HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004
,.. , ..,. .~~'.'__.'_'_"'''h _..~... <~'._"_"
,.,',-
,,--"'.- '" -..'. .->-' -,.'. .....,.~
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
~ =f .' ~'eJ' e" ", E --' '-.-~'._,' ,"
~' .
COUNTY. ',:.
FLORIDA·":.....·
COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
, . . _"__~_"____·'H_."r.....h~._~._ .._.~.__ ~""~"-~~'"_"~~"'__'~_""'_"""""""'~""'"- ,,?,.,-, "".',.
DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON
July 1, 2004
Governor Jeb Bush
Office of the Governor
PL 05 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL., 32399-0001
RE: Resolution No. 04-174 / Opposing Proposed Doubling Of Homestead Exemption
Dear Governor Bush:
At the June 22, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the St. Lucie County Board of
County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 04-174, "Opposing a Proposed COllstitutional
Initiative Petition to Increase the Homestead Exemption by $25,000; and Providing an Effective Date."
Board of County Commissioners, I have attached a copy of the resolution.
DMA/ ab 04-92
c: Board of County Commissioners
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Jeff Furst, Property Appraiser
Legislative Delegation
St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce
St. Lucie County Economic Development Council
Treasure Coast Builders Association
Florida Association of Counties
Citizens! Budget Development Committee
City of Fort Pierce
City of Port St. Lucie
Linette Trabulsy, Public Information Officer
Attachment
JOHN D. ßRUHN. Disrricr NO.1. DOUG COWARD, Disrricr NO.2. PAULA A. LE');lS. DisTricr No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No.4· (L,Fi' GARNES, DisTricr NO.5
Counry Adminisrrcrçr - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (772) 462-1450 · TDD (772) 462-1428
FAX (772) 462-1648 · email: douga@co.st-Iucie,fl.us
web site: wv'/w.co,st-Iucie,fl.us
RESOLUTION NO. 04-174
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING A PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE PETITION TO INCREASE
THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BY $25,000; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. There is a proposed constitutional amendment by the group
"Families for Lower Property Taxes" (the "Amendment")
( copy
attached hereto as Appendix A) that proposes to increase the
Homestead Exemption to $50,000.00.
2 . The proponents of this Amendment have promised all Florida
homeowners a property tax savings of $500.00 should this amendment
pass.
3. The Amendment will result in a $1.9 billion shift in the
property tax burden to businesses, rental property, second homes,
and agricultural properties.
4. Certain homestead properties will also experience an
increase in taxes rather than a decrease because of the shift in
burden.
5. The Amendment, if enacted, will potentially force at least
28 counties to the constitutional ten mill cap.
6. The Amendment will impact Florida's rural counties
significantly, many of which have little or no capacity to replace
any lost revenues.
7. The 15 counties currently at the constitutional ten mill
,
cap will lose a minimum of $11.8 million in operating dollars with
no local ability to replace lost revenues and most likely will
result in putting these counties in positions of financial
emergency.
8. The Amendment will impact voted debt levies, placing at
risk current pledges of property tax revenues to meet debt service
for such voter approved issues as environmentally sensitive land
purchases.
9. Florida's counties are constitutionally and statutorily
charged with funding and providing an array of services for
Florida's taxpayers and visitors to the state, including but not
limi ted to, law enforcement " courts, elections, public health,
emergency medical services, transportation improvements, and land
use planning.
10. Local ability to fund and provide some or all of these
services will be adversely impacted by the amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby declare its opposition to the
Families for Lower Property Taxes Amendment increasing the
Homestead Exemption.
2. The County Administrator is hereby directed to forward a
copy of this resolution to Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director,
Florida Association of Counties, 100 South Monroe Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as
follows:
Chairman Paula A. Lewis AYE
Vice Chairman John D. Bruhn AYE
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson AYE
Commissioner Cliff Barnes AYE
Commissioner Doug Coward AYE
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 2004.
ATTEST:
~Z:'1"l~~ltp..
¿..",.... ~ ·ul n .... ',.:~"'
æ"~ \.i\J ., I !..' ...~'\
f.~p~~}y~~(~~:\
Y'ifr:~K/;·';::;:¿,.:- fj
¡,{~~t~;~~~~"íl!
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FI.ORIDA
. >.f~ ) .£,¿2ft~
CHAI RMAN·· c' ..p: C:··c:.-.J-...::.:,;,"=.~:~
_. u____
AND
-.,.--- -----
APPENDIX A
Text of Proposed Amendment
Reference:
Article VII, Section 6
Ballot Title:
Additional Homestead Tax Exemption
Ballot Swmnary:
This amendment provides property tax relief to Florida home owners
by increasing the homestead exemption on property assessments by an
additional $25,000.00.
FULL TEXT ~ OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT :
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
ARTICLE VII Section 6 of the Florida Constitution is hereby amended
to add the following paragraph - (9) ..
(g) By general law and subject to conditions specified
therein, effective for assessments for 2005 and each year
thereafter, an additional homestead exemption of twenty-five
thousand dollars shall be granted to any person who has the legal
or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the
permanent residence of the owner.
