Agenda 06-06-11
The City of Boynton Beach
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2011 @ 6:00 P.M.
LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 2011 (If Available)
3. Discussion and vote by the FAC on the Pensions recommendation not previously voted on by the
Committee. Attached are:
FAC Pensions Recommendation to consider – Mike Madalena
The Segal Company “Review of the City’s Defined Benefit Retirement Plans” November 18, 2010
4. Review the attached “Basic Recap by Topic from Joint City Commission/Financial Advisory Committee
Meeting of May 12, 2010” prepared by the City Manager. The following FAC Recommendation items
are referred back to the Committee for further discussion and follow up.
3. FAC Forestry & Grounds Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
4. FAC Cell Phone Recommendation - Bill Shulman
8. FAC Library Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
10. FAC Recreation & Parks Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
14. FAC Solid Waste Franchise Recommendation – George Feldman
20. FAC Pensions Recommendation – Mike Madalena (Only if further action is needed)
21. FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation – Terry Lonergan
22. FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage Collection Recommendation – George Feldman
Discuss and agree on next steps for each of the above items
5. Establish date and time of future meeting dates
6. Adjournment
Basic Recap by Topic from Joint City Commission/Financial Advisory Committee
Meeting of May 12, 2011
1.FAC Executive Summary – Don Scantlan, Chair FAC
No discussion by Commission.
2.FAC CRA Functions & Development Department Merger Recommendation -
Dave Madigan
City Commission concurred; no further action required. Status quo.
3.FAC Forestry & Grounds Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
City Commission reviewed and requested mid-range solution of elimination of all turf
medians and conversion to drought resistant materials. Noted other savings will come
from re-organization.
4.FAC Cell Phone Recommendation - Bill Shulman
City Commission reviewed and concurred generally with approach. City Manager to
come up with further cost containment ideas including further restrictions/reductions
and possible employee cost participation with city-issued equipment. Carriers and
contracts need to be reviewed as to rate impact and use limits.
5.FAC Golf Recommendation - George Feldman
City Commission concurred with status quo.
6.FAC Hiring Freeze Recommendation - Dave Madigan
City Commission concurred with report and noted this has been on-going since 2007
with a soft hiring freeze and the 2010, 2011 Voluntary Separation Program. The
effort should continue.
7.FAC HOA Contribution to City Programs Recommendation – Bill Shulman
Once item was clarified the City Commission concurred with a limited solicitation
program that would not interfere with the fundraising efforts of the Greater Boynton
Beach Foundation.
8.FAC Library Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
City Commission reviewed hours reduction and favored development of an alternate
that would allow for later AM opening hours on weekdays rather than closing earlier.
Staff to come back with supplement as part of budget.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\FAC - Commission Meeting Recap 5-12-2011.doc
Page 1 of 3
Basic Recap by Topic from Joint City Commission/Financial Advisory Committee
Meeting of May 12, 2011
9.FAC Paperless Billing Recommendation - Don Scantlan
City Commission noted that this has been partially implemented with an increase in
the number of customers paying on-line. The paper bill opt out process needs to be
publicized more.
10.FAC Recreation & Parks Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
The contract with East Boynton Beach Little League was discussed. Staff is
recommending it not be renewed. With respect to the FAC recommendation for
recreation fee increases, the City Commission requested comparative information.
The City Manager suggested benchmarking 15 core fees to see where Boynton Beach
compares with other cities and the county.
There was also discussion of installing a parking system at Boat Club Park. Staff to
prepare basic study information on cost benefit.
11.FAC Revenue Increase Recommendations - Bill Shulman
City Commission reviewed the list and agreed to look at a possible Fire Assessment
hike as part of the budget. Other revenue items would also be reviewed by staff as
part of the budget.
12.FAC Sale of Surplus Physical Property Recommendation – Dave Madigan
City Commission reviewed and noted this was an ongoing program.
13.FAC Sale of Surplus Real Property Recommendation - Dave Madigan
City Commission concurred with the FAC recommendation to move forward with a
staff review team for real estate disposal.
14.FAC Solid Waste Franchise Recommendation - George Feldman
City Commission discussed and was leaning against pursuing the idea of franchising
solid waste. Matter was left with FAC for further study and review.
15.FAC Solid Waste Recycling Recommendation - George Feldman
City Commission concurred with FAC to continue with the program.
16.FAC Take Home Vehicles and Car Allowance Recommendation – Bill Shulman
City Commission reviewed and requested that staff include as much reductions as
possible (allowances and take-home) for the budget.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\FAC - Commission Meeting Recap 5-12-2011.doc
Page 2 of 3
Basic Recap by Topic from Joint City Commission/Financial Advisory Committee
Meeting of May 12, 2011
17.FAC Voluntary Separation (VSP) Recommendation - Dave Madigan
City Commission reviewed and noted this program has been implemented.
18.FAC E-Billing Recommendation - Don Scantlan
City Commission reviewed. An on-line bill view feature was noted as being desirable.
Staff is working on this.
19.FAC Museum Recommendation - Merline Pamplona
City Commission reviewed. The recommendations have been incorporated into the
FY 12 budget.
20.FAC Pensions Recommendation - Mike Madalena
City Commission and FAC reviewed an updated report. Following discussion, the
matter was referred back to the FAC for further discussion and voting.
21.FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation - Terry Lonergan
City Commission reviewed and generally concurred with the recommendation. Staff
and FAC requested to develop alternative transportation sources and an information /
implementation strategy.
22.FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage Collection Recommendation – George
Feldman
The City Commission referred this item back to the FAC for additional study.
