The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0521.007 2002-2004 +SV Of y AL KONISHI ~ CONSTANCE R. KIRIU County (jerk Legislative Auditor JAY MENDE It; . Depwy ('ounm Clerk ~ . County of H ~ "$(~f1(~~ j h ~ i~'i9 '11 `S~i ~ Office of the Coun (C.''lerkk ,r,_, . 25 Aupuni S(reet ~ !/ilo, Hax~ai'i 96720 !:,~~;'r-~ Telephone: BIISI 961-8386 Facsimi~d:~(~0,~)~ 461-8572 March 10, 2004 TO: Aaron S.Y. Chung, Chair and Members of the Committee on Finance FROM: Constance R.Kiriu, Legislative Auditor f , , I / Jay Mende, Deputy County Clerk ~MMMMI/// Rory Flynn, Fiscal/Program Review Auditor Rodney Oshiro, Legislative Analyst Susan Caseria, Legislative Assistant RE: Operating and Capital Budgets and Program Review Day Two This is to transmit questions of agencies (Day'fwo) after reviewing Bill Nos. 237 and 238, relating to the Operating and Capital Budgets and Program. Again, we apologize for the last minute submittal caused by the abbreviated review period. Accordingly, our questions/comments are being transmitted in phases-this is for the second day of the review. DATA SYSTEMS 1. What is the status of a county-wide email and Internet policy'? CIVIL SERVICE 2. What is the status of negotiations with all unions? 3. Workers' Compensation costs have increased as a result of aggressive resolution of claims. Objective # I (Health and Safety) desires to reduce number of open claims to 450 by June 30 ,2005. Can the County expect to see a `flattening' or even lowering of workers compensation amounts in the future? How will this be accomplished? General Fund Only Actual 1997-1998 $1,967,537 1998-1999 $1,951,907 1999-2000 $2,109,409 2000-2001 $2,075,894 2001-2002 $2,672,457 2002-2003 $2,817,683 Comm. No. SZ~•1 Ref. To: Pra~e~t~6 F(~ Ref. Uate rJAR 1, 2 ~^^a 4. Third party adjusters have reduced the employees' workload. Can staffing be reduced accordingly or can we eliminate third party adjusters? RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Agricultural Grants 5. Program Measures for the FY2004-OS budget estimate indicate the issuance of 8 promotion contracts, 5 research contracts and 6 informational/education contracts. However, it states that "figures for FY2004-OS cannot be estimated since prospective contracts for each program are not yet known." Can R&D identity these "prospective contracts'? Is it anticipated that any of these contracts will represent continuation or replication of prior year contracts? 6. Is the purpose of filling two (2) temporary Economic Development Specialist positions to manage community-based Ice grants? 7. What county lands have been identified and are proposed to be "dedicated to agricultural research"? 8. How does R&D measure its objective of increasing "the total value of agriculture in Hawaii County by $5 million per annum"? By gross sales? Farmgate value? 9. In all instances, do R&D grants truly "leverage" all other state, federal and private grant sources, or are county grants supplemental to other funds? 10. What do "completion rates" of 138%, 250% or 300% signify? What methodology generates these percentages? Tourism 11. What new tourism product development or promotion programs will be funded with state HTA grants? What visitor count and/or market development outcome analysis is applied to these grants? 12. What has been the response to the "As Far As Faraway Gets" national advertising campaign? 13. What are the goals of the upgraded Film Office web site? 14. On page 251 of the Operating Budget Proposal, why are no expenditures shown for the FY2003-03 budget or FY2004-OS Request? Economic Development 15. When will the updated Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) being prepared by HIEDB be presented to the Council? 16. What do the "Right Track" community computer training centers offer to the public? 17. What can be done to stimulate use of the Hilo Foreign-Trade Zone? 2 18. The Final Six-Month Status Report on Program Objectives for FY2002-03 states a goal of increasing "the influx of funding for Hawaii Island communities and county departments by 25% by the end of FY2004." It also states that "we have not evaluated increases that have resulted from our support." How does R&D propose to evaluate the effectiveness of its "capacity-building program"? 19. What community health, public safety and clinical outcome indicators will he used to measure the effectiveness of the community-based Ice grants to be administered by the Hawaii County Resource Center? Grants 20. What is the status of the final report for 2001-2002 Energy Coordinator? 21. What is the status of the final reports for 2002-2003 Energy Coordinator, Product Development Program, Kalapana Program, Rebuild America, Greeting Program, Visitor Aloha Program? PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 22. What is the status of office relocation for the Prosecuting Attorney's Office? 23. What were the "14 significant community changes" addressing public safety issues implemented by the Community Empowerment Organization (CEO)? 