- ---------
.. ~
.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
~/ 04-121
B d f C t C ~ .\X
oar 0 oun y om ~oners
Douglas M. Anderson, ounty Administrator
June 21, 2004
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Estimated Revenues Available to St. Lucie County Under Article V Revision 7
Please find attached the estimated revenue streams to St. Lucie County should they be
approved by the Board. It is my understanding that the $15 surcharge on non-criminal traffic
infractions can be used for court facilities capital costs.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
DMNab 04-121
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Attachment
¡
Revenues available to Counties Under Article V (CS/CS/SB 2962)
ReciPients
Description SOCC Clerk State
$2,00 goes to SOCC to fund court-related information technology
(IT) needs for the courts, State Attorney, Public Defender (2)
$1,90 for the Clerk to fund court-related IT needs (3) $,10 set
Recordinq Fees aside for a statewide case information system, $ 1,037,478 $ 985,604 $ 51,874
Surcharge of up to $15 on any non-criminal traffic infractions or
Facilities criminal violations to fund state court facilities. $ 647,667 $ - $ -
SOCC can adopt a court cost of up to $65 on those who plead
guilty or are found guilty of a felony, misdemeanor or criminal
traffic offense. Funds are to be used as follow: 25% - legal aid
programs; 25% - law library; 25% - teen court, juvenile
assessment centers and other juvenile alternative programs; and
25% - innovative court programs to supplement state or local
Recordinq Fees fundino reauirements, $ 365,047 $ - $ 91,262
$2.50 will be assessed as a court cost against every person
convicted for violation of a state penal or criminal statute or
convicted for violation of a municipal or county ordinance or non-
criminal infraction to be used for law enforcement training
Law Enforcement exoenditures. $ 99,016
Total $ 2.149,208 $ 985,604 $ 143,136
~ ~,~ \(¡~
N'19~\
TO: Board of County Com I
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-120
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson ounty Administrator
DATE:
June 21,2004
RE:
Criminal Justice System Assessment
I have contacted both Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, PA) and Hillsborough County (FL.),
regarding their experiences with the Institute for Law and Policy Planning (ILPP) and the
Criminal Justice System Assessments performed by them.
Alleqhenv County
Contact: Ray Bil/otte, District Court Administrator
Mr. Billotte said that Dr. Alan Kalmanoff, Executive Director for ILPP, was fabulous and that
he made significant strides in dealing with the criminal justice system while dealing with
egos and politics. Allegheny County was so happy with the first work product performed by
I LPP that they brought them back for a second time under a second contract. Some of the
first issues they addressed were jail overcrowding and probation. He said they identified
and narrowed down the key problems and presented options to the County. One of the
outcomes from this assessment was the establishment of a Criminal Justice Policy Board
that is functioning to continue to address issues within the judicial system. Mr. Billotte
could not have been more positive regarding the work product performed by ILPP. The
cost of the first study was approximately $100,000.
Hillsborouqh County
Contact: Pat Bean, County Administrator
She stated that they did good work for Hillsborough County and addressed overcrowding at
the jail. They suggested two or three things that helped additional pre-trial interaction.
However, one of their suggestions was not implemented because of the Bail Bondsmen's
lobbying efforts, but this was not the fault of ILPP.
Another implementation that was recommended and approved was that the County
Commissioners fund a Criminal Justice Specialist as a County staff position. She said that
the BCe is now getting lithe straight scoop". This individual was hired from the Department
of Corrections.
Page 2
June 21, 2004
Criminal Justice System Assessment
She said this study helped a lot and also the study has opened the door for many grants
the County is now receiving to assist in funding law enforcement. The grants are applied
for and overseen by the Criminal Justice Specialist.
She summarized her comments by saying ILPP would be well worth our investment.
DMAlab 04-120
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Chief Judge Angelos
t,,'
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA
FROM:
Chief Deputy Garry Wilson
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney~'
TO:
C.A. NO.:
04-895
ß J1 0'1' ~
W'-: J, 61 Jr ~. Q/~'" ".Y
Gain Time for County Prisoners I { . c..in -,r/ b v d.--&.ý"
~ c.. . {;II "f} II r ~6l vJ
******************************************************************j***~* ~
Attached for information is a copy of Section 951.21, Florida Statutes (2003)
along with copies of gain time policies from several other counties.
DATE:
June 14, 2004
SUBJECT:
Please confirm that St. Lucie County is granting the maximum gain time allowed
by state law (Section 951.21, Florida Statutes).
DSM/ caf
Attachment
Copy to:
Board of County Commissioners
County Administrator
I.,: [-;=~
I.;~.~; -"~~' C:' f?:o.'~' n '\17 !"C"~'''\.','.I
I' " r. J, ~
/;! JU .
., N 1 ì 2004 >
..I,
C ;
O. ADMIN. OFFICE
Ch. 951
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PRISONERS
F.S. 2003
--
the county sheriff or chief correctional officer, or his or
her designee, upon the assignment of a youth under
the age of 21 to the facility. A cooperative agreement
with the local school district and applicable law enforce-
ment units shall be developed to address the notifica-
tion requirement and the provision of educational ser-
vices to these youth.
Hislory.-s. 1" eh. 2000·137
951.19 Interference with county prisoners.-Who-
ever shall interfere with county prisoners while at work,
at their meals, at rest, or while going to and from their
quarters or with the correctional officers in charge of
them, either by assaulting them or by ,inciting them or
attempting to incite the prisoners to disobedience,
revolt, or escape, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of
the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.083.
Hislory,-s. 2, ch. 4391. 1895; GS 3508; AGS 5394; CGL 7533; s. 1181, eh.
71·136; s. 47. eh. 95·283.
951.2.1 Gain-time for good conduct for county
prisoners.- .
(1) Commutation of time for good conduct of county
prisoners shall be granted by the board of county com-
missioners unless, by a majority vote of the board of
county commissioners, the board elects to discontinue
or revise gain-time policies for good conduct. If the
board of commissioners authorizes commutation of
time for good conduct, the following deductions shall be
made from the term of sentence when no charge of
misconduct has been sustained against a county pris-
oner: up to 5 days per month off the first and second
years of the sentence; up to 10 days per month off the
third and fourth years of the sentence; up to 15 days per
month off the fifth and all succeeding years of.the sen-
tence. Where no charge of misconduct is sustained
against a county prisoner, the deduction shall be
deemed earned and the prisoner shall be entitled, to
credit for a month as soon as the prisoner has served
such time as, when added to the deduction allowable,
will equal a month. A county prisoner under two or more
cumulative sentences shall be allowed commutation as
if they were all one sentence.