23.FAC Survey Recommendations – Don Scantlan
Presented for information only.
KB: 5/14/11
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\FAC - Commission Meeting Recap 5-12-2011.doc
Page 3 of 3
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic
: FORESTRY AND GROUNDS - 2010-2011 BUDGET $1,553,099
Reviewed By
: MERLINE PAMPLONA
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended)
: IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A 15%
BUDGET REDUCTION OF $232,965, REDUCTION OF MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WAS
CONSIDERED
Pros of Recommendation
: NO INCREASE IN PROPERY TAX
ONLY ONE DEPARTMENT AFFECTED BY BUDGET CUT
Cons of Recommendation
: REDUCTION OF MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WILL RESULT IN
THE FOLLOWING:
Reduce median maintenance on all of Congress Ave. and Federal Highway
Remove turf and plants exclusive of trees and palms
Replace turf and plants with mulch
Weed control (Spraying) 4 times per year
Minor modification in irrigation
Trash and litter will only be cleaned up four times per year because litter cleanup is part of our
landscape maintenance contract
Many of these medians are remote and in residential areas. Unable to calculate cost reductions
for these smaller medians at this time
References (Staff, Documents, and Public)
: REVIEWED DEPARTMENT BUDGET
MET WITH GLENDA HALL, CHRISTINE ROBERTS, AND JEFFREY LIVERGOOD
Impact on 2011/12 Budget
: SAME AS 2010-2011 AFTER BUDGET CUT
Impact on Out Year Budgets
: CURRENTLY, BUDGET HAS INCREASE IN OVERALL
EXPENSES FROM 2012-2015. I RECOMMEND REVISION OF BUDGET TO REFLECT 2010-
2011 AFTER BUDGET CUT UNLESS MILLAGE RATE IS RAISED
Impact on Citizens
: CITIZENS MAY NOT BE PLEASED WITH LEVEL OF MEDIAN
MAINTENANCE
Impact on City Staff
: REDUCTION OF HOURS IN THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
NO DIRECT IMPACT ON PERSONNEL
Committee Vote Result: ForAgainst
: _7__ : __0__
1 of 3
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic:
Cell Phone Allowances
Reviewed By:
William Shulman
Recommendation- (Specific Action Recommended):
Strongly Recommend. Charge all City employees using City paid- for cell
phones either 1) 20% of the monthly cell phone costs so as to reduce
costs by approximately $ 25,000 per year or 2) require each employee to
pay the City $10 per month for use of their cell phones which will reduce
costs by approximately $35,000.
Pros of Recommendation:
Charging employees for the use of city paid-
for cell phones (especially since the employees use the phones for
personal use) would reduce the cell phones by between $25,000 and
$35,000 per year. This is not a perk that is normally found in private
industry.
Cons of Recommendation:
City employees might not like this
recommendation because it is “give- back”. But in times of budget
deficits and austerity programs, everyone must contribute to try to ease
the burdens on our taxpayers.
References - Staff, Documents, and Public):
Staff analyses
Impact on 2011/2012 Budget:
Will help reduce costs by between
$25,000 to $35,000
Impact on Out Year Budgets:
This program can and should continue in
the future.
Impact on Citizens:
Beneficial. Will help reduce the proposed increase
in the property tax ratable.
Impact on Staff:
Very little impact. Typing assistance and a one time
set up to collect refunds from employees by a deduction from their
payroll checks.
Committee Vote Results: For:___4__ Against:____3_
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\4 FAC Cell Phone Recommendation - Bill
Shulman.doc
2 of 3
Memo
To: Kurt Bressner & Barry Atwood
From: William Shulman
Date: 6/6/2011
Re: Cell Phone Allowances
DISCUSSION:
The following statistics reflect the number and costs of cell phones for the
fiscal year 2011:
CELL PHONE No. of Cell Annual
ALLOWANCES Phones Costs Average/Employee
Allowances 154 $65,252 * $423.78
Assigned City Owned Phones 140 59,577 ** 425.55
Totals 294 $124,829 $849.33
*Range from a high of $720 per year to a low of $120 per year.
** Reduced from $80,391 at June 2010
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.All employees who have City paid for cell phones should reimburse
the City for 20% of the cost of each phone used. This would increase
revenues and thereby reduce costs by approximately $25,000. As an
alternative, and probably better administratively, each employee using
a City paid for cell phone should reimburse the City $10 per month
for the use of the City paid cell phone. This would bring in
approximately $35,000 annually.
2. Additional savings may result because if an employee has to pay 20%
or $10 per month of their City paid cell phones such employee may
opt out of the program , thereby saving the City 100%of such costs.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\4 FAC Cell Phone Recommendation - Bill
Shulman.doc
3 of 3
3.In addition, each City department should undertake a survey of City
paid for cell phones , and determine the absolute necessity of City
paid for cell phones ,charged to that department , in an attempt to
reduce the number of cell phones to an absolute necessity
4.Furthermore, such strict controls will aid in avoiding City paid for cell
phones from “mushrooming “out of control in the future.
5.These type of perks for employees which were promulgated during the
financially good times of exceptional high revenues, must be reigned
in during times of budgetary deficits.
Finally, it is recommended that the 20% or the $10 per month
reimbursements, both of which are minimal amounts, (it would cost our
Mayor about $ 189.20 per year) should start with the Mayor and City
Commissioners, in order to set a good example of cutting the City’s costs.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\4 FAC Cell Phone Recommendation - Bill
Shulman.doc
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic
: LIBRARY – 2010-2011 BUDGET - $2,243,271
Reviewed By
: MERLINE PAMPLONA
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended)
: IN ODER TO ACHIEVE A 15 %
BUDGET REDUCTION OF $336,491, THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS WERE
CONSIDERED:
1. ELIMINATION OF POSITIONS:
Vacant librarian position (1)
Current full-time positions (4)
Part-time positions (2)
2. $14,524 REDUCTION IN OPERATING EXPENSES - SEFLIN – (SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
LIBRARY INFORMATION NETWORK)
We would not lose any type of accreditation.
