The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCitizens Budget Committee 7-17-15MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMITTEE Meeting Date: July 17, 2015 Conference Room 3 Dan Kurek, Vice Chair Stephanie Morgan, Steven Weaver Gwen Morris Richard Pancoast Jay L. McBee Craig Mundt William Donovan Patrick Campion Ed Lounds Carl Hensley James Clasby John Culverhouse Ron Knaggs, Chair Ron Parrish Howard Tipton Mark Satterlee Jennifer Hill Beth Ryder John Wiatrak Don West Laurie Waldie George Otero Ceretha Leon Frannie Hutchinson Robert Adolphe Asheley Hepburn Toby Long Ed Matthews Garry Wilson Kathryn -Hensley Ken Mascara Amy Griffin Matthew Beard Danny Retherford Vice Chair Dan Kurek called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT No member of the public spoke. APPROVAL OF JUNE 19, 2015 MINUTES After a motion by Mr. Pancoast and a second, the minutes were unanimously approved. SUNSHINE REMINDER Mr. Kurek reminded the members that they cannot communicate outside the meetings Citizens' Budget Committee July 17, 2015 Page 2 regarding Committee topics and distributed the attached. The Sheriff, Ms. Hensley from the School Board, and Mr. Tipton were recognized by Mr. Kurek. He excused Mr. Culverhouse. Mr. Kurek reported on the Budget Workshops held Monday and Thursday. FY 16 BUDGET PRESENTATION Mr. Tipton started the attached PowerPoint overview. Mr. Hepburn explained the millage rate slides. Mr. Kurek asked Mr. Tipton to pause after slide 28 to answer questions. Mr. Lounds started discussion on being weaned off using reserves and property values. Mr. Kurek spoke about the roll back rate. Mr. Mundt asked about FPL depreciation. Mr. Lounds started discussion on inmate medical compared to hospital visit, mental health and jobs. Ms. Morris asked about charity funds for mental health issues and the surtax. Mr. Weaver wanted to know the proposed millage rate, budget amount, information about salary increases and ways to increase revenue. Mr. Hensley started discussion about employer and employee shares of insurance payments. Mr. Mundt asked for clarification about the amounts generated by sales tax increase. Mr. Lounds asked for more information on the insurance payments. Mr. Donovan started discussion about nonviolent inmates. Mr. Mundt asked about road projects. Ms. Morgan started discussion on the Tax Collector building, Clerk's purchase of software and the Supervisor of Election's building. Mr. Clasby asked about excess fees to nonprofits and their other funding. He feels education would be needed for sales tax increase. Mr. Mundt wanted to know about the health department. CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Mr. Kurek asked the members to review and comment on the attached resolution draft. Comments were given on each line. He told the Committee how interested the Board is in their opinion. Mr. Mundt expressed his concern about an appropriate level of public safety. Mr. Kurek reviewed the options. The last slides were reviewed. Sheriff Mascara and Mr. Long explained the step program and increase in insurance payments for the Sheriffs officers. Mr. Weaver started discussion on use of reserves/fund balance. Mr. Campion asked about fees. Ms. Morris expressed her concerns. Mr. Lounds conveyed his support for a Citizens' Budget Committee July 17, 2015 Page 3 millage increase and sales tax increase. Mr. Campion gave his opinion. Mr. Pancoast added his support and reasoning. Mr. Clasby asked about allotment of the revenue from a raised millage. Mr. Donovan asked for values of increases and the conversation on amount of millage increase, public safety, salary increases and credibility continued. Mr. Kurek asked for a motion to recommend the Board raise the millage rate by of a mil, fund the Sheriff and establish an action committee to move forward on the sales tax. Mr. Lounds made the motion and Mr. Pancoast made a second. There was discussion on the wording, amounts and resolving locally. Mr. Weaver expressed his opposition to an increase and started discussion on the reserves. Mr. Long summed up his opinion of the five year plan and Mr. Tipton commented on his assessment. The resolution was approved. Mr. Kurek will work on the formatting and present it at the Board of County Commissioners meeting the following Tuesday. He asked for support from the Committee if they were able to attend. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kurek adjourned the meeting at 9:32 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Brenda Marlin The next CBC meeting will be held on Friday, October 16, 2015, at 7:30 a.m., in Conference Room 3, at the St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex. as a liaison between, or to conduct a de facto meeting of, other members of the public entity. What types of meetings are not covered? The Sunshine Law does not apply to a meeting between individuals who are members of different boards unless one or more of them have been delegated the authority to act on behalf of his or her board. If an official is not a member of the board or commission and does not possess any power to vote, the -official may meet privately with. an individual member. There is no violation of the Sunshine Lax4 for a board member to express views or voting intentions on upcoming issues to a reporter. Members of a public board or commission are not prohibited from meeting together socially under the Sunshine Law, as long as matters which may come before them in their official capacity are not discussed. What forms of communication are covered? Members of a board discussing board business or holding a meeting by telephone must ensure that the requirements of the Sunshine Law have been satisfied by providing notice and access to the public. If a memorandum reflecting the views of a board member is circulated among board members with each indicating his or her approval, disapproval, or comments, there is a violation of the Sunshine Law. The use of a written report simply to inform is not a violation of the Law as long as there is no reply or interchange of information. The use of computers by members of a public 0 board or commission to communicate among themselves is subject to the Sunshine Law. What subjects are covered? There is no exception to the Sunshine Law allowing closed -door hearings when a board or commission is acting in a "quasi-judicial" capacity. Discussions ;between a public board and its attorney are generally subject to the Sunshine Law. However, a public board and its attorney may meet in a closed session to discuss settlement negotiations or strategy concerning pending litigation to which the public board is a parry. Numerous limiting conditions apply to such meetings, including transcription requirements, topic limitations, notice and procedural requirements, and release of the transcript upon completion of the litigation. Meetings at which personnel matters are discussed are not exempt. Negotiations by a public body for the sale or purchase of real property must be conducted in the Sunshine. The Sunshine Law is applicable to investigative inquiries of public agencies, and the fact that a meeting concerns alleged violations of law or regulations does not remove it from the scope of the Law. Sunshine Law policy on collective bargaining for public employees is divided into two parts: when the public employer is meeting with its own side, it is exempt from the Sunshine Law; when the public employer is meeting with the other side, it is required to comply with the Law. St. Lucie County Citizens Budget Committee Resolution No. 2015 — 001 Recommendations on the Proposed FY2016 Budget WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Citizens Budget Committee ("Committee") met on July 17, 2015 to review the budget recommendations presented to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Committee discussed in length the budget and the financial position of the County; and, WHEREAS, as a result of these discussions, the Committee has the following concerns: 1. The Committee is concerned about the continued depletion of the reserves. 2. The Committee recognizes the cut backs in maintenance and replacement of equipment is creating higher operating costs for old outdated items. 3. The Committee recognizes the cut backs in maintenance of existing county owned facilities have begun to show wear that was previously repaired promptly. 4. The staff cuts over the last several years have reduced services to the citizens of St. Lucie County. 5. The workforce is working harder with fewer tools to complete their tasks. NOW, -THEREFORE, BE ITRESOVED by the St. Lucie County Citizens Budget Committee as follows: 1. The Committee makes these recommendations to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners: A. Sheriff B. Millage increase C. Referendum for % to 1 cent sales tax D. Raises E. ??? 