(2) For each sustained charge of escape or
attempted escape, mutinous con(juct, or other serious
misconduct, all the commutation which shall have
accrued in favor of a county prisoner up to that day shall
be forfeited, except that in case of escape if the pris-
oner voluntarily returns without expense to the state or
county then such forfeiture may be set aside by the
board of county commissioners if in its judgment the
prisoner's subsequent conduct entitles him or her
thereto,
(3) The board of county commissioners, upon rec-
ommendation of the warden or sheriff, may adopt a pol-
icy to allow for county prisoners, in addition to time
credits, an extra good-time allowance for meritorious
conduct or exceptional industry not to exceed 5'days
per month,
(4) All or any part of the gain-time earned by a
county prisoner and any extra gain-time allowed him or
her, if any, shall be subject to forfeiture by the board of
county commissioners upon recommendation of the
sheriff or warden for violation of any law of the state Or
any rule or regulation of the board or institution. ,
Hislory,-$. 23, ch. 3883,1889; AS 3059; GS 4140; s. 1. eh, 6177, 1911; $, t
ch,6917, 1915;AGS6231;CGL8567;s. 1,eh. 18065. 1937;s. l,eh, 19199,193!i.
s. 1, eh. 25210. 1949; s. 1, ch. 28300,1953; s. 1, ch. 61,347; $. I. eh. 65·220; st:
19,35. eh. 69-106; 55. 1.2. en. 70-441; s. 98, eh. 77-120; $. 501, ch. 81'259; s.
1700. eh. 97-102; s. 2. ch. 99·361. .
Nole,-Former s. 954.06.
951.22 County detention facilities; contraband
articles.-
(1) It is unlawful, except through regular channels
as duly authorized by the sheriff or officer in charge, to
introduce into or possess upon the grounds of any
county detention facility as defined in s. 951.23 or to
give to or receive from any inmate of any such facility
wherever said inmate is located at the time or to take or
to attempt to take or send therefrom any of the following
articles which are hereby declared to be contraband for
the purposes of this act, to wit: Any written or recorded
communication; any currency or coin; any article of
food or clothing; any tobacco products as defined in s,
210.25(11); any cigarette as defined in s. 210.01(1);
any cigar; any intoxicating beverage or beverage which
causes or may cause an intoxicating effect; any nar-
cotic, hypnotic, or excitative drug or drug of any kind or
nature, including nasal inhalators, sleeping pills, barbi.
turates, and controlled substances as defined in s;
893.02(4); any firearm or any instrumentality customar,:
ily used or which is intended to be used as a dangerous
weapon; and any instrumentality of any nature that may
be or is intended to be used as an aid in effecting or
attempting to effect an escape from a county facility, .
(2) Whoever violates subsection (1) shall be guilty
of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided
in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Hislory.-s, I, en. 63-140; s. 1182, ch. 71-136; s, 180, eh. 71·355; s. 33. ell.
74-112; s. I, en. 78-41; s. 78, ch. 87-226; s. 6, en, 91-225; s. 4. ch, 94-149. '.;
951.221 Sexual misconduct between detention
facility employees and inmates; penalties.- .
(1) Any employee of a county or municipal deten-
tion facility or of a private detention facility under co~
tract with a county commission who engages in sexual
misconduct, as defined in s. 944.35(3)(b)1., with an
inmate or an offender supervised by the facility withou1
committing the crime of sexual battery commits a felon}
of the third degree, punishable as provided in s,
775,082, s, 775.083, or s. 775,084. The consent of an
inmate to any act of sexual misconduct may not bE
raised as a defense to prosecution under this section.
(2) Notwithstanding prosecution, any violation 01
this section, as determined by the administrator of the
facility, constitutes sufficient cause for dismissal of the
violator from employment, and such person may ~01
again be employed in any capacity in connection witt
the correctional system.
Hislory.-s. 3, en. 2001·92.
951.23 County and municipal detention faciliti.es;
definitions; administration; standards and reqUire;
ments.- .
(1) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section, thE
term: , '/
(a) KCounty detention facility" means a county ¡aI.
a county stockade, a county work camp, a county rest
1268
NextPage LivePubIish
LA~t
Page 1 of3
Sec. 9-3. Gain time allowances for county prisoners.
(a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following words shall have the meanings indicated:
(1) Statutory gain time means reduction from sentence based upon the length of sentence under the
provisions of F.S, § 951,21(1), (2) and subsection (e) of this section.
(2) Additional gain time means:
a, Work gain time, which is a deduction from sentence in an amount up to one (1) day for
every' eight (8) hours of productive or institutional labor to inmates whose conduct is in
compliance with the rules of the county jail, the rules of the department of corrections and the
laws of the state,
b. Constructive gain time, which is a credit awarded on a sentence in lieu of work gain time to
inmates unable to work, but whose conduct complies with the rules of the county jail, the rules of
the department of corrections and the laws of the state.
c, Extra gain time, which is a credit awarded on a sentence in lieu of work gain time and
constructive gain time to those in various self-betterment programs who meet and comply with
the rules of the county jail, the rules of the department of corrections and the laws of the state.
(3) Unsatisfactory performance means performance that does not meet minimum requireme'nts.
(4) Satisfactory performance means average or normal performance that meets with minimum
requirements.
(5) Above-satisfactory performance means performance that exceeds what is expected.
(6) Outstanding performance means performance in which there is little room for improvement.
(7) Skilled means proficiency, ability or dexterity; expertness in art, trade or technique, particularly one
requiring use of the hands or body.
(8) Semi-skilled means possessing some skills, but not enough to do specialized work.
(9) Unskilled means lacking skill or technical training or requiring no training or skill.
(10) Administrative confinement means temporary housing that removes an inmate from the general
population upon determining a danger would exist either for the inmate, other inmates, the facility itself or
the general public if the inmate was permitted to remain in the general population. Inmates in this status
should be maintained only for the period of time they are a threat or threatened.
(11) Close management means long-term, single-cell housing that removes an inmate from the general
. population housing when a clear and continuing danger exists for other inmates, the facility itself or the
general public if the inmate was to remain in the general population.
(12) Disciplinary confinement means temporary housing either part-time or full-time in which the inmate
is removed from the general population and placed in a restricted housing environment as a result of
being found guilty of a violation of the rules of the county jail, the rules of the department of corrections or
the laws of the state,
(b) Authorized. The sheriff of the county is hereby authorized and empowered to grant additional gain time in
accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
(c) Sentence modifications. The sentences of inmates are modified by deductions and forfeiture of gain time.
There are two (2) categories of gain time: Statutory gain time and additional gain time. There are three (3)
subcategories of additional gain time: Work gain time, constructive gain time, and extra gain time.