We would lose our State-wide delivery service, which saves us approximately $2,000 in
postage per year.
We would also lose "library-specific" staff training, our online calendar of events, which is
hosted by SEFLIN and library networking.
We would not be eligible for special technology projects, which often come our way through
federal grants that SEFLIN is awarded in the past has included a redesign of our website, or
database cleansing of our bibliographic records.
3. $1,639 REDUCTION IN CAPITAL EXPENSES - BOOKS
4. OTHER RECOMMENDATION - POSSIBLE INCREASE IN FINES (late fees) COULD
RESULT IN INCREASE OF $10,000.
Pros of Recommendation
: NO INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX
LIBRARY WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR A MINIMUM 10 HOURS MONDAY THROUGH
THURSDAY
Cons of Recommendation
: LESS STAFF RESULTING IN REDUCTION IN OPERATING
HOURS FROM 54 HRS TO 48 HRS (a 6 hrs/week cut – hours of least demand)
LIBRARY IS CURRENTLY CLOSED FRIDAY AND SUNDAY
NEW OPERATING HOURS:
Monday through Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm
Saturday 9:00am-5:00pm
BASED ON GATE READINGS, ON AVERAGE 1,500 VIST THE LIBRARY
References (Staff, Documents, and Public)
: REVIEWED DEPARTMENT BUDGET
MET WITH LIBRARY DIRECTOR CRAIG CLARK, BOARD MINUTES
1
Impact on 2011/12 Budget
: SAME AS 2010-2011
Impact on Out Year Budgets
: CURRENTLY, BUDGET HAS INCREASE IN OVERALL
EXPENSES FROM 2012-2015. I RECOMMEND REVISION OF BUDGET TO REFLECT 2010-
2011 AFTER BUDGET CUT UNLESS MILLAGE RATE IS RAISED
Impact on Citizens
: LESS OPERATING HOURS RESULTING IN RESTRICTION ON USE OF
THE LBRARY MAINLY BY STUDENTS.THE LIBRARY IS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR MOST
OF THOSE WHO USE IT AND IT WILL AFFECT THE COMMUNITY
Impact on City Staff:
LOSS OF POSITIONS, EMPLOYEE MORALE, AND SOME
EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE TO TAKE ON MORE DUTIES
Committee Vote Result: ForAgainst
: __5__ : __2__
2
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic
: RECREATION AND PARKS –
2010-2011 BUDGET $4,609,482 (does not include transportation)
Reviewed By
: MERLINE PAMPLONA
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended)
: IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A 15%
BUDGET REDUCTION OF $691,422, THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS WERE
CONSIDERED:
1. ELIMINATION OF 12 POSITIONS - DIRECTOR CANNOT IDENTIFY DUE TO THE
EFFECT IT MAY HAVE ON EMPLOYEES.
2. DECREASE IN LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE IN THE PARKS
Pros of Recommendation
: NO INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX
BASED ON CITY BUDGET SURVEY, 84.8% PREFER CITY AMENITIES
BASED ON THESE RESULTS, CITIZENS MAY BE WILLING TO PAY
AWARENESS IN ADOPT-A-PARK PROGRAM
FUNDING OF $20,000 TO BOYNTON BEACH LITTLE LEAGUE SHOULD DECREASE OR
CUT
CHARGE FEES FOR CURRENT NON-FEE PROGRAMS
APPLY FOR MORE GRANTS
INCREASE IN PROGRAM FEES
Send letters to citizens about possible increase in program fees or reduction of
programs/activities) to please choose one:
1. Increase all program fees by amount consisting with revenue increase
recommendation
2. Reduction in programs
INCREASE IN RENTAL FEES FOR BIG EVENTS
ELIMINATE NON-REVENUE GENERATED PROGRAMS ((Self Improvement Programs, some
social activities, Life Skills and Mentoring)
Cons of Recommendation
: ELIMINATION OF POSITIONS WILL RESULT IN REDUCTION
OF SERVICES INCLUDING DECREASE OF HOURS FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC
DECREASE IN LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE IN THE PARKS WILL HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECT
ON CITY.
INCREASE IN PROGRAM FEES
INCREASE IN RENTAL FEES FOR BIG EVENTS
CITIZENS WILL NOT BE PLEASED WITH ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS
References (Staff, Documents, and Public)
: REVIEWED BUDGET
MET WITH DIRECTOR, WALLY MAJORS.
CITY BUDGET SURVEY REVEALS 84.8% OF RESIDENTS RATE AMENITIES EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT TO MODERATELY IMPORTANT
Impact on 2011/12 Budget
: SAME AS 2010-2011 AFTER BUDGET CUT
Impact on Out Year Budgets
: CURRENTLY, BUDGET HAS INCREASE IN OVERALL
EXPENSES FROM 2012-2015. I RECOMMEND REVISION OF BUDGET TO REFLECT 2010-
2011 AFTER THE 15% CUT UNLESS MILLAGE RATE IS RAISED
Impact on Citizens
: ELIMINATION OF POSITIONS WILL RESULT IN REDUCTION OF
SERVICES INCLUDING DECREASE OF HOURS FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC.
LACK OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC.