24. Among the wide array of federal grants issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, what criteria and strategic focus guides the Prosecutor's Office is choosing grant programs to apply for? 25. Does the Prosecuting Attorney's Office assist agencies such as Turning Point for Families, Bay Clinic and the YWCA in developing grant applications for Violance Against Women Act (VOWA) and Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding? 26. What preponderance of "career criminal" activity on the island forms the basis for the $500,000 grant from the State Attorney General for the Career Criminal Program? What will this program do? 27. In the program measures shown on Page 207 of the Operating Budget Proposal, can the figures shown for "charges opened" (22,000), "accepted for prosecution" (16,200), and "disposed" (11,000) be explained in greater detail? Are cases tracked by the number of successfully prosecuted cases? 28. With implementation of the new Drug Court and a newly planned Juvenile Drug Court, are new Prosecuting Attorney positions needed? 29. What measures of criminality, rehabilitation, drug treatment and other social and health indicators are used by the Prosecutor's Office to measure the effectiveness of the County's "War on Ice"? Grants 30. What is the status of the FY2001-2002 grants or the final report for Victims of Crime Act (no notification), Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (no notification), Violence Against Women (no final report), Juvenile Accountability (no final report), Career Criminal Program (no final report)? 31. The Council has not been notified that the following grants were awarded for FY 2002-2003: Victims of Crime Act, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, Violence Against Women, Juvenile Accountability, 3 Community Oriented Prosecution, Gun Grant Prosecution, Career Criminal Program, Victim/Witness Assistance, Juvenile Delinquency Prevention? CORPORATION COUNSEL 32. Corporation Counsel sits on the County's Collections Task Force to address delinquent accounts receivables. The Financial Audit Report for FY 2002 recommended that comprehensive policies and procedures for collecting County receivables be developed. What is the status of the comprehensive policies and procedures, what is the role of Corporation Counsel in its development and implementation, and has/will the policies and procedures be publicly noticed? (this question may need to be posed to Department of Finance or Environmental Management.) 33. Have quarterly reports of all settlements been filed with the Council? (Section 2-9, HCC) 34. Family Support Division Program Objectives states: Collect a minimum of $400,000 in delinquent child support payments. What is the total amount of delinquent child support payments to be collected? Does this total fluctuate much? Would a percentage of total serve as a better measure, provided the total is known? 35. Counseling & Drafting Division Program Objectives-Development of a Risk Management System (Six- Month Progress Report on Program Objectives for FY 2003-2004 says "Our office manager is also in the process of assembling data for the creation and funding of a permanent risk manager position for the County, together with the necessary support staff" What data is being assembled? What is the projected timeframe for completion? When might this be incorporated into the budget? ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Please refer to attached for information and questions. Att. cc: Harry Kim, Mayor Dixie Kaetsu, Managing Director Bill Takaba, Finance Director Gary Takamura, Budget Administrator Clayton Yugawa, Data Systems Director Michael Ben, Personnel Director Jane Testa, Research and Development Director Jay Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney Janice Pakele, Liquor Control Director Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel Barbara Bell, Environmental Management Director 4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT si o9g,BOO E9BO,ooo se9B,ooo 5]00,000 sego 00o i' ®551 /AC1uel El(p 5500000 - ~BUOget ~LOg ~ES~JACIpeI Epp) Sd00 000 ~ E}. ' !i 5300000 ` " i~ vl;( 53go 000 kI~ ~ ' p~k Etoo 000 4 E FVE 2002 FYE 2003 FVE 2001 FVE 2005 FYE 2008 FVE 200] FYE 200e^ FVE 2009 FYE 2010 p ESI /Actual Erp 5153,359 $253 BOd E35d 823 $]85,238 $]J3,939 5]32929 ~BUUget 5302 ddd $21],111 5351833 5]85229 $]J3 B2B $]32,939 Department Goals 3. To maximize convenrence ao [he public. S. To utilize the best available technology to minimize waste volume and/or tonnage. 6. Perhaps language should acknowledge financial impacts as maximum convenience and best available technology will come with exorbitant costs. 7. To dispose ofahandoned vehicles left on County roads within one reek 8. To elimrna(e the backlog ojthe Vehicle Disposal program by January 2005 in Kona and by January 2007 in Hilo. I. These seem to be objectives. Program Objectives 2. Maintain Sewer fees a! a level !o cover expenses of opera ions, repairs and maintenance, and replacements. I. What percent of expenses does this cover? What other expenses would still remain? 3. Maintain fee system to assure financial self-suu~ciency for vehicle recycling and all recycling programs. 