(d) Limitation on gain time deductions, The total of additional gain time received by an inmate may not exceed
the number of days in the month in which the awards are made,
http://Iivepublish.municode .com/6/I pext.dll/Info base8/ 1 laac/ace ?f=tempIates&fn=document... 6/3/2004
"
NextPage LivePubIish
Page 2 of3
(e) Statutory gain time. Statutory gain time will be awarded or withheld monthly as follows:
(1) When no charge of misconduct is sustained against an inmate the deduction shall be deemed
earned and the inmate shall be entitled to credit for a month as soon as the inmate has served such time
as, when added to the deduction allowable, will equal a month. An inmate under two (2) or more
cumulative sentences shall be allowed commutation as if they were all one (1) sentence.
F) Inmates are ineligible to receive statutory gain time awards who:
a. Are found guilty of a disciplinary report violation or violation of state law but only for the
month in which the violation occurred; or
b, Are serving a portion of a mandatory sentence which precludes a gain time award.
(3) Eligible inmates will be awarded deductions for this gain time from their sentences in accordance
with Form 5, attached to Ordinance No, 1982-13, in the amount of:
a, Five (5) days per month off the first and second years of the sentence
b. Ten (10). days per month off the third and fourth years of the sentence
c. Fifteen (15) days per month off the fifth and all succeeding years of the sentence.
(f) Work gain time. Inmates in recognized work programs are eligible to receive this gain time monthly if they
have committed no infraction of the rules of the county jail, the rules of the department of corrections or state
laws, and have performed in a satisfactory and acceptable manner assigned work, duties and tasks. Inmates
participating in work release or community drug treatment programs are ineligible for work gain time. Inmates
assigned as permanent party to work release centers are eligible for work gain time. Work gain time will be
computed in accordance with Form 6, attached to Ordinance No. 1982-13, as follows:
(1) The amount of work gain time awarded depends on the skill level assigned to the particular job
performed and the diligence and performance of the inmates' at that job, Performance of less than
satisfactory will result in no gain time being awarded.
(2) Those aspects of performance to be evaluated in awarding work gain time are quality, quantity and
diligence. Each area will be rated either: Unsatisfactory, satisfactory, above satisfactory or outstanding.
This performance rating will be done monthly.'
(3) An inmate who has an overall rating of above satisfactory may earn up to one-half day work gain
time for each eight (8) hours worked and an inmate with an overall rating of outstanding may earn from
one-half to one (1) day work gain time for each eight (8) hours worked.
(g) Constructive gain time, The following applies to constructive gain time:
(1) Inmates who, because of age, illness, infirmity or confinement for reasons other than discipline, do
not participate in a correctional work program and demonstrate a constructive utilization of time and have
not committed infractions of the rules of statutes, may be granted additional gain time allowances up to
six (6) days per month. Inmates will be evaluated on attitude, behavior and following orders. Inmates
eligible to receive constructive gain time who are found guilty of a disciplinary infraction or in violation of
the laws of this state will not be awarded constructive gain time for the month of the violation, Inmates
are ineligible who:
a, Are in administrative confinement because they refuse to accept an open population
assignment unless the sheriff states in writing that the assignment is the result of a medical
quarantine, legitimate protection cases or other extraordinary circumstances.
b, Are in close management status far failure to make a satisfactory adjustment in open
population upon the determination of the sheriff who relates to the inmate his decision and
reasons,
C. Receive an unsatisfactory performance report but only for the month of the report.
http://IivepubIish.municode .com/6/I pext.dlI/Info base81 1 laac/ace ?f=tempIates&fn=document... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 3 of3
d. No inmate shall receive concurrently work gain time and constructive gain time,
(2) If an inmate is eligible to receive consideration under this subsection, institutional personnel will
review the inmate status and recommend from zero to six (6) days per month and provide written
justification of this recommendation with the inmate's progress reporUreview, in accordance with Form 7,
attached to Ordinance No. 1982-13. When an inmate's progress reporUreview is due, any constructive
gain time earned will be submitted and forwarded to the sheriff for review .and approval.
(h) Ex,tra gain time, The following applies to extra gain time:
(1) An inmate who faithfully performs the assignments given in a conscientious manner over and above
that which may normally be expected and against whom no disciplinary report has been filed for which
the individual has been found guilty within the preceding six (6) months and whose conduct, personal
adjustment and individual efforts toward rehabilitation show a desire to be a better than average inmate or
who diligently participates in an approved course of academic or vocational study may be granted on an
individual basis from one (1) to six (6) days per month extra gain time in accordance with Form 8,
attached to Ordinance No, 1982-13. The six (6) days per month consideration will be prorated on the total
number of days in the program. No inmate is eligible to receive consideration under this section if the
inmate has earned additional gain time awards for constructive gain time in the same month. An inmate
may be considered for extra gain time in addition to work gain time only if assigned to school or other
training activities on a part-time basis and to work during other portions of the day, In such cases, the
inmate would be considered for work gain time in proportion to the hours worked and for extra gain time
up to a maximum of three (3) days per month for the part-time involvement in school or vocational training
programs. An inmate in a full-time work program, other than a work release program is ineligible for extra
gain time.
(2) Institutional personnel will evaluate the inmate's performance and educational programs, other self-
betterment programs, and adjustment in living quarters and submit reports to the sheriff. Consideration
will be given to the number of recommended programs the inmate is participating in, the availability of
programs and the inmate's ability to participate. While emphasis should be placed on recommended
programs, credit should be considered for non recommended programs. Those aspects of performance to
be evaluated are quality, quantity and diligence. Each area will be rated either unsatisfactory, satisfactory,
above satisfactory or outstanding. An inmate who has an overall rating of above satisfactory may earn
from one (1) to three (3) days extra gain time per month and an inmate with an overall rating of
outstanding may earn four (4) to six (6) days extra gain time per month.
(3) If the school or vocational training activity produces a production or service, the inmate will be
eligible for work gain time. Otherwise, the inmate will be considered for extra gain time.