DECREASE IN LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE IN THE PARKS
POSSIBLE INCREASE IN USER AND PROGRAM FEES
Impact on City Staff
: LOSS OF POSITIONS, EMPLOYEE MORALE, AND SOME
EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE TO TAKE ON MORE DUTIES.
Committee Vote Result: ForAgainst
: __7__ : _0___
1 of 2
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic: Solid Waste – Franchise All Solid Waste Services
Reviewed By: George Feldman
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Eliminate all in-house Solid Waste services and
replace with a private waste hauler through a franchise agreement obtained through competitive bid.
Because all recommendations are made with fiscal concerns in mind, it is imperative that the move to
contract Solid Waste services be done for the purpose of saving money. That savings must be so
significant that it is worth losing local control of these functions.
Pros of Recommendation: This action would alleviate the City of Boynton Beach of direct local
responsibility to the public for solid waste collection services. The positive aspect of this is that this
should allow for reduced overhead in other City departments and assumes that the financial impact on
the City’s General Fund is equal to and no worse than that contemplated in the FY 2010-11 Budget.
Cons of Recommendation: Assumption and cons as follows:
1.The net cost to the City’s General Fund must, at minimum, be $3,430,000 as shown in the City’s
budget. This means that net revenue from any franchise fee, less any City expenses to manage
the franchise, must be equal to or greater than this amount.
2.All control of daily collection operations, both residential and commercial, is given up to a
private contractor. The contractor will have to respond to complaints and concerns in a manner
prescribed in the contract. Contract service levels to the public should be equal to or better
than services now provided by City staff.
3.It is important to note that the City’s Solid Waste staff and equipment were the first clean up
operations to begin service after the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005. Solid Waste managers and
supervisors oversaw both in house and contractual clean up operations in conformance with
FEMA requirements. Without in house City Solid Waste staff, clean up operations immediately
following a storm event will be slowed considerably and overall oversight of contractual services
will likely fall to the private waste hauler.
4.Over the past two years, the City has made great strides in cleaning up the City using its one
Solid Waste Code officer to identify trash piles that are not placed in compliance with local
codes. That officer is able to call existing Solid Waste staff and equipment such that an illegally
dumped pile is cleaned up that same day. Although this service level could be incorporated into
a franchise contract, it would seem unlikely that a private hauler would responds as quickly.
5.At least three employees (one supervisor, one clerical, one Code) must remain on City payroll to
administer the franchised contract and field resident phone calls.
6.The City would no longer incorporate Solid Waste services design into private development as
part of the City’s plan review process. Assuming the private hauler wishes to be part of this
design review, additional time could be added to the review process.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\14 FAC Solid Waste Franchise Recommendation - George
Feldman.doc
2 of 2
7.The City often coordinates and provides garbage removal services for special events, often at
the last minute and usually at no cost to the event holder. Because special events can be
variable in scope, a private waste hauler will likely only provide these additional services for a
fee.
8.Once a decision is made to franchise solid waste services, the City would sell its solid waste
equipment. It would be exceedingly difficult to change back to City service provision since the
estimated new cost of solid waste fleet is around $5.4M.
9.The decision to franchise solid waste services is one that must be made with a full
understanding of timing. Once a final decision is made to franchise these services, it will take
around six months to prepare bid specifications, receive bids, and then award a contract. Once a
contract is awarded many more months can follow to allow the time for the contractor to hire
staff (City staff hopefully), acquire equipment, and plan private operations and routes.
Satisfactory time would then be required to notify the public of the changed processes. It could
easily be early summer of 2012 until a franchise agreement could be implemented.
References (Staff, Documents, and Public): Discussion with Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager,
Christine Roberts, Asst Director of Public Works, and Jeffrey Livergood, Director of Public Works.
Impact on 2011/12 Budget: No impact assuming that the franchise fee charged to the private waste
hauler accounts for the current internal fund transfer of $3,430,000 and for added contract
administration expenses.. As an enterprise fund, Solid Waste operations only impact the General Fund
budget by transferring funds to the General Fund. What is unknown is the rate that the private
contractor would charge to residents and businesses in order to cover his/her operating costs and to pay
the City the specified franchise fee. Those may be lower or higher than those currently charged by the
City. The City would receive a one time revenue from the sale of surplus equipment in the amount of
around $1.5M.
Impact on Out Year Budgets: Regular inflationary growth
Impact on Citizens: Residents and businesses would no longer receive Solid Waste services by the City
of Boynton Beach. Although the City would still oversee the contract and field some phone calls, the
responsibility to address and follow up on resident and business concerns would fall solely upon the
private contractor. The City would no longer have staff and equipment to rapidly address needs of the
public.
Impact on City Staff: 37.5 staff positions will be eliminated.
Committee Vote Result: For: __0__ Against: __7__
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\14 FAC Solid Waste Franchise Recommendation - George
Feldman.doc
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic: City Funding of their 3 pensions (General, Police and Fire)
Reviewed By: Mike Madalena
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Changes to the existing pension plans are necessary
to maintain the financial health of the overall city. Changes would include an immediate review of past
and present assumptions to determine if the city’s past contributions need to be revised to meet current
obligations and if there is a shortfall the city will need to revise their pension calculations for future
retirees. Increase the employee’s contribution rate into the plan and level the contribution throughout
all classes. Currently the general employees pay a greater percentage of their pay toward the pension as
it relates to future benefit payout. Eliminate the COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) in the current
pensions and change to a flat rate to be determined by each pension board annually to a factor tied to
real inflation. Immediately end the DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Program) to any new members in
all three pensions as of 7/1/2011. At that time anyone currently in DROP within the city would have
their employment end on that date of 7/1/2011. This would eliminate a double pay scenario and allow
the city to either eliminate the current position or bring in a new hire at a lower pay rate. Increase the
Boynton Beach Fire assessment to fund for the Fire’s pension obligations. If changes to state law permit
the use of 175/185 dollars to fund police and fire pensions earmark those dollars to their respective
pensions. If collective bargaining agreements are eligible to be opened the city should then look into
creating a Defined Contribution plan for current future employees.