2. A copy of this resolution shall be provided to the Board of County Commissioners, the County Administrator, and the Management and Budget Director. 1 ST. LUCIE COUNTY CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 2015-001 RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED FY2016 BUDGET WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Citizens Budget Committee ("Committee") met on July 17, 2015 to review the budget recommendations presented to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Committee discussed in length the budget and the financial position of the County; and, WHEREAS, as a result of these discussions, the Committee has the following concerns: 1. The Committee is concerned about the continued depletion of the fund balance to fund County operations. Since 2010, the County has used $42.9 million of fund balance to offset any tax increase. 2. The Committee recognizes the cut backs in maintenance has created higher operating costs due to: A. Non replacement of high maintenance equipment B. Lower maintenance of County facilities 3. The staff cuts, to the 1995 staffing level, over the last several years have reduced services while the population of St. Lucie County has increased by 100,000 citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVED by the St. Lucie County Citizens Budget Committee as follows: 1. The Committee makes these recommendations to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners: A. The Committee recommends raising the millage rate by 0.25 mills to fund public safety. All the members of the Committee are very concerned about the necessary funding of the Sheriffs Office to maintain well trained, professional law enforcement personnel. The Committee agrees that additional monles for public safety should not come from fund balance. B. The Committee recommends establishing an action committee to research and develop educational materials for a referendum on a Yz cent surtax 1 (sales tax). The Committee strongly recommends that the uses of funds from the proceeds of the surtax be for specific projects. 2. A copy of this resolution shall be provided to the Board of County Commissioners, the County Administrator, and the Management and Budget Director. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 1711 day of July, 2015 ST. LUCIE COUNTY CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE B. DANIELJ. K AIR 0 7/17/2015 Citizens Budget Review Meeting Friday, July 17, 2015 FY 2015-2016 RECOMMENDED BUDGET Recommended FY 2016 Budget Friday, July 17, 2015 - 7:30am • Budget Summary • Factors for Budget Direction • Budget Direction • Recommended Budget (Overall) • Recommended Budget (General Fund/Fine & Forfeiture) • Property Values and Millages • Total Revenue CC]UNTY r CUUNTY 1, 1 7/17/2015 Recommended FY 2016 Budget Friday, July 17, 2015 - 9:00am till 4:00pm • Incremental Revenue & Expenses • Unfunded Capital • Unfunded Requests • Constitutional Officer Funding • New Revenue Sources • Questions & Answers Budget Summary The FY 2015-16 recommended budget is $462.9 million which represents a decrease of $17.7 million or 3.69% from the prior fiscal year 3 4 K 7/17/2015 Use of Reserve • Over the span of five years, FY 2010 thru FY 2014 the County has utilized $42.9 million of the General Fund and Fine Forfeiture fund balance. • Expenses exceed revenue annually during the same period of time, averaging $8.6 million. � rc+n ti COUNTY 3 7/17/2015 Balance Forward Comparison General Fund/Fine & Forfeiture FY 2010 to FY 2014 in Millions FY 2010 Beginning FY 2014 Ending Sal. FY 2015 Ending Sal. FY 2016 Ending Sal. Sal. n Gen. Fund ■ Fine & Forfeit ■ Combined udget Direction Given -in February • No new positions or reclassifications. • No increases in operating as compared to FY 15 budget unless there is an offsetting decrease. • Consider areas based on economic conditions today that can be reduced (i.e. fuel). • No new or replacement equipment funded from ad valorem taxes. • Exceptions to the guidelines may be made for self sufficient operations with justification (i.e. Enterprise Funds). • Health Insurance rates are expected to go up significantly over the next two years. en 13 7/17/2015 Budget $462.9 Million EXPENDABLETRUST INTERNAL SERVICE $4,2M1],41] $28,678,690 ENTERPRISE 6.20% 0.92% - $52,437,392 - GENERAL FUND 11.33% $122.867,704 26.54% CAPITAL' $60,036,437 12.9]% DEBT SERVICE, $19,149,377 3.]0% SPECIAL REVENUE $1]],515,020 38.35% 9 General Fund The County's main operations are located in the General Fund/Fine & Forfeiture Fund portion of the FY 15-16 Recommended Budget, which amount to $146,919,378 for County operations. 