1. Where will fees come from? 2. Will fees be used for County of Hawaii recycling programs? for "Recycling Division"? for external recycling businesses? ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 6. Reduce days, and percentaKe oJbalances over 90 days past due, in Accounts Receivable for Wastewater and Solid Waste services by 5% for FY 2004-2005. 1. This can be accomplished simply by writing off bad debts over 90 days old. Improving collections is preferred. Program Measures 1. Minor Discre anc FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-OS Actua/ Bud et Estimate Ti in ees as % a Solid Waste Fund ex enditures 29% 38% 37% Accordin to Refuse Fee Schedule Comm. 51 I) 29% 35% 34% of Accounts Receivable over 90 days..... Unsure whether this is necessarily a good measure. Refer to Accounts Receivable Chart 3 in Re ort. Pro ram Ex enditures FY 2002-1/3 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-OS Actual Bud et Estimate Number o Positrons 4 5 16 Salaries and Wa es 153, /0/ 260,514 613,004 O erations 76,472 96,309 148,325 E ui men[ 24, 23 / 800 23, 900 Pro ram Total 253,804 354,623 785,229 5671.01-021 Salaries and Wages 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-OB 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 21 VERTIME S8W 1,268 0 3,900 810 34,000 34,000 34,000 A. T 7,288 0 3,900 810 34,000 34,000 34,000 B. of Employees 5 16 16 16 vg. OT per Emp. 5780 :2,125 52,125 52,123 1. Please justify the increase in positions in Env Mngm[-Administration from 5 to 16. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 5671.02-103 Janitorial Services 2001.02 2002-03 2003.04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31104) 103 JANITORIAL SERVICES 5,700 0 5,700 5,700 5,700 A- ANITORIAL SERVICES 5,700 0 5,700 5,700 5,700 B. First budgeted in 2003-04. No expenses through 1/31/04. Indicates that account may not be necessary. 5671.02-I 13 Water, Gas, and Sewer 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006.07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 113 ATER 2,000 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 A. ATER 2,000 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 B. First budgeted in 2003-04. No expenses through 1/31104. Indicates that account may nol be necessary. 5671.02-114 Electricity 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 114 ELECTRICITY 27,000 0 27,000 27,000 27,000 A. LECTRICITY 27,000 0 27,OD0 27,000 27,000 B. First budgeted in 2003-04. No expenses through 1/31/04. Indicates that account may not be necessary. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 5671.02-I IS Misc. Contract Services 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 115 Misc. Contract Svcs. 29,745 1,059 10,064 654 30,000 0 0 A. INTERNET 1,000 B. OYING XPENSES 5,000 30,000 C. COST/BENEFIT NALYSIS 4,064 D. OTHER 1,059 E. LUMP SUM 29,745 654 0 0 1. $30,000 Moving Expenses: When is department planning to move? 5671.02-225 Educ-Recr-Scientif Supp 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31/04) 25 Educ-Recr-Scientif Supp o soo 0 500 500 500 A. PERENCE MATERIALS 0 600 0 500 600 S00 B. First budgeted in 2002-03. No expenses through 1/31/04. Indicates that account may not be necessary. 5671.02-340 Employee Awards 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 340 Employee Awards 0 320 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 A. RETIREMENT 0 320 0 500 500 500 B. INCENTIVE 0 0 0 0 C. SERVICE 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 D. MISC. First budgeted in 2002-03. No expenses through 1/31/04. Indicates that account may not be necessary. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 5671.02-341 Misc. Charges 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (7/31/04) 341 Misc. Charges 51,093 12,000 9,951 28,000 28,000 28,000 A. RAINING SUPPLIES 51,093 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 B ADM1N CHGS. 10,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 C. ~ BLDG. DIY CNG$. 10,000 10,000 10,000 D. LUMP SUM 9,951 I. What does PW Admin. Chgs. and PW Bldg. Div. Chgs. cover? Are these monies funneled from various funds? 2. Are other departments being charged for the services of the Building Division? 5671.06-450 Office Equip-Fixt-Furn 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31104) 50 Office Equip- Fix[-Fum 3,130 1,284 300 207 13,880 2,000 2,000 A. FILE CABINETS 300 207 4,700 B. DESKS 1,800 C. CHAIRS 3,950 D. ONF. TABLE 2,000 E. ROUND TABLE 1,000 F. RITE BOARD 4~ G. LUMP SUM 3,130 1,284 2,000 2,000 For moving expenses? 5671.06-454 Computer Eqpt. & Software 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 200405 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) Sa omputer Eqpt. Software 4,702 4,025 500 104 10,050 2,000 2,000 A. SOFTWARE 500 104 500 B. OMPUTERS 1,800 C. PRINTERS 2,400 D. PRINT SERVER 360 E. INDOWS 2000 UPGRADE 3,000 F. NETWORK COMPUTERS 2,000 G. LUMP SUM 4,702 4,025 2,000 2,000 5 SOLID WASTE FUND BUDGET VERSUS ACTUAL SOLID WASTE s2z,aa6,6a6 , 5zo,9oo,aa6 818 000,606 E18,6P].690 OESi /AC1ual Ery ~Bua9e1 ~Pgly (ES1lACWdI Ems) E140LO,OW PoIY (BUO9e0 511.006,909 R $10000.900 I ' I u Oa9 ao6 FYE 198] FYE 1990 FV£ 199d FYE 2000 FYE 2001 FYE 2002 FTE 20]] FVE 2004 FYE 2005 FYE 2000 QE9 /AdualEy $9,N160] $0,95)]P E9.20B 09) b9,849419 59]41522 $t0 ]0118) I $11]09,100 ¦BWget 511601,015 $11]]1,15] 510058,)]5 $9,942820 5930960] $10, 593,)61.