Pros of Recommendation: Currently the annual pension obligation for the city is one of its largest
expenditures. By adjusting the cost of the pension obligation to the employees or freezing the current
benefit the city could uncover additional funds to move to other projects in the city and balance their
budget.
Cons of Recommendation: Would need the ability to end the collective bargaining agreements with the
Police and Fire Unions to allow changes to their pensions. The unintended consequence is retention of
city staff and public safety employees due to the changes to their pension. Could create low morale for
city staff.
References (Staff, Documents, and Public): HB 303, SB 1128, SB 1130, and Governor Rick Scott’s 2011
State of Florida Budget
Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Pending completion of legislation, there may be earlier retirements of
senior City staff due to changes effective 7/1/11. (SB1128)
Impact on Out Year Budgets: depends on the ability to open the collective bargaining contracts and
either freezing the current pension and moving to a DC plan or a reduced DB plan with greater
employee contributions.
Impact on Citizens: None
Impact on City Staff: The unintended consequence is retention of city staff and public safety employees
due to the changes to their pension. Could create low morale for city staff.
Committee Vote Result: For: ____ Against: ____
Comment: TABLED PENDING RESULTS OF STATE LEGISLATION
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\20 FAC Pensions Recommendation - Mike
Madalena.doc
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\20 FAC Pensions Recommendation - Mike
Madalena.doc
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic: SHOPPER HOPPER
Reviewed By: TERRY LONERGAN
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): DISCONTINUE SERVICE. RECOMMEND
STAFF WORK WITH VOLEN CENTER TO QUALIFY SENIOR CITIZENS AND DISABLED FOR
TRANSPORTATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SHOPPER HOPPER. ACCORDING TO
INFORMATION RECEIVED DURING INTERVIEWS, THE VOLEN CENTER PROVIDED NO-COST
TRANSPORATION TO REGISTERED ELIGIBLE PERSONS. IT IS A SIX-PAGE APPLICATION THAT
PERHAPS CITY STAFF AT THE SENIOR CENTER CAN ASSIST CITIZENS IN FILLING OUT. THE
COMMITTEE ALSO REVIEWED A TAXI SUBSIDY PROGRAM TO HELP PROVIDE OTHER
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS. THE COMMITTEE NOTED THAT THE STAFF IS ALSO PRESENTING
TRANSPORATION ALTERNATIVES AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2011.
Pros of Recommendation: FAC SURVEY RESULTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT
DISCONTINUANCE. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN FISCALLY SUSTANIBLE. RIDERSHIP DOES NOT
WARRANT THE EXPENSE.
Cons of Recommendation: DISCONTINUANCE WILL PRESENT A HARDSHIP FOR THOSE NEEDING
TRANSPORTATION TO THE BOYNTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER AND OTHER STOPS ALONG THE
FIXED ROUTES. SENIOR CENTER MAY LOSE NATIONAL ACCREDIDATION IF THE SERVICE IS
ELIMINATED.
References (Staff, Documents, and Public): FAC SURVEY; MEETING WITH WALLY MAJORS;
ATTENDANCE AT SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
Impact on 2011/12 Budget: WILL ADD $220,000 TO CITY BUDGET.
Impact on Out Year Budgets: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE WILL NO LONGER BE NECESSARY
Impact on Citizens: POTENTIALLY LEAVES SENIORS WHO ARE UNABLE TO DRIVE WITHOUT
TRANSPORTATION TO THE SENIOR CENTER, WALMART, TARGET, WALGREENS, CVS AND OTHER
STOPS ALONG THE FIXED ROUTES. WILL ALSO CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR CHILDREN GOING TO
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES AND SUMMER CAMP WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION
Impact on City Staff: AT THE PRESENT TIME, 3 F/T AND 1 P/T EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE TO BE
REASSIGNED OR LAID OFF.
Committee Vote Result: For: 6 Against: 0
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON THE PAGES ATTACHED. (From City Staff Report to
City Commission for April 5, 2011 Meeting.)
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\21 FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation 1
- Terry Lonergan.doc
History of local Boynton Beach Transit
th
On December 20, 1994 per Resolution #R94-193, the City of Boynton Beach entered into an
interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County to lease 4 transit coaches to provide public
transportation to the general public in the City of Boynton Beach. Per the Agreement the City
“leases” the coaches on an annual basis for $10.00 from the County. The County was the
recipient of a capital, operating and planning assistance grant per the Federal Transit Act.
Included in the Grant’s Program of Projects was the acquisition of rolling stock to be used for
alternative public transportation purposes. Beginning in January of 1995 the City began
operating as the Boynton Beach Transit Authority and provided transportation based on a fixed
route system coordinated with Palm Tran (Staff believes it was called Co-Tran at that time). The
fixed route followed the same path and schedule each day and did not deviate from the route.
Therefore, the transit system at that time best served those residents that lived in close proximity
to the fixed route.