(i) Award period if sentence is expiring or inmate is transferred, In the event an inmate is being transferred or
his expiration date falls before the regular progress reporUreview period and he meets all of the requirements for
eligibility, he may be granted additional gain time for a shorter period of time,
U) Withholding or forfeiture of gain time. Any inmate found guilty of a charge of misconduct shall forfeit the
award of any gain time for the month in which the infraction occurred. The sheriff after determination of guilt by a
disciplinary team may cause to be forfeited any amount of gain time permitted by this section or by statute,
Likewise, the sheriff may restore any gain time forfeited if, in his opinion, there are sufficient reasons for
. restoration. For each sustained charge of escape or attempted escape, mutinous conduct or other serious
misconduct, all the commutation which shall have accrued in favor of the county inmate up to that day shall be
forfeited except that in case of escape if the prisoner voluntarily returns without expense to the state or county,
then such forfeiture may be set aside if, in the sheriffs judgment, the inmate's subsequent conduct entitles him
thereto,
(Ord. No, 1982-13, §§ 1-10, 7-20-82)
Cross references: Penalty for violation of Code, § 1-6.
State law references: Authority to so provide, F.S. § 951.21.
http://IivepubIish.municode.com/6/1 pext. dll/Info base81 1 /aac/ace ?f=tempIates&fn=documen 1... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
~- I Q ch ~ (;A
Page 1 of 1
ARTICLE II. GAIN TIME'"
*Editor's note: Ord. No. 01-04, § 1, adopted Feb. 13, 2001, amended Art. II, in its entirety, to read as herein set
out. Prior to inclusion of said ordinance, Art. II pertained to similar subject matter. See the Code Comparative
Table. '
http://Iivepublish.municode. com/3/l pext.dll/Infobase291 1 I 1 e8 f/200012006?fn=document - fra... 6/312004
1" ¡;Xlr i:1g¡; Ll verUDllSn
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 124.20. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to declare the intention of the board of county co'mmissioners to authorize
allowance of gain-time for good conduct, and to adopt a policy and establish procedures for county inmates to
earn extra gain-time for meritorious conduct or exceptional industry; and to allow for forfeiture of earned good
conduct gain-time and earned extra gain-time.
I
(Ord. No. 01-04, § 1,2-13-01)
http://Iivepublish.municode . com/3 11 pext.dll/lnfo base2911 11 e8f12000/20061200a ?fn=docume... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 124.21. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
Court services gain-time committee shall mean those work release program staff members designated by the
director of court services.
Director'means the director of the department of the jail, as appointed by the Sheriff of Alachua County.
Exceptional industry means that the inmate, either (1) faithfully performs work assignments in a conscientious
manner, or (2) faithfully participates in an approved course of academic or vocational study, or those programs
established by the department of the jail or the work release program.
Extra gain-time shall mean gain-time earned for meritorious conduct or exceptional industry,as allowed by
§951.21 (3) F.S., and defined herein,
Good conduct gain-time (historically referred to as incentive or statutory gain-time) shall mean commutation of
sentence for good conduct as allowed by § 951.21 (1), F.S.
Gain-time means good conduct gain-time and extra gain-time.
Inmate shall mean a person who, under sentence of a court upon conviction for a crime, has been committed to
the custody of the department of the jailor the work release program.
Jail gain-time committee means the classification unit supervisor of the department of the jail, one employee of
the classification unit, and one certified employee of the department of the jail, who shall be designated by the
director,
Meritorious conduct means performing an outstanding deed such as saving a life, aiding in capturing an escapee,
. or providing information that helps prevent the introduction of contraband or helps prevent other violations of law
or rules,
Work release program means the work release program operated by the Alachua County Board of County
Commissioners under the department of court services.
(Ord, No. 01-04, § 1,2-13-01)
http://Iivepublish.municode. com/3/1 pext. dll/Info base29 II I 1 e8 f/2000/2 006/200d ?fn=docume... 6/3/2004
1 ''''AU c:1!:>\:O LlV\:OrUUU~n
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 124.22. Good conduct gain-time.
Good conduct gain-time, as allowed by §951.21 (1), F.S., is hereby authorized. Inmates who have no sustained
charges of misconduct shall have deducted from their sentence up to five days per month off the first and second
years of the sentence; up to ten days per month off the third and fourth years of the sentence; and up to fifteen
days per month off the fifth and all succeeding years of the sentence. Where no charge of misconduct is
sustainep against an inmate, the deduction shall be deemed earned and the inmate shall be entitled to credit for a
month a's soon as the inmate has served such time as, when added to the deduction allowable, will equal a
month, An inmate under two or more concurrent sentences shall be allowed commutation as if they were all one
sentence. The jail gain-time committee or court services gain-time committee shall make a recommendation to
the director of the department of the jail for each inmate eligible for good conduct gain-time. The director shall
review the recommendations and shall declare the award of good conduct gain-time for eligible inmates. For
those inmates assigned to the work release program, the director shall adopt the recommendation of the court
services gain-time committee.
(Ord. No, 01-04, § 1,2-13-01)
http://livepublish.rnunicode.cam/3/Ipext.dll/lnfobase29/1 II e8f/2000/2006/20 I a?fn=docume... 6/3/2004
l\ eXlrage LIVerUDllSn
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 124.23. Extra gain-time.
Inmates who display meritorious conduct or exceptional industry may be allowed extra gain-time, in addition to
good conduct gain-time, not to exceed five days per month, or proportionate lesser amounts for less than a
month. Recommendations for the award of extra gain-time shall be made by the department of the jail gain-time
committee or the court services gain-time committee, For those inmates assigned to the work release program,
the director shall adopt the recommendation of the court services gain-time committee. The total amount of extra
gain-tim~ shall not exceed five days per month, Recommendations by the jail gain-time committee or the court
services gain-time committee which exceed five days per month shall be rejected by the director.
(Ord, No. 01-04, § 1,2-13-01)
http://IivepubIish.municode.com/3/lpext.dll/lnfobase29/ 1 1 1 e8f/2000/2006/20 1 d?fn=docume... 6/3/2004
l~~xlrag~ LIV~rUDl1Sn
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 124.24. Forfeiture of good conduct gain-time and extra gain-time.
