reduction in the second year gas tax contribution to $5 million divided among each district, with the balance to be used to fund a road project identified by the Board. Commissioner Marcus clarified the $7 million had been identified this year from the gas tax. If the impact fee increase was approved and the gas tax readjusted, the Board would decide next budget year whether to spend an additional $7 million and how it would be allocated.

UPON CALL FOR A VOTE, the motion carried 6-1. Commissioner Newell opposed.

Mr. Webb commented the Board would consider the increase in impact fees on July 27, 1999. Assistant County Engineer G. Haney Frakes reported there were approximately 120 miles of landscaping that had been installed without an irrigation system. The Board agreed that funds would be taken from the general reserve for irrigation of the 120 miles of landscaping. Mr. Weisman informed the Board that with the funding approval for the cultural program, financially assisted agencies, and this item, it had gone $2 million over the targets set for the five-year budget projection. Commissioner Newell noted that any further expenditure of the gas tax money would delay construction of more roads.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO:

• Reevaluate the beautification program in two years to determine where funds need to be spent in future years.
• Ask the Legislative Delegation to seek increased state funding for the County to take over maintenance of state-maintained landscaped road medians in unincorporated areas.
• Come up with an equitable way to fund maintenance of the landscaping.
• Consider a requirement in the proposed beautification project that the municipalities be responsible for the maintenance of the County roads within the municipal boundaries.
• Report back with recommendations to improve substandard areas so they could be annexed into municipalities.

• Consider a priority project that could be taken off line and funded from reserves.

• Report with recommendations regarding a sinking fund for operation and maintenance of landscaping.
• Take $1.5 million out of the available $10 million in the general reserves for irrigation of the 120 miles of landscaping already in place.
• Ensure that the $1.5 million is used for 30 miles of landscaping in areas already built out because there was an opportunity to recapture those costs from fees in areas that had not been built out.
• Consider partnerships with homeowners associations for operation and maintenance of landscaping.

V. BOARD COMMENTS AND DIRECTION - None

VI. ADJOURNMENT

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

ATTESTED: APPROVED:

Clerk Chair