$11205104 512628,032 $1]p25252 $19]41,058 CHARTI SOLID WASTE-Projections 555,006000 - - - 5sa.o6666g us 6ao 066 u6,66o,aoo a3s oo6,a66 p ESI/AC1ualEW 550000,000 ~Erpon (ESl /Actual Eryl E250W.000 f20 000 UJO $1500000) at6669066 uoa966a ~ a ~ _ _ _-_T._ FVE FVE FYE FVE FYE FYE FYE FYE FYE FYE FYE FVE FVE FVE FVE FYE FYE FYE FYE FYE FVE FVE FVE FYE 199] ]998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200] 2000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201] 2018 2019 2020 CHART2 The Council must monitor Solid Waste Fund. At the rate of increase in recent years, its budget may reach as high as $50 million by FYE 2020. Page I SOLID WASTE FUND BUDGET VERSUS ACTUAL SOLID WASTE a22,oo6 oao 520 W00[O 518 WOOW a16,000 OW ®Esl /AClual Eap ~BUtlBet ~POIY (En/ACYUaI Eap) PaIY (9utl9e1J 51~ WOOCO 512,000000 E10,W3000 ~ I ~ i ..t ~ FYE 188] FVE 1999 FYE 1899 FYE 20W FYE 2001 FYE 2032 FVE 2W3 FYE N30 FV£2L05 FTE 2008 p Esl /ACtualFry $B 2<1861 E9,B5]1P 59,20938] fB,6,9,618 EB 101512 $1030118] 511388.100 •BW9a1 511,561815 $11,3)1,151 $10,858]15 fB Bd]82J 59209,50] $1059)]81 $11 ]85,1M 812828032 51]d25.252 a19 )C1859 CHARTI SOLID WASTE-Projections ESS.OLU.000 - $50000,000 ' Ea5,o00,000 Edo ooo,ooo 535000.000 p ESLrACIUaI Ery 530,o00.W0 ~Etyon (551 )AClual Ery) 525000 W0 u0000 000 515000,000 E. 510000000 ~ ~ i f50o0.BO0 FYE FVE FYE FVE FVE FYE FYE FVE FYE FVE FVE FVE FVE FYE FYE FVE FYE FVE FYE FVE FYE FVE FYE FYE 199] 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2005 2006 200] 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 209 2018 2019 2020 CHART2 The Council must monitor Solid Waste Fund. At the rate of increase in recent years, its budget may reach as high as $50 million by FYE 2020. Page I SOLID WASTE FUND BALANCE SHEET Landfill Fees Receivable LANDFILL FEES RECEIVABLE 1,600,000.00 ' 1,400,000 00 n ,.200.000.00 ,.000.906 00 ` ah. _ . , ~.4i i 800,000 00 , ~ ~ ~ fll"' 600,000 00 T y, ~ E' ij ~n 400000.00 ,F~ p Its ~ ~ I 200,00000 ~ Y. ~ ~I `r` 2 :t fil / dI' t~;,4 ~7 E r ~ z` p ~~E I~` ~i' ii 'i _ p, tiv_ 8130102 9130102 12/31/02 4/30/03 6/30/03 9/30103 12/31/03 1/31104 OLF Fees Rea 1,150,906.52 1,348,425.87 1488,173.01 1240,755.87 992683.05 1324,648.21 1,286.14536 7,305,986.85 ' ¦Allow for DauOHul ACC1s 516,61025 516,610.25 516.61025 576,610.25 357.034.09 351.034.09 351,034.09 35103409 ®Ne1 LF Fees Rec. 634,296.27 831,815.56 971502]6 724,145.62 641 648.96 973,614.12 935.111 27 954.952 ]6 CHART 3' CHART 3 indicates that there are no significant improvements in managing Landfill Fee Receivables. Ideally, all three trend lines would be decreasing. Although Landfill Fee Receivables decreased by $158,223.47 from 6/30/02 to 6/30/03, net receivables increased by $7,352.69. It appears that the bulk of the decrease in Landfill Fee Receivables can be attributed to a change in doubtful accounts. I. Is Net Landfill Fees Receivable decreasing? 2. What portion of the decrease in doubtful accounts ($516,610.25 to $351,034.09) can be attribute to write- offs? to collections? 3. What is the status of the comprehensive collections policy? (Same question asked of Corp Counsel) What is being done to manage receivables and to collect on outstanding debt? Should Council approve an increase in General Fund subsidy if no effort is being made to improve collection of receivables? 4. What is the nature (profile) of the debtors (commercial, single residential, size of business, credit reports)? 5. What is our procedure for credit checks? 6. Do we continue [o allow debtors to dispose? 7. Do we charge interest and penalties? ~ Per Monthly Budget Status Reports. Page 2 SOLID WASTE FUND REVENUES Significant Revenues SIGNIFICANT REVENUES ,2,000pOU ) 10 oaa o00 / e oaapoo w 6 oaa goo / LOOa,00o ,,,,,.-~I~ r,,_.--a-._-- z,oo9poo 19W-90 1998-99 1999-2000 2000.01 2001-OZ 2002-03 2003-04 2006-05 2005-Ofi 200601 ~-GF SuSSidy 6)50000 ].625 JI5 4,950,000 5400.000 6200,666 >6fi2.104 X895,36] 10,269,921 1t,t 52101 10,800.366 -F-Tipping Feee 2,3]4)66 2,)61,800 3040013 3.062 fi20 3.195225 3,386,309 JW5,845 6,30J,J31 6,216]55 10,25],1]9 t G2nl Rem 228,500 32J 500 241000 263,111 2]1000 ]/0000 ]38,000 ]53000 353.000 J53p00 -k-PermA Fees 10,115 11]50 1d 050 15,125 15625 1],600 16000 19,000 20000 21000 CHART 4Z The options available to the County of Hawaii to create aself-sustaining Solid Waste Fund are limited. Tipping Fees and General Fund Subsidy are the main sources of revenues for the fund. Grant Revenues (excluding landfill closure grants) should not be expected to reach a level of significance in the near future. At this juncture, Council should realistically expect improvement and not total elimination of GF Subsidy as a significant funding source for the Solid Waste Fund. 2 Per Operating Budget Proposals. Page 3 SOLID WASTE FUND GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY & TIPPING FEES +a DDD DDD 1z DD9DDD 1g9DD DDo p a OD0 Doo s oaa DDD ~r~ a Doo DDo z oaa DDD 199~z9DD aooom xoDlmz wzad znou7 z9Dwfiz oosua m9sa] 2omae -~aF SUmiW are~a9a1 d950,000 s,4oD DDO szoD SS6 ~46x 1D7 v,e9s 3er 1o,ze9,931 n.1fi31Da m6DO,3es --F-6F BUMiE/per Lamm 511 4,950,OW 5<DD DDO 6,200666 ],<D21D4 9,{W99D1 11,eRD,d]6 1269D 980 13 d69,Ofi2 12]9],558 -y~-i,Fprng FeeS~LF Perini Feez pe~BUEget 3D54,663 d,0]]><5 3, 21D 850 9<059D] J09+695 6402391 fi236, ]55 lD 2]61]9 HI--T,pp,nA Fees~Pmnl Fees per Gamm 511 9,x30,451 3250523 9,399656 3,593391 7,912]5/ fi,12<B6J ],595,fifiB 9,2003]1 ID 945,263 CHART 5 General Fund Subsidv versus TiaainH Fees Although it is expected that General Fund Subsidy and Tipping Fees/Landfill Permit Fees would have an inverse relationship, it is discouraging to note that both have increased from FYE 2000 to present. In CHART 5, the discrepancy is more pronounced using figures provided by fhe Department of Environmental Management (See Exhibit A)' 1. Are there any alternative revenue sources? 2. Will both General Fund Subsidy and Tipping Fees/Landfill Permit Fees continue its upward trend? If so, what expenditures may be causing this trend? 3. How will or how has the extension of life of the L/F affected the GF Subsidy? Will there be some kind of deferral for the need of GF Subsidy? Communication 75, Bill 36, Draft 5. Page 4 SOLID WASTE FUND Grant Revenues ACCOONT AC.CODNT FED / ESTIMATED AMOl1NT END OF NO DESCRIPTION STATE ACTUAI. AMOEN'E AWARDED INCREASE NOTIFICATION GRANT 2001-02 085-3305.06 lass Recycling Program State $216,000 $ 283,000 OMM#533.105 SBl/04 085-3305.10 Used Oil Coll/Disp State $ 25,000 $ 55,000 OMM #533.104 6/30/03 2002-03 085-3305.06 'lass Recycling Program State $ 283,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 67,000 'OMM #533.105 6/30/03 085-3305.10 Used Oil Coll/Disp State $ 65.0110 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 OMM #533.104 6/30/03 085-3303.02 ante Reduclin&Recycling Federal $400,000 $400,000 $ 400,000 OMM#533.106 5/31/04 1. What is the status of the final report for Used Oil Collection/Disposal Gran[ for FY 2001-2002? 2. What is the status of the Tinal report for Glass Recycling Program and Used Oil Collection/Disposal for FY 2002-2003? EXPENDITURES 5604.01 Salaries and Waees SOLID WASTE FYE 2002 FYE 2003 Landfills Puuanahulu Landfills Puuanahulu REGULAR S&W 1,394,248 164,998 1,421,101 174,205 OVERTIME S&W 155,935 25,096 253,070 27,685 MISCELLANEOUS S&W 51,169 2,157 67,623 3,095 TOTAL S&W $1,601,352 $192,251 $1,741,794 $204,985 INCREASE IN OVERTIME $97,135 $2,589 /o INCREASE IN OT 62.29% 10.32% Per 6/30 Mon[hly Budget Slams Reports. Table 1 Page 5 SOLID WASTE FUND OVERTIME PROJECTION I, 500,000 i i 450,000 400,000 350,000 j 300,000 250,000 200,000 rr., i 150 000 ~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upon examination of 83 Departments/Divisions (See Exhibit B for List of departments), Solid Waste Landfills and Puuanahulu ranked in the top five in FYE 2003 for percentage of overtime to total salaries and wages. In FYE 2002, Landfills ranked 13th and Puuanahulu ranked sixth. The increase in overtime from FYE 2002 to FYE 2003 of $97,135 ranked Landfills second behind Fire Protection. Transfers from S&W and Fringes, and excessive/underbudgeted OT may indicate a problem w/vacancies. Transfer from S&W was made at the beginning ofthe year which may indicate that excessive OT is not due to vacancies. If OT continues to grow, more emphasis should be placed on filling vacancies or reclassifying positions. 1. A review of OT may answer questions such as: Y Was increase in overtime unavoidable and mostly due to: Emergencies? Specialized work? Vacancies ? Number of employees receiving OT? ? Average OT amount? ? Are we at a level where a greater effort should be made to fill vacancies or use independent contractors? Page 6 SOLID WASTE FUND 5604.02-109 Equipment Reaairs/Maintenance EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 8r MAINTENANCE 450,000 _ 400, 000 I 350, 000 300, 000 250, 000 200,000 150, 000 - 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 200E07 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Estimate Estimate -f- 295,783 273,329 289,560 310,000 390,000 155,000 155,000 1. What is [he cause of the steep decrease in R&M equipment funds? 2. How does this account correlate with the CIP request for Equipment Maintenance Facility for DEM? 5604.02-111 Rental Lease of Equipment RENTALILEASE OF EQUIPMENT 3,500.000 . . _ 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,s00,000 1,000,000 saa,ooo i ,i tsoo,oooj 2000-01 2007-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Actual Actual Actual Budget Butlget Estimate Estimate Proj. Proj. Proj. p 1.262 242,312 187,041 566,000 973,000 1.509,000 1,509.000' Page 7 SOLID WASTE FUND 5604.02-218 Fuels and Lubricants FUELS 8 LUBRICANTS soo,aoo aso,0oo aoa,0ao 350,000 300,000 i zso.ooo zao,ooo 2000.01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-®09- 10 Actual AMUaI Actual Budget Budget Estimate Estimate Proj. Proj. Proj. ~ 216,10fi 266,494 261676 250,000 262,000 370,500 