Sometime after 1997 Palm Tran added routes that coincided with the fixed routes the City was
providing. Between the two systems offering the same routes ridership diminished for the
Boynton Beach Transit Authority. As a result the name of the City’s program changed to the
Shopper Hopper and fixed routes were eliminated. The Shopper Hopper started providing door
to door service from various locations (communities). Two buses were used at that time for this
service. In addition the service changed again and started providing transportation from local
elementary schools to the City’s after school programs, summer camps and the Senior Center.
The program today continues to provide the Shopper Hopper service to various locations (limited
to grocery, Wal-Mart, Kohls, Target, the Mall, for example) and transportation from local
elementary schools to the Art Center and Hester Center for After School programs and provides
transportation for the Senior Center for special group activities. Current Shopper Hopper
Services are noted on an attached exhibit. Shopper Hopper fares are $1.00 each way with a
reduction to $0.50 each way for seniors over age 61.
It is obvious that our local transit system has adapted and evolved to meet the needs of our local
Boynton Beach residents. Our transit system was established, and prospered, at a time when few
other public transportation options were available, particularly for seniors that were the intended
users of this system. However, since the inception and evolution of our local transit system, there
have been substantial regional transit changes that offer residents County-wide more
transportation options. Notably, seniors and disabled individuals have a variety of options to them
that expand far beyond our local transit system. A discussion of these options follows in this
report.
Fiscal Constraints
As fiscal constraints have become more prevalent in all City operations, the Boynton Beach
Shopper Hopper system has come under increased scrutiny, as have many other City programs.
It is necessary to identify those programs that provide a service to the public that is worth the
cost. However, defining a program worth can be subjective. Therefore, this staff analysis will
concentrate primarily on measures of ridership and cost data. Any subjective sentimental worth
and value to the community is best determined by the City Commission as part of its budget
deliberations.
Staff provides the following cost and ridership data of the Shopper Hopper system (from the 2010
Budget submittal). Final data for the current fiscal year (2010-11) will not be known until after Oct
1, 2011.
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Operating Revenues $10,262 $9,062 $9,732 $8,517 $9,500
Operating Expenses $239,554 $224,582 $275,912 $325,325 $269,131
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\21 FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation 2
- Terry Lonergan.doc
Operating Loss $229,292 $215,520 $266,180 $316,808 $259,631
Annual Rider Trip 15,248 13,221 12,958 12,170 12,609
Net City subsidy / Trip $15.04 $16.30 $20.54 $26.03 $20.59
The above operation cost is funded by the City’s transfer of Gas Tax revenues to the
transportation program. The City annually receives slightly over $1.1M in gas tax revenue from
the State. These funds can only be used for eligible items affecting transportation and highways.
The current year budget (2010-11) of gas tax eligible expenditures is as follows;
Trans Services (inc. Shopper Hopper) $224,554
Public Works Street Maintenance Division $972,151
Transportation related Capital Projects $930,000
Total Gas Tax Eligible Expenses $2,126,705
The City has around $2.1M of Gas Tax eligible expense yet only $1.1M of Gas Tax revenues.
The difference of $1.0M is comprised entirely of monies from the General Fund. Therefore, any
reduction of the above referenced programs will provide financial relief to the General Fund.
Transportation Options
For the past several years, the City has recognized that the continued operation of the local
transportation system is not sustainable. Simply stated, either passenger revenues must
increase or operational costs must decrease. As the above financial chart shows, City staff has
reduced the transportation costs from a high of $325,325 to a current budget amount of
$224,554. This has been accomplished primarily by transitioning to more part time staff in lieu of
paying full time wages and benefits where possible. There are other operating efficiencies as
well. There is very little room for further operating cost reductions. Therefore, one must instead
look to increasing revenue from riders in order to offset overall cost to the taxpayer. However, as
illustrated earlier, the City subsidy per rider is around $20 per trip while the rider share is $0.50
per trip for seniors. The rider fare would have to be increased significantly and, if implemented,
would very likely result in greatly reduced ridership. We must balance the demand for services
with the rate the customer is willing to pay. The equalization point of supply to demand is difficult
to determine.
Staff does not believe the funding gap can be reasonably accommodated with rider fare
increases. This, therefore, would suggest that the Shopper Hopper / Transportation System
should cease operations as we know it today.
But, the goal of our program has always been to move people, primarily seniors. We need not
assume that this can only be accomplished by our current Shopper Hopper system. It can be
difficult to determine transportation needs because each rider has a unique destination, a unique
departure point, and a unique time of day they wish to travel, hence the dilemma that
transportation planners across the country try to solve. So, what choices do we have locally?
Existing Transportation Alternatives for Shopper Hopper riders
Palm Tran
Palm Beach County began mass transit operations in 1971. The current name of
Palm Tran was established in 1996. The initial seven transit routes have grown to 36
routes today. In 2009, Palm Tran served 10 million riders from 3,200 bus stops.
Destinations are County wide as shown on an attached Exhibit.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\21 FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation 3
- Terry Lonergan.doc
Locally, Boynton Beach is served by five Palm Tran Routes as shown on the
attached exhibits. These routes primarily serve riders on Boynton Beach Blvd,
Congress Avenue, Seacrest Blvd, Gateway Blvd, Lawrence Road, the Boynton
Beach Mall and the Tri Rail Station. Staff clearly recognizes that these routes are
likely not convenient to seniors, particularly, who may reside well removed from the
arterial bus route. The routes do, however, provide transit options to many other
people that may reside, or have a destination, near a route.