(a) For each sustained charge of escape or attempted escape, mutinous conduct, or other serious misconduct,
all the gain-time which shall have accrued in favor of an inmate up to that day shall be forfeited. However, in the
case of escape, if the inmate voluntarily returns without expense to the state or county, then such forfeiture may
be set aside by the director depending upon the inmate's conduct subsequent to return.
(b) AI( of the gain-time an inmate is allowed may be forfeited by the director for violation of any law of the state
or any rule or regulation of the department of the jailor the work release program.
(c) For those inmates assigned to the work release program, the director shall adopt the recommendation of
the court services gain-time committee regarding the forfeiture of gain-time earned while the inmate was in the
work release program; however, this does not limit the director's authority as described in (a) and (b) above.
(Ord. No, 01-04, § 1, 2-13-01)
http://livepublish.municode.com/3/Ipext.dll/Infobase29/1 11 e8f/2000/2006/2020?fn=docume... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
(Y) iC ~,' .. OÇAdl'
Page 1 of 1
ARTICLE VIII. ADDITIONAL GAIN TIME ALLOWANCES FOR COUNTY PRISONERS·
*Editor's note: Ord. No, 71-73, adopted Sept. 22, 1971 amended this Code, but did not specify the manner
thereof; hence, inclusion of §§ 1-6 herein as Art. VIII, §§ 21-101-21-106, was ~t the discretion of the editors.
State la-,v references: Adoption of policy granting extra gain time for County prisoners, F.S. § 951.21(3).
http://livepublish.municode.com!4Ilpext.dll/Infobase28/1/53 3 7/57 09?fn=document- frame.ht... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 21-101. Adoption of policy.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Board of County Commissioners of Miami-Dade County, Florida to
allow for County prisoners, in addition to time credits, additional gain time allowances in accordance with the
provisions of State law.
(Ord. No, 71-73, § 1, 9-22-71; Ord. No. 85-90, § 2,10-15-85)
,
http://Iivepublish.municode. com/4Ilpext.dll/Info base281 1153371570915 70e?fn=document - fra... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 21-102. Qualifications for awards of additional gain time.
Qualifications for awards of additional gain time allowances for County prisoners shall be as stated in the
following rules, as amended from time to time:
(1) 33-11,065 through 33-11.085 of the Florida Administrative Code. '
(2) 33-11.09 of the Florida Administrative Code.
(Ord. No. 71-73, § 2, 9-22-71; Ord. No. 85-90, § 3, 10-15-85)
http://livepublish.municode.com/4/1pext.dll/Infobase28/1/533 7/5709/5711 ?fn=document-fra... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 21-103. Procedure.
The Director of the Corrections and Rehabilitation Department shall determine and declare the award. Upon
declaration of the award by the Director, deduction shall be made from the term of an inmate's sentence.
(Ord. No, 71-73, § 3,9-22-71; Ord, No. 72-15, § 1,2-29-72; Ord. No. 91-59, § f, 5~21-91)
http://livepublish.municode.coml411pext.dlllInfobase28/1 15337 15709/5716?fn=document- fra... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 21-104. Multiple sentences.
An inmate serving two (2) or more cumulative sentences shall be allowed deductions as though the sentence
were all one (1) sentence, and such deductions shall be subject to forfeiture as though the sentences were all one
(1) sentence,
(Ord. No. 71-73, § 4,9-22-71)
http://livepublish.municode.com/4/lpext.dll/Infobase28/1 153 3 7/5 709/5719?fn=document- fra... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePublish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 21-105. Method of forfeiting.
Any or all of an inmate's additional gain time allowance may be forfeited for violation of any rule or regulation of
the Department by such inmate. The method of forfeiture shall be as follows: A written charge shall be prepared,
which shall specify the Department rule or regulation the inmate is accused of yiolating and the approximate date
of such violation, A copy of such charge shall be delivered to the prisoner and he shall be given notice of hearing
before a disciplinary committee created by the Department. He shall be present at such hearing. If at such
hearing the prisoner pleads guilty to the charge or such committee determines from the proof presented that he is
guilty thereof, it shall find him guilty; and if it considers that all or a part of the prisoner's additional gain time
should be forfeited, it shall so recommend in its written report, which shall be presented to the Director of the
Department. The Director may thereupon, at his discretion, declare the forfeiture approved or any part thereof.
(Ord. No. 71-73, § 5, 9-22-71; Ord, No. 85-90, § 4, 10-15-85)
http://livepublish.municode.com/4/lpext.dlI/Infobase28/ 1 15337157091571 c?fn=document- fra... 6/3/2004
NextPage LivePubIish
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 21-106. Restoration.
The Director, at his discretion, may restore all or any additional gain time forfeited.
(Ord. No, 71-73, § 6, 9-22-71; Ord. No. 85-90, § 5, 10-15-85)
Secs.21-107-21-110. Reserved.
http://livepublish.municode,com/4/IDext.dll/lnfobase28/1/5337/5709/571f?fn=d()c,,me:nt_fr~.f,/1/?004
.. ~ -.......... -,t:)- ~... .. -.... -..........~....&.
~
l"age 1 01 1
ARTICLE II. GAIN TIME'"
*Editor's note: Ord. No. 02-08, § 1, adopted June 1, 2002, added a new article entitled Gain Time to be set out
as §§ 58-2-58-5. In keeping with the style of the Code §§ 58-2-58-5 have been included herein as article II, §§
58-32-58-35 at the editor's discretion.
http://Iivepublish.municode.com/5/lpext.dll/Infobase9/1/913/926?fn=document - frame.htm&... 6/3/2004
1 'jCALr dgC Ll vc;r UUll::iU
.Page 1 of 1
Sec. 58-32. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to declare the intention of the board of county commissioners to authorize the county
sheriff to grant gain time for meritorious conduct or exceptional industry; and to set forth the conditions under
which gain time may be forfeited.
(Ord, No. 02-08, § 1, 7-1-2002)
I
http://livepublish.municode. com/5/lpext. dll/lnfo base9 11 1913/926/92b ?fn=document- frame .h... 6/3/2004
l'l\;)\'Lrd.gt:: LIVerUDllSn
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 58-33. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
Exceptional industry means that the inmate faithfully performs work assignments ina conscientious manner. Such
work assignments must be for the benefit of Gilchrist County or the Gilchrist County Jail.