370,500 Expect to see increase with rising price of oil. LINE ITEM 5604.02-115 Miscellaneous Contract Services 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 DESCRIPTION ACTUAL AC'T'UAL BUDC ET ACTI!AL BUDGET BUDGET ITS MISC CONTRACT SERVICES 358,177 624.345 780,000 701944 745,000 1,283,000 A. VACCINATION/SHOTS 3,500 3,500 5,000 R. LAUNDRY SERVICE 12,000 12,000 15,000 C. SECURITY SERVICE 340,000 305,000 460,000 D. LERT ALARM 500 500 500 E. MILOLII CONTAINER HAULING 47,000 47,000 58,000 F. B DISPOSAL FEES 52,000 52,000 52,000 G. RES CREDIT AUDIT fEF:S 5,000 5,000 0 H. THER COUNTY AGENCIES CHG 15,000 15,000 15,000 I. SCALE TESTING 5,000 5,000 2,500 J. AIMEA & KAILUA POST CLSR 100,000 100,000 125,000 K ILUA LrE' FIRE CONTROL IsoJaro 130,000 150,0011 L. ATER MONITORING-RICO 50,000 50,000 80,000 M. /S BULKY COLLECTION 100,000 N. SURVEY OF HILO LANDFILL 50,000 O. IRSPACE CONSERVATION-RICO 100,000 P. DESIGN STROWATER MGMT 50,000 Q. SOIL ANALYSIS 20,000 R. LUMP Sl1M 358,177 624,345 701 A44 Per Operating Budge[ Proposals $461,175 expended and encumbered (less Prior Year CF) as of 1/31 /04 TABLE 7 1. Why do we have to pay DOH Disposal Fees? Is it possible to get a statutory exemption? 2. What was the conclusion of the Residential Credit audit? Page 8 SOLID WASTE FUND 3. How much longer will Waimea &Kailua Post Closure need to be budgeted? Is it really needed? ($100,000 was transferred to Green Waste Program in FYE 2003)° 4. Are we still having problems with Kailua L/F Fires? Is there a permanent solution that may cost more now, but is more cost effective in the long-run? When will Kailua Landfill fire be under control ($150,000)? 5604.02-228 M.V./Hv . E t Parts/Su lies 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 28 M.V./HW EQPT PARTS/SUPP 240,668 322,831 280,000 358,088 350,000 460,000 A. PAIR PARTSlCIRES 240,668 322,831 280,000 358,088 350,000 460,000 B. C. 17. E. LUMP SUM` Per Operating Budget Proposals $168,435 cxpended as of (/31/04. TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANT TRANSFERS FYE 2003 FYE 2004 # ~ # _ $ 80 $80,000 5604.02-229 Buildin and Construction Material 2000-UI 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 20113-04 2004-OS DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTIiAL BUDCE'r BIIDGF.T 29 BLDG & CONSI'R MATERIALS 255,233 358,255 380,000 442,828 380.000 1,415,000 A. OVER MATERIAL 355,000 35.5,000 1,400,000 B. OAD REPAIR/MAINT 20,000 20,000 10,000 C LDG Sl1PPLIES 5,000 5,000 5,000 D. E. LUMP SUM 255.233 358,255 442,828 Per Operating Budget Proposals $583,715 expended as of (/31/04. TABLE 3 SIGNIFICANT TRANSFERS FYE 2003 FYE 2004 ~ $ 80 $58,000 Cover Material: 1. Is cover material adequately funded so CoH is not cited again? 2. Are there additional tines and penalties we need to be aware of? Exhibit D. 5 Detail information unavailable. Exhibit C. 'Exhibit C. Note: Exhibits previously transmitted to the council have not been attached. Page 9 SOLID WASTE FUND 5604.02-341 Miscellaneous Charees 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 DESCRIP'170N ACTUAL A(TU.AL BIIDGI:E ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 341 MISC. CHARGES 10,004 130452 150,796 140,526 210,780" 410,513 A. DOH, DOS}{ 5,000 5,000 5,000 B. EPARTMENTAL ADMIN FEES 145,796 205,780 405,513 C. D. E. LUMP SUM 10,004 136,452 140.526 Per Operating Budget Proposals $4, I I I expended as o(I /31 /04 TABLE 4 2004 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTAL ADMIN FEES Revenue Solid Waste Sewer Vehicle Disposal Total Acct No. Fees 205,780 139,952 11,307 357,039 3401.46 Budget 12,666,010 7,895,905 1,680,200 22,242,115 of Budget 1.62% 1.77% 0.67% 1.61 Per Operating Budget Proposals TABLE 5 2005 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTAL ADMIN FF,ES Revenue Solid Waste Sewer Vehicle Disposal Total Acct No. Fees 405,513' 283,232 29,632 718,377 3401.46 Budget 17,425,252 7,430,663 1,716,200 26,572,115 /o of Budget 2.33% 3.81 % 1.73% 2.70% % FCC nerease rpm P!Y 97% 102% 162%; 101% Per Operating Budget Proposals TABLE 6 1, Departmental Admin Fees: What does Departmental Admin. Fees cover (Revenue Acct. 3401.46)? r Why was there a 41.14% increase ($145,796 in FYE 2002 to $205,780 in FYE 2003)? `v Why is the administration of the Solid Waste Fund almost 50% more costly than for the Sewer Fund? a Final Budget: $224,930. Page 10 SOLID WASTE FUND 5604.06-456 Constr & Repair Equip 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS DESCRIP"fiON ACTUAL ACTUAI. BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 56 'ONS9'R & REPAIR EQUIP 0 0 0 0 295,000' 295,000 A. FRONT F.ND LOADER/BACKIIOE 65,000 R. IOCY DUMP TRUCK 100,000 C RAILER/LOWBOY 15,000 D. END DUMP TRAILER 45,000 E. WATER TANKL:R 65,000 G5,000 E. RIDING LAWN MOWER 5,000 0 G. LATBFD TRUCK W/ACCliSSORY 45,000 H. AIR COMPRESSOR 15,00(1 L WELDING TRUCKS-SOR"f STN 50,00(1 J. DUMP HOPPGRS (6)-BURT STN 60,000 K. )FE ROAD FORKLIFT-SORT STN ? 45,000 L. ELDING MACHINES (2) 15,000 ..i M. LUMP SUM Per Operating Budget Proposals expended and eneu®bered (leea Prior Year C~ ae of 1/31104 TABLE 8 456: Constr & Repair Eqpmt is a new account for which over'/, of the fiscal year has gone by with no expenditures. 