Palm Tran Connection
Palm Tran Connection is a relatively new service that was adopted by Palm Beach
County in 2004 to address the transit needs of the elderly, the disadvantaged and the
disable person. Palm Tran Connection relies entirely upon a door to door para-transit
system that, ironically, is nearly identical in the way that our existing Shopper Hopper
operates. However, whereas our Shopper Hopper system provides door to door
transportation to specified locations within the City, Palm Tran Connection can be
utilized by the public for transit for any destination of any type within the County from
their home in Boynton Beach. The fare for this service is $3.00 each way compared
to our Shopper Hopper fare of $1.00 per trip ($0.50 for ages over 61).
Despite the fact that Palm Tran Connection is more costly than our existing Shopper
Hopper service, one can certainly claim that the destination alternatives allowed by
the Palm Tran Connection make it a very good alternative. Also, we should be
mindful of the fact that our Boynton Beach residents help to fund Palm Tran
Connection as they are also Palm Beach County residents.
Had the Palm Tran Connection been in operation years ago prior to when our own
Shopper Hopper system was established, it is very likely that our senior residents
would have used Palm Tran Connection and there would have never been a
separate need to establish our own local transit system.
Staff believes that the Palm Tran Connection system is a viable alternative to our
Shopper Hopper system
The Volen Center
The Volen Center in Boca may be one of the best kept secrets for transportation
needs in South Palm Beach County. The Volen Center is funded by The City of Boca
Raton, residents of Palm Beach County and other sources. The Volen Center
provides transportation for seniors in that portion of Palm Beach County south of
Hypoluxo Road. Therefore, all geographic areas of Boynton Beach would appear to
fall within the area served by the Volen Center transit system as would Delray Beach
and Boca Raton.
The Volen Center provides transportation for seniors at either minimal, or reduced
cost, depending upon the origin and destination. Fares are $3.00 (to match Palm
Tran Connection) for most trips. Bus trips to an individual’s primary care physician,
or for dialysis, are free or for donation. Riders must call the day before pickup and
can expect a ride any time within a selected one hour window beginning at 10:00 am
and ending at 2:00 pm. Riders must call for a return trip prior to 2:30 pm.
The Volen Center provides transportation to numerous County social services
agencies and meal sites for example. Our own Senior Center is one such site that
would be a great destination for users of the Volen transit system.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\21 FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation 4
- Terry Lonergan.doc
Staff believes that the Volen Center transportation system is an excellent alternative
to those users of our own Shopper Hopper system. The fare is either free or reduced
and the variety of destinations is far greater than our own Shopper Hoppers system.
Taxi Service
Fresno County
No transit report would be complete without referencing transportation alternatives
provided by the private, for profit, sector. There are shuttle systems and limousine
services too numerous to mention. These services are easy to locate through a
yellow page search. These services are costly for individual riders.
Taxi service is a well defined and known private transportation service. Private taxi
companies provide on-call transportation needs for those users who do not desire to
use mass transit and prefer to travel alone. Taxis are very common in our area and
are utilized by seniors because of the convenience when compared to other public
options such as Palm Tran Connection and the Volen Center. Seniors may also
choose taxi services because they are not aware of the wide variety of public
alternatives mentioned herein.
That said, many communities across the country have found ways to leverage private
taxi services for transportation needs of local residents, seniors in particular. The
most common method is to utilize a voucher or coupon process. This process allows
for a city to issue a voucher, or coupon, to an eligible participant that allows the rider
to reduce the cost of a taxi fare. Attached is a program brochure for the Taxi Scrip
Program in Fresno County California. This is one of the best descriptions of a taxi
coupon program staff was able to find on the internet.
Fresno County’s program is one where a taxi rider is able to purchase a $20 taxi
coupon for $5. The rider then uses the full value coupon to pay for the taxi ride.
Specific program details are defined in the brochure. Obviously Fresno County has
agreements with tax providers for the use of the coupons and payment terms to the
provider. Fresno County chose to make the service available to those age 70 years
and older. Of course, any government entity choosing to provide taxi coupons in this
manner could create any eligibility requirements it wishes based upon local
community need and resources.
Wellington, Florida
The Village of Wellington recently implemented a taxi subsidy program to
accommodate their need to transport seniors within their corporate boundaries. This
subsidy is budget in the amount of $20,000 per year. Detail of Wellington’s system is
as follows:
Eligibility:
Wellington Resident – 60+ years old, and “mobility impaired”. However, the
Town bases all this on the “honor” system, (i.e. they do not check birth
certificates, tax records, etc…)
Both persons in a marriage who are eligible can participate in the program.
However, vouchers cannot be transferred amongst the couple.
Each registered participant receives a card that is valid for ten (10) trips. The
Village pays $13, the individual pays $2 – Total $15/trip. A “round” trip counts as
two trips.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\21 FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation 5
- Terry Lonergan.doc
Area of Service: Within the Town’s corporate limits
Reserving a Ride: Participants can make reservations by calling the contracted
transportation companies directly, Monday through Friday 7am to 7pm, excluding
holidays such as Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.
Participating Transportation Companies are chosen by the Town based on a formal
bid process.
Rides can be reserved as little as one hour, if scheduling permits, and up to 2 weeks
in advance and can be for any purpose within the servicing area.
Rides are available Monday – Friday 8am to 5pm excluding holidays such as Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Years Day
Taxi Subsidy Summary
A taxi coupon program could be a viable alternative for local senior transportation
needs. However, additional research regarding internal staff support needs would be
warranted. We do not have a history with this type of system so it is difficult to
estimate annual direct costs or man hours necessary to support the program. This
could very well be a great program but one that is not worth the administrative
oversight. Should we proceed with this system, staff recommends that a budget
amount be established and the program should operate to that limit and no further.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\21 FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation 6
- Terry Lonergan.doc
1 of 2
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic: Solid Waste – Residential Garbage Collection
Reviewed By: George Feldman
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Amend residential garbage collection schedules
such that garbage is collected one time per week (ENTIRE CITY).