Gain-time means commutation of sentence for meritorious conduct or exceptional industry.
Inmate shall mean a person who, under sentence of a court upon conviction for a crime, has been committed to
the custody of the Gilchrist County Jail.
Meritorious conduct means performing an outstanding deed such as saving a fife, aiding in capturing an escapee,
or providing information that helps prevent the introduction of contraband or helps prevent other violations of law
or jail rules,
Sheriff means the Sheriff of Gilchrist County, Florida.
(Ord. No. 02-08, § 1, 7-1-2002)
http://livepublish.municode.com/5/Ipext.dll/Infobase9/1 1913/926/92e?fn=document-frame.h.,. 6/3/2004
- ,----- -0- A..J£ ,-.. _......£....u££
~age I of 1
Sec. 58-34. Award of gain time.
Gain time is hereby authorized and may be awarded by the sheriff to inmates who display meritorious conduct or
exceptional industry not to exceed five days per month, or proportionate lesser amounts for less than a month.
The total amount of gain time granted under this article shall not exceed five days per month. .
(Ord. No. 02-08, § 1, 7-1-2002)
,
http://livepublish.municode.com/5/1pext.dll/Infobase9/1 1913/926/93 6?fn=document- frame.h... 6/3/2004
- . ---- -0- -... -... ........,................
J:'age 1 01 1
'"
"
Sec. 58-35. Forfeiture of gain time.
(a) For each sustained charge of escape or attempted escape, mutinous conduct, or other serious misconduct,
all the gain time which shall have accrued in favor of an inmate up to that day shall be forfeited. However, in the
case of escape, if the inmate voluntarily retums without expense to the state or county, then such forfeiture may
be set aside by the sheriff depending ~pon the inmate's conduct subsequent to return,
(b) AI( of the gain-time an inmate is allowed may be forfeited by the sheriff for violation of any law of the state or
any rule or regulation of the department of the jail.
(Ord. No, 02-08, § 1, 7-1-2002)
http://livepublish.municode.com/5/lpext.dll/Info base9 11/913/926/93 9?fn=document - frame.h... 6/3/2004
""..
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
3.1
St. Lucie County, Florida
Citizens' Budget Committee
Agenda
Friday, July 2, 2004
7:30 a.m., Conference Room # 3
St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex
ev/~ 1/0 !;~(
)J ~ þl) -r'
I 6
~t
Extraordina st
Capital Cost to Construct a Low-tech Hou ng Facility at th revious Tent City
Site, Together with the Capital Cost to onvert the Existing Jail Dorm into a
Maximum-security Facility. Annual perating Costs to Run and Maintain
These Two Facilities.
Convene Meeting
Roll Call, Announcements
Sheriffs $527,477.98 Funding Req est to Cover New Correction Officers
Fy 2003-2004 Security Cost - $4 4,154 for Providing In-house Security for
Security System Upgrade workers!
tJ? -;1f"~I--- h_~/7J/?
Cost-sav~s, Additional Revenue~ and Any Other Shortfalls
~ ð~J ¿... ~
~ /r
A/~ '1'._ ~- (~µ
, voP' ~
~c r ~
¿'~ /J¿/&.'~
jv'7 ¿-rYJ ~ ¡(J / C- .,
VI riJ
..---
Adjournment
¿,vI
Y 16 2004
Next CBC meeting:
/ f..-A-/ ( /"'11.
( ~¿/../? pi? -1,-. I /)
c¡/ ~ <I- /~v£ Cj/r
.2- /; ¿/;f' ~ J-/ tfy;'ØVJ'? ~-
jJ ,) P 6V:Y' ¿r---- /J
~IlJ?<'
St. Lucie County, Florida
Citizens' Budget Committee
Agenda Additions
Friday, July 2,2004
7:30 a.m., Conference Room # 3
St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex
List of enclosures
1. Proposed Operating Costs (To be revised) New Jail Pods.
2. Proposed Operating Costs Low Tech Facility
3. Transfer of Prisoners from St. Lucie County Jail.
4. July12 - Budget Workshop Highlights
5. Second $25,000 Homestead Exemption
6. Sheriffs $527,477.98 Funding Request to Cover New Correction Officers
"
TO: Board of County Com
,
Cv
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-133
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson ounty Administrator
- I 2CU
DATE:
June 29, 2004
--------,.-.-..--
f(~: ':
RE: Proposed Cost - New Jail Pods
Please find attached the proposed operating cost of the new jail pods. However, we have
been informed by the Sheriff's Office that these numbers are not accurate, and that they
are in the process of revising these projections.
DMAlab 04-133
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Attachment
06-29-'04 11:32 FROM-S.O. FINANCE
7724623275
T-724 P02/03 U-454
MEMOR<\NDUM
TO: Doug Anderson, County Administrator
FROM: Toby Long, Director of Finance
DATE: June 29. 2004
SUBJECT: Projected costs of new jail pods
Attached is a copy of1he five year projected costs of the new jail pods. Please keep In mind that
these projections 'were made over a year aeo. Population increases both at the jail and the
community have increased more rapidly than was anticipated in these projections so actua] costs
will be higher.
i]~~~r'--'7C--- "'I
JI~! \. '-:7. (":"-'_' .".' ¡ 5" ~'
~~I JuÑ '29- 2~U-4cÎ~!
L-_ I
co. ADMIN. OFFICE
en C)~
~ ~ .
K! 17; ~~
M
>- ..¡ <",Iff
CJ ðM
~ In~
ii ~ ~~
N...
>- ri ,-1tÏ
... NM
o.. ~8
In
&! :g- lõ!å
In ...eo
>- ri ...~
'0/' ~8 ~O
t;; 00
... ... 0,-
cñ eo<ó d<ó
N N OM ~~
... ...N
D:: ri ....¡ .....
>-
~
g
~ I ~;
N '-lM
~~....
OM
eN
~~
....N
N CJ ~:.J:
(C ...