5 7/17/2015 General Fund / Fine & Forfeiture $146.9 Million CRAS Aid to Other Agencies Community 5emice 2.069,02) Mandates 3,003%,0001 �1�ludi2,973 9 3,555,689 3,9)3,319 ConstitutionalF 3,699,97) 3% 80,681,5 55% Ul• • Property Valuation 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3,00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% Percentage Change in Property Value • City of Port sL Lucie SC Lucie County Wide s CityofFortPlerce oSt. Lucie County ❑nincorWorated Area d Departments 50,896,92) 35% it 12 E 7/17/2015 I PlM1 ' 2035-16 2015-16 2015-I6 20i155-16 6 MI0REE13 RoRllMbaack RaUk Ta LOOF[tTUFAFNTNLDCA 3&W2 I rr 3073 61,16 4P,,446611rr 12V60,N3115v6e1a3' P,, F((PIIMIVIbESN 3 M9a 16,316,3899 I1BTI2cRYAFT Cl `1'lY 6.780A 11O.6P,a05 7A572 S1424 13tOSlON CONTROL-ZONfiE r OOSfi9r 3, .r r M0.+QYl1TODISTRICI" a � � � 0 0924 r t,SOB,285 13,399,739,46] ` 16,3' r 02426r 3,886,839 r 02413w 3,863,ffi2 13,332,343,938 16A LTii(YCALDFPENDL7V'I D1ST. 0.3315r 5,537,186 OSS38r S¢75pP8 6<K 4SNiE= 72C W ORKSHEET ANALYSIS OF ROLL -BACK MILLAGE RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 20M2016 C D E F G E FIRCD 0 0 0 0 Alan p NAME RoObvek Rallbaek M0a$e Taxes Yew, Grota r Raft Taxes Valve I VNae I 21. LNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING TLNITS(MSTLQ V r w r r UNINCORPORATED SERVICES' 0,4286 3,070,095 04380 3. 131,428 r 6,997,535,988 r r • 7,163,079.192 ,23 STORMWATER' 03422r 2A51,205 03491' 2,504,928 6,997,535,988' 7,163,078,192 24 V r LAWENFORCEMENT' 0.4941 r 3,377,241 ' 03103 3,655,319 w 6,997,333,988 2163,078,19 25 r Y r PARRS MSTU 02W • r 3,639,586 • r 02313 w 3,733.534 r 15,653,882,638 16,357,684,4 08 ' 2 TRANSITMSTU 01220r 1,990,600 0. 1269 2,070,550 13.599,739,461r 16JI6,389.398 2 r �e SUBTOTAL MSTU 1.6147 14.728,727 1.6562 15,151.759 GOUNTY 7 7/17/2015 otal FY 15 Millage Rate for all Taxing Authorities JV.UUV V 25.0000 25.4794 20.0000 20.1988 20.6508 15.0000 10.0000 5.0000 0.0000 Unincorp PSL FP SLV ■ Other Agencies 0.4187 0.4187 0.4187 0.4187 ■ Fire District 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 ■ School Board - 7.2410 7.2410 7.2410 7.2410 ■Children Svcs Council 0.4765 0.4765 0.4765 0.4765 ■ City 0.0000 5.6289 6.5786 1.7500 ■SLC 9.0626 7.7646 7.7646 7.7646 Per Capita -Taxable Value 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Per capita taxable value 111Sn Lnele County Indian River County a Palm Reach County am.mocounty ■ Other Agencies ■ Fire District ■ School Board ■ Children Svcs Council r City ■ SLC Scarce: 2014 Florida County Ad Valorem Tax Profile, State of Florida Office of Economic& Demographic Research 1s 16 7/17/2015 W & Forfeiture) Account Name Amount Ad Valorem Revenue (Prop .Tax) $115,148,024 Communication Service Tax 925,000 FPL Franchise Fee 3,879,800 State Shared Revenue 3,195,544 Local Government Half Cent Sales Tax 4,068,468 All Other Operating Revenue 7,955,050 5% Statutory Reduction (6,592,029) Non -Operating Revenue 3,936,083 Total Revenue $132,550,839 17 Incremental Changes • Incremental Recurring Revenues Property Taxes $5.10M Mosquito Control Shift $0.20M State Shared $0.30M Half Cent Sales Tax $0.40M Total Increment $6.00M • Incremental Recurring Savings Transportation Debt $ 2.00M Total Available $8.00M err 18 0 7/17/2015 commenae Medicaid $ 280,683 GF/FF BOCC Group Insurance $ 952,401 Sheriff - FRS rate increase $ 650,000 Sheriff Insurance $2,269,133 Sheriff Capital $ 286,000 Supervisor of Elections Insurance $ 71,000 Licenses and Equip. Maint: SOE $ 172,000 Clerk Insurance and IT $ 23,563 Tax Collector $ 181,192 Property Appraiser $ 247,616 EDC $ 50,000 Port Engineer (Split with FP) $ 40,000 Veteran's Service Officer $ 50,000 Inmate Medical $ 588,000 Debt Service Jail Security - $ $ 423,000 2,000 000 Deficit Reduction Total Increment $8.0M ADZ Projects Midway Road (Selvitz Road to Glades Cutoff) $23.9 M Port 2nd Street Entrance $7.6 M Tax Collector's New Building in Tradition Dev. $7.0 M Landfill Phase 4 Cell Construction $5.0 M Jail Security Improvement $2.3 M Clerk of Circuit Court Financial Software System (ERP) $2.0 M White City Drainage Improvement $1.1 M Harbor Branch Preserve Restoration $.73 M 19 20 10 7/17/2015 Unfunded Requests • Sheriff Office, Fully Funding Request $2.1 million • Sheriff Office DROP payments $154,000 • Board department new position request $551,201 • Restoring Library hours $363,000 • Salary increase of 3% to all County employees not including the above Sheriff's Office $1.4 million r t<ucoe+= COU rJ l' Y Unfunded Capital Improvement Projects. • Transportation $106.5 Million • Stormwater $70.0 Million • Economic Development TBD • Port Property Acquisition (TBD) Airport (TBD) • 800 MHz • Infrastructure $8 Million • Subscriber Units $6.5 Million N COUNTY � 11 7/17/2015 and Funding • Constitutional Officers budget is $81.3 Million (net of excess fees): • Sheriff $ 69.318 M • Supervisor of Elections $ 3.109 M • Clerk of Circuit Court $ 1.219 M • Property Appraiser $ 4.627 M • Tax Collector $ 3.046 M 23 12 7/17/2015 Local Government Infrastructure Surtax • Amount Levied: Each county may levy a discretionary sales surtax of 0.5% or 1% • Referendum: Two Methods • Enacted by a majority of County Commission and approved by the majority of the voters by referendum. • Municipalities representing a majority of the county's population may initiate the surtax by adoption of resolutions calling for a countywide referendum and approved by the majority of the voters by referendum. • Length: • Surtax Referendums enacted.after July 1,1993 do not have a limit on the length of levy • Distribution: Two Methods • Local agreement to determine the distribution of the surtax • Formula provided in Florida Statute 218.62 (based on the Local Governme�� Half -Cent Sales Tax formulas) • 50.02^% - County • 49.98%-City 25 Authorized Uses of Proceeds • To finance, plan, and construct infrastructure • To acquire land for public recreation, conservation, or protection of natural resources • To provide loans, grants, or rebates to residential or commercial property owners who make energy efficiency improvements to their residential or commercial property, if a local government ordinance authorizing such uses is approved by referendum Per Section 212.005(2) Florida Statutes 26 13 7/17/2015 Infrastructure Examples Infrastructure related investment with a life expectancy of least 5 years. Examples are: • Roadway Improvements • Stormwater Drainage • Equipment and Vehicles • Building and Facility Improvements • Jails • Parks/Special Facilities • Other: • Energy Efficiency Improvements • Court Facilities ' • 15% can be allocated to Economic Development Estimated Proceeds • $14,574,218 (based on the Local Government Half -Cent Sales Tax formulas 50.2% to County) Bonds • May pledge the proceeds of the tax for the bonds • Counties and municipalities may join together for the issuance of bonds County Comparison • 18 Counties in the State of Florida levy the Infrastructure Surtax • Neighboring counties that levy the Infrastructure Surtax and effective date: • Okeechobee (Oct 1.1995) • Indian River (Jun.1989) zs 14 7/17/2015 Wide Property Taxes Mhge ResIhn&I ITaxak Increase/ Year CWTaxtmpact Rai Me (ftcrease( Tadmount %Change Tadimpact 'County WeProp" Tax ReYenue 1Y0;813,12161 2016CWTaxlmpct M $163161389,398 4,M1 97.35 65,874,15892 11,82% %601,218,87 2016CW Tax lmpact A $16,316,389,98 5,384,48,50 67,179,47OR 14.04% 125,907,90,02 2016CWTaximpact 0.50 $163161389,398 8,158,194.70 69,95346.27 18,74% 138;643%,22 r...- 29 KvIs 117 with a $105,736 Taxable Value MilageScenarios: €ouray-Wide MibplmpacttoraHomesteadedProperty-PropetyVaU$155,736 2015tounty I Valuation Mbge 2016 ounty M04e Resdential Me Property' kmase@ Increase/ Wide Property % Total Year I €WTaxlmpad Rate Taxable Value TaxAmount .80%CPI (Decrease) TaxAmount Change Impact 2016 CW Tax Impact 0.25 $105,736 $772.36 9,14 26.43 Vt93 01% $3157 2016 CW Tax l ' e." l 0.33 $105,736 $772.36 9,14 34.89 81639 5.70% $44.03 2016 CWTax lmpact 0.50 $105,736 $772.36 9.14 52.87 83436 &D3% $6Z00 30 15 7/17/2015 Next Steps • Tuesday, July 215t: Board set_ s millage rates to be advertised on TRIM notices. Once these rates have been set, they can be decreased, but not increased • Thursday, September 3rd: Public Hearing to Adopt Tentative Budget • Thursday, September 17th: Public Hearing to Adopt Final Budget 31 16