1. Is this account really necessary? 2. Were there or will there be any transfers from [his account? 3. Does the equipment purchased correlate with the proposed $7.775 million Eqmt Maintenance Facility? 5604.21-115 Miscellaneous Contract Services 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGE'1 ACTUAL BUUGET BUDGET I IS MISC. CONTRACT SERVICES 668,570. 795,502 660,000 870,721 960,000 1,7SQ000 A. REEN WASTE 300,000 600,000 B. IiSHLD HAZ WASTE 13Q000 135,000 145,000 C RECYCLE HAWAII 70,000 65,000 0 D. DIVERSION CRANT 160,0(10 IG0,000 300,000 E. RCANIC WASTE 1,035,000 F. UTREACH EDUCATION 200,000 G. ON-VEI IICULAR SCRAP METAL 100,000 H. LUMP SUM 665,574 795,802 870,721 Per Operating Budget Proposals 547,441 expcnded and encumbered Qess Prior Year CE) as of (/31/04 TABLE 9 SIGNIFICANT TRANSFERS FYE 2003 FYE 2004 # $ # ~ 8 100,000 14 132,000 64 -40,000 - Final Budget: $234,584 10 Exhibit D. 'I Exhibit E. Page I I SOLID WASTE FUND VOLUME 8 RECYCLING PROJECTION 3,060,000 ' 2,560,000 2,060,000 1,560,000 ~ i 1 060,000 560,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2006 2009 2010 Effective recycling programs (Miscellaneous Contract Services and Glass Recycling Programs) should positively impact volume, labor, OT, etc. 1. Green Waste renamed to Organic Waste? If so, funding to it increased by 73%. 2. Volume of Refuse from Communication 511 does not reconcile to volumes in budget. 3. Is funding for recycling programs effectively slowing the growth of or decreasing volume? 4. With expectations of increased funding for recycling programs, is a new division behrg considered? 5604.52-115 Miscellaneous Contract Services 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ~ ACTDAL BUDGET BUDGET IIS MISC.CONTRACI'SERVICES 4,04Q,375 4,114,001 4,182,000 4,386,123 4,416,000 5,242,000 A. ANDFILL TONNAGE COST 4,145,000 4,339,000 4,925,0110 B. Pi ADJUSTMENT 30,000 S 155,000 C. LITTER PICKING-W HI L/F 5,000 50,1100 160,OW D. LAUNDRY SERVICE 2,000 2,000 2,000 E. LUMP SUM 4,040,375 4,114,001 4,386,123 Per Operating Budge[ Proposals $4,454,389 expended and encumbered (less Prior Ycar CP) as of 1/31 /04 TABLE 10 I. Why is CPI Adjustment so high? 2. What is involved with Litter Picking now that was not being done before? 12 Exhibit F. Page 12 SOLID WASTE FUND 5911.93-341 Miscellaneous 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACfUAI, BUDGET BUDGET 41 MISC CHARGES 138,471 237,781 180,000 284,170 230,000 320,000 A. ORKER'S COMP 180,000 220 290,000 B. ~ENHRAL. FUND ASSF,SMENT 10,000 30,000 C. D. E. LUMP SUM 138,471 237,781 284,170 Pcr Operating Budget Proposals 132,528 expended and encumbered (less Prior Ycar CF) as of (/31/04 TABLE 1 I SIGNIFICANT TRANSFERS FYE 2003 FYE 2004 # $ # ~ I S 75,000 ~ 82 7,700 87 21,500 For Departmental Review I. What is the status of Workers' Compensation? RESOLUTIONS: 122 -03' BILLS: 206 220 ~ a Exhibit G 14 Exhibit H is Exhibit I is Exhibit J. Exhibit K. is Exhibit L. Note: Exhibits previously transmitted to the council have not been attached. Page 13 SEWER FUND SEWER FUND $ta,ooo,oao $t z,ooo,oaa $to,oao,ooo $8,000,000 ®Est./Actual Exp ~BUtlget $6,000,000 ~E>g1oN. (Esl./Actual 6¢) $a,ooo,aoo $z,oooooo ~ I: e _ > _ _ _ $ FVE FYE 4YE FVE FYE FYE FvE FYE FYE FvE FVE FYE FvE FVE 199] 1990 1998 2W0 501 2CV2 2JOJ 2W4 2006 10~ 100] 2000 3009 ]?10 DEe1lAClual Exp 53,63] CI,J]1, 53432, N$05, 55,001, 24,046 65,000, P&95, $],p90 ~9Wgei b4, P45 55411. $5]03. E5045, bfi P4. 45,]]8. $6]85, 5]095. Ei 4]0. SEWER CHARGES RECEIVABLE 6zso 60000 2750000 00 n z,zs0 alp.ao v 1,]s0,o0o ao s;; - st s. 12w,ooo.oo k ea 'ii l"' ]5000c 00 g/30I02 1231/62 4/30/03 ~~8136I03 9130/03 ~12I31I03 ~~1I3V00 ®$exer Cllgs. Rec 2,18149284 2,432,]8862 2s6102J 90 2,56]21423 2,33Q 14969 2,]315)2 J6 2,]95,1]8]6 ~AION fIX DmOMUI ACCTS 9669024] 968,3024) 9683024) 986,32585 986,325.85 98632585 986,32585 ONeI LF Fees Rec. 1219,1903] 1064,48615 1618)2543 1$8088836 1,349,82404 1)5124691 1,808,65291 Department Goals 1. Should goals include statement about revenues and self-sufficiency. Program Objectives Administration 1. What efforts are being taken [o improve collections? SEWER FUND Operations Maintain Preventable Sewage Spills to less than 5 per year. 1. If the spill is areventable, there should not be any spills. Wording appears as though the Wastewater Division is ineffective or not doing the jobs. Recommend change in language. 2. Obtain acceptable rating from [he Department of Health Jor at [east 60% o(our mtal number of facilities for FY 03-04. 1. How bad is it currently that we do not have acceptable ratings for all County of Hawaii facilities? In order to obtain acceptable ratings, what will the cost be? 3. Maintain laboratory quality control Jbr FY U3-04. 