Existing service levels provide for residential garbage collection two times per week. This can be
scalable to allow regional neighborhoods to select lesser service frequency. Neighborhoods (HOAs)
would need to respond to a prepared questionnaire, choosing twice a week or once a week pickup.
After reviewing responses, a cost effective determination could be analyzed saving the City operational
expenses and reducing cost to taxpayers or HOAs. This would be a cost neutral approach before
implementation. Note: The survey responses indicated support for once-a-week service to reduce
costs.
Pros of Recommendation: This action would allow for a total cost reduction of approximately $275,000
annually assuming the entire City is affected. Some customers may prefer twice per week collection.
Cons of Recommendation: There are a number of cons as follows:
1.Many residents need twice per week collection either because of family size or the amount of
refuse generated.
2.There will likely be an up front cost to implement this program. Carts are available today in two
sizes, 65 gallons and 95 gallons. Many residents also currently use much smaller 35 gallon carts
that are being phased out due to collection difficulties. Therefore, if the City transitions to once
per week collection, many residents will request larger carts in order to accommodate larger
volumes of garbage. Those residents that ask for large carts should be required to pay for the
replacement cost of around $55 per cart.
3.Some residents will place extra garbage bags beside the City cart and expect it to be collected.
This cannot be done with automated trucks. Customer complaints will rise and public health
could be impaired. The City could return to rear load collection vehicles to allow flexibility on
how residents place their garbage at the curb. Rear load vehicles require three employees so
this could require the City to actually add staff which could offset the savings to go with one day
per week collection.
4.Residents can request two carts and pay an extra monthly fee of $6.00 per cart. The City has
some situations like this now. If once per week collection is implemented, some residents may
request an additional cart. They may not have room to store this cart. Internal City tracking of
these extra carts would become difficult.
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\22 FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage Collection
Recommendation - George Feldman.doc
2 of 2
5.The biggest negative impact would be to those residents who have regular garbage collection on
Thursday, Thanksgiving Day and on the variable days of Christmas and New Years Day. The City
does not collect garbage on these dates. Because the City is on a six day per week collection
schedule (cost reduction measure in 2010), there are no make days available. Therefore, those
with Thanksgiving Day garbage collection would go two weeks without garbage service and
those whose collections days fall on Christmas and New Years will go three weeks without
collection.
6.The public might expect a rate reduction in the monthly water bill. The public may perceive
reduced solid waste services to correlate with reduced solid waste costs. This therefore would
not benefit the General Fund deficit.
References (Staff, Documents, and Public): Discussion with Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager,
Christine Roberts, Asst Director of Public Works, and Jeffrey Livergood, Director of Public Works
Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Savings of $275,000 to change entire City to once per week collection.
Savings will vary if larger neighborhoods are allowed to opt in or out.
Impact on Out Year Budgets: Regular inflationary growth
Impact on Citizens: Impact on the public will be varied. Those that prefer once per week garbage
collection would be pleased. Those that prefer twice per week collection will not. The most noticeable
impact may be an increase in fly dumping. The City already experiences fly dumping despite the fact that
the City collects garbage twice per week and also collects unlimited amounts of bulk trash and landscape
waste twice per week. By reducing services levels for garbage collection, some may choose to fly dump
causing the appearance of the community to diminish.
Impact on City Staff: Two staff positions (Equipment Operators) will be eliminated.
Committee Vote Result: For: 6 Against: 0
C:\Documents and Settings\cherryc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\22 FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage Collection
Recommendation - George Feldman.doc
Recommendation From
Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee
Subject/Topic
: FORESTRY AND GROUNDS - 2010-2011 BUDGET $1,553,099
Reviewed By
: MERLINE PAMPLONA
Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended)
: IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A 15%
BUDGET REDUCTION OF $232,965, REDUCTION OF MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WAS
CONSIDERED
Pros of Recommendation
: NO INCREASE IN PROPERY TAX
ONLY ONE DEPARTMENT AFFECTED BY BUDGET CUT
Cons of Recommendation
: REDUCTION OF MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WILL RESULT IN
THE FOLLOWING:
Reduce median maintenance on all of Congress Ave. and Federal Highway
Remove turf and plants exclusive of trees and palms
Replace turf and plants with mulch
Weed control (Spraying) 4 times per year
Minor modification in irrigation
Trash and litter will only be cleaned up four times per year because litter cleanup is part of our
landscape maintenance contract
Many of these medians are remote and in residential areas. Unable to calculate cost reductions
for these smaller medians at this time
References (Staff, Documents, and Public)
: REVIEWED DEPARTMENT BUDGET
MET WITH GLENDA HALL, CHRISTINE ROBERTS, AND JEFFREY LIVERGOOD
Impact on 2011/12 Budget
: SAME AS 2010-2011 AFTER BUDGET CUT
Impact on Out Year Budgets
: CURRENTLY, BUDGET HAS INCREASE IN OVERALL
EXPENSES FROM 2012-2015. I RECOMMEND REVISION OF BUDGET TO REFLECT 2010-
2011 AFTER BUDGET CUT UNLESS MILLAGE RATE IS RAISED
Impact on Citizens
: CITIZENS MAY NOT BE PLEASED WITH LEVEL OF MEDIAN
MAINTENANCE
Impact on City Staff
: REDUCTION OF HOURS IN THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
NO DIRECT IMPACT ON PERSONNEL
Committee Vote Result: ForAgainst
: _7__ : __0__