1. Please explain when we started to maintain laboratory quality control. What kinds of tests does this cover? Program Expenditures FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-OS Actual Bud et Estimate Number o Positions h0 ti0 55 Salaries and Wa es /.853,397 2,183, 938 2,120, 603 O erations 1, 935, 501 2, 377, 972 2, 557, 463 E ui ment 154,526 157,800 4x6,307 Pro ram Total 3, 943, 424 4, 719, 710 5,12Q 373 5631.02-106 Printing 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1I31I04) 106 PRINTING 3,963 3,491 10,300 3,431 17,600 17,600 17,600 A. BLUEPRINTS 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 B. BUSINESS 200 200 200 200 ARDS C. LETTERHEAD 100 100 100 100 D. ENVELOPES 500 300 300 300 E. ONSTRUCTION 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 PLANS UTOCAD 1,600 10,000 10,000 10,000 ANNIN(i G. LUMP SUM 3,963 3,491 3431 2 SEWER FUND 5631.02-110 Repairs to Facilities 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 103 REPAIRS TO 0 2,440 183,000 0 124,000 124,750 125,511 FACILITIES A. BUILDING MAINTENANCE 74,000 B. EM RELOCATION 50,000 C. LUMP SUM 0 2,440 183,000 0 124,750 125,511 I. Is this account necessary? Only $2,440 expended in the last 2 years. 2. Are facilities being neglected? 5631.02-217 Cleaning/Sanitation Supplies 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005A6 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 217 CLEANING SUPP. 61,499 75,126 138,500 48,225 258,285 262,161 266,095 A. CLEANSER, DEOD, WAXES 500 300 B. OWELS, TISSUES, SOAPS 1,500 3,000 C. MOPS, BROOMS, SPONGES 200 700 D. HLORINE 30,000 44,700 E. LIME 6,000 6,000 F. POLYMER (GMP) 20,000 20,000 G. SG RROCESS CONTROL 2,500 122,686 H. PITCHLOR 1,800 3,000 I. LABORATORY CHEMICALS 1,000 500 J. SULPHUR DIOXIDE 15,000 18,000 K. ODOR CONTROL 60,000 40,000 L. LUMP SUM 61,499 75,126 48,225 262,161 266,095 1. Request more detail for Misc. Process Control since large increase. 3 SEWER FUND 5631.02-341 Misc. Charges 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31/04) 341 MISC. CHGS. 154,212 179,768 140,467 0 283,747 283,747 283,747 A. M ADMIN FEES 139,952 283,232 283,232 283,232 B. OTHER 515 515 515 515 C. LUMP SUM 154,212 179,766 0 1. What does EM Admin Fees cover? 2. Why did EM Admin Fees budget more than double? 5631.21-449 Motor Vehicle 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006.07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31/04) 49 MOTOR VEH. 44,754 82,749 90,000 0 63,000 107,000 105,000 A. RUCKS 30,000 63,000 B. USED VACTOR C8C 60,000 C. ACUUMNYATER 250,000 ETTTRUCK D. LUMP SUM 44,754 82,749 0 107,000 105,000 4 SEWER FUND 5631.21-480 Misc. Equipment 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-OS 2006-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 80 M1SC. EQUIPMENT 105,536 52,198 56,200 11,675 123,807 125,000 ' 125,000 A. AS DETECTORS 7,500 7,500 B. LATHE C. DATA COLLECTION D. PLASMA CUTTER E. ROTARY HAMMER _ F. PORTABLE WELDER G. CORDLESS DRILL _ H. 30 GAL. PARTS WASHER I. GENERATOR 25,000 70,000 J. SCBA 7,500 K. RAFFIC SIGNS 6,000 L. CID STORAGE CABINET 1,000 M. SAMPLE CONTROLLER 2,700 N. LAB OVEN 2,800 O. SPECTROPHOTOMETER 2,000 P. URBIDIMETER 1,700 O. GITATOR PUMPS 6,000 R. NALYTICAL BALANCE 2,000 S. DISSOLVE METER 3,600 T. LOGGER 6,000 U. ICE MACHINES 16,000 V. THER 12,707 W. LUMP SUM 105,536 52,198 11,675 125,000 125,000 5 SEWER FUND 5912.93-I 10 Repairs to Facilities 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 110 REP. TO FAC. 571,070 586,199 1,014,000 897,304 1,662,000 1,700,000 2,665,000 A. HILO WTP DRYING BED 250,000 B. HILO COATING REHAB 500,000 C. HILO DIGESTER MODIFICATION 300,000 D. INSTALL SPS MULTIROD-E HI 100,000 E. INSTALL PUMP ASSBY-KUW WiP 15,000 F. REPL AIRNAC RELF-PAHOEHOE 7,000 G. ODOR CONTROL SYS-KSPS 20,000 H. RENOVATION-PROJECT 19 300,000 I. REPL AIRNAC RELF-WAIAHA 40,000 J. REPL CI2 MOTIVE LN-KWWTP 30,000 K. INSTALL SPS MULTIROD-W HI 100,000 L. PREVIOUS YEARS 1,014,000 M. LUMP SUM 571,051 888,199 897,304 1,700,000 2,665,000 I. Please explain need for equipment. Will it help with "acceptable rating" from the Department of Health? Budget = $1,550,500 ~ Budget=$1,014,000 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 5671.02-341 Misc. Charges 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31104) 341 Misc. Charges 51,093 12,000 9,951 28,000 28,000 28,000 A. RAINING SUPPLIES 51,093 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 B. ADMIN CHGS. 10,000 18,000 16,000 16,000 C. BLDG. ON CHGS. 10,000 10,000 10,000 D. LUMP SUM 9,951 I. What does PW Admin. Chgs. and PW Bldg. Div. Chgs. cover? Are these monies funneled from various funds? 2. Are other departments being charged for the services of the Building Division? 5671.06-450 Office Equip-Fixt-Furn 2001-02 2002-03 2003.04 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1/31104) 50 Office Equip- Fixt-Furn 3,130 1,284 300 207 13,850 2,000 2,000 A. FILE CABINETS 300 207 4,700 B. DESKS 1,600 C. CHAIRS 3,960 D. CONF. TABLE 2,000 E. ROUND TABLE 1,000 F. HITE BOARD 4~ G. LUMP SUM 3,130 1,284 2,000 2,000 For moving expenses? 5671.06-454 Computer Eqpt. & Software 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-Ofi 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1131104) 54 omputer Eqpt. SOttWare 4,702 4,025 500 104 10,05D 2,000 2,000 A. SOFTWARE 500 104 500 B. COMPUTERS 1,600 C. PRINTERS 2~'~ D. PRINT SERVER 3~ E. INDOWS 2000 UPGRADE 3,000 F. NETWORK COMPUTERS 2,000 G. LUMP SUM 4,702 4,025 2,000 2,000