~ 00 !') I'?N.
cñ ,.: ~fe
8 In In
~ tOO
0- N
N 0 ...1")
\10 ... ~g¡
¡; In to)
cñ ...: ~~
c 10 ~
~
UJ
Æ ~
1/1 ;¡;
0 ~I/I~
L1.I
u.. D::Wffi
1/1 I-!;(
W
~ ~~¡¡}
Cf) ~ w_~
0 ~~~~~
ð?
~ ...J ~ ~~~§~
Z ~~¡¡}~~
W ~I-~
¡ ~~~;j~
~Z~ WID:tL1.l
0- ~~@ ~~:g :2
0 .J t!) OWffj W 01/11/1
w cn:2Nt!!i.!>ø
0 0. 4: Z W~I-
r- ;:) Z ¡ ~:Ji ~\I):!~;:)I-'-
rJ) ~ 0 :Jwo:: Oz
:i!1D a)ill.zc:J
tï ~ w -::1: ::ï: <- 0
~ r--- ~~~~~i
8 æ 0- fß~:!iì
0
.......... ,......... T I""' 1"'7["'1"Jn...sJ J "::JI\'T~TT J ()'C_L1r\UJ 'JC""Tr +..Ill _C'7_nG1
~
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-134
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE: Operating Cost - Low-tech Housing Facilities
We requested the Sheriff put together an operating budget to operate two 50-bed low-tech
housing facilities at the former Tent City location. Attached is a copy of the budget that we
received today from the Sheriff for this annual cost. The annual operating cost for a 50-
bed unit is estimated by the Sheriff to be $854,449.11. Two 50-bed units annual operating
costs is estimated to be $1,229,671. These estimations exclude utility costs.
This is on the Citizens' Budget Development Committee agenda for this Friday morning,
July 2, 2004.
DMAlab 04-134
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Roger Shinn, Central Services Director
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Ken Mascara, Sheriff
Garry Wilson, Chief Deputy
Pat Tighe, Major - Director of Detention
Toby Long, Finance Director, Sheriff's Office
Attachment
Temporary Housing Structure Budget
Annual Operating
50 Bed Unit
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment:
$25,021.61
Operational:
y
$110,586.94
Staffing and Uniforms:
3 Certified Staff Required Per Shift X Four Shifts=
12 Certified Staff @ $58,789.00 each=
-
$705,468.00
Uniforms and Equipment:
$13,372.56
Total $854,449.11
.19- /µtt:.-,b h-// ~C4¿' 'ø' - ~7
! l/ ./ ~.rz-4
Temporary Housing Structure Budget
Annual Budget
2 - 50 Bed Units
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment:
$50,043.22
Operational Costs:
$221,173.88
Staffing and Uniforms:
4 Certified Staff Required Per Shift X Four Shifts==
16 Certified Staff @$58,789.00 each==
$940,624.00
Uniforms and Equipment:
$17,830.08
Total $1,229,671.00
~. .
~5/3ø/20a4 15:51
11
JUDGE F.'OBV
5514533283
n/ð \ ()~
;y \pI ';,0
FAG::: Ol
0)
~.·6éL
Y'c~ M
fse~
êóOL
IN THE CIRCUIT COORT OF THE )ITNETEE'ITH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN A.l\rrJ FOR
Il'H)JAN RIVER, MARTIN, OKEECHOBEE Ai~'D ST. LUCIE COUNTIES
STATE OF FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2004-0i
RE: TRANSFER OF PRISONERS FROM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY JAIL
'VlHEREAS, pursuant to Section 951.23 (6) andíor 950.02(2), Florida Statutes, it appears to
the undersigned that it is necessary to quickly remove the prisoners listed in "Appendix A" to this
Ord:r trom the St. Lucie County Jail for safekeeping or to prevent injury due to jail overcrowding
and that the St. Lucie County Jail does not meet minimum !ta.nd.ar~ and requirements, as Chief
Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circnit pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicia.l Administration 2.050,
it is hereby,
ORDERED' and DIRECTED that the prisoners listed on Appendix "A", attached hereto and
incorporated by tlÜs reference, each of whom is presently being held under criminal charges or
convictions in the St. Lucie County Jail, shall be transported to and held in the Highlands County
Jail until the completion of their sentences 0:- further ordcr of the Court.
2004.
DONE A?\TD ORDERED at Fort Pierce. St. Lucie C01mty, Florida, this 30th day of kne,
cc: Ken J. Mascara, Sheriff of St Lucie County
F. Patrick Tighe. Director - Department of Detention for St Lucie County
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Howard Godwin. Shcriff of Highlands Cotmty
Captain Paul Hinman, Dirl!:ctor - Department ofDetentÍon for Highlands County
Highlands County Board of County Commissioners
,
Ð5/3~!20~4 15:51 5514533283
.
JU~;6B~g~ 01:06 PM DOUG AND~RSON
JIII1F
JUDGE ROBV
PAGE 132
561462¡e..:¡.ö
p.es
7
Identified and Cleared for Transport
Banner, Ro.dney Romone
Brown, Larry J.
Caldwell, Gabriel A.
Collins, Michael Lindell
Dannie, Heathcliffe
Dowell, Daniel B.
Gonzalez, Lazaro
Hendrix, Asa Leonardo
Hernandez, Heriberto
Hill, Lawrence John
Jones, Douglu Glen
l\tlcGee, Richard
McKinley, Alex
1\tlcLean, David Jr.
Melchor, Solomon
l\londs, James Anthony
Owens, Ed Chesely
owens, Robert Earl
Pierce, George Ed~ar
Saucedo, Jamie E.
Settle, Jacob Adam
Srouji, Azmi
Stotler, Earl Denver
SturrYJ Lorenzo Damne
Tatro, Herman Albert
Thompson, Hank L.
Thompson, John Howard
08/26/04
03/29/05
11/17/04
10/18/04
10/19/04
08/11104
09/27/04
08/19/04
o 1/05/0S
02/17/05
09/15/04
03119/05
04/03/05
08lZ1/04
01/11/05-
09/08104
02104/05
09/18/04
09126/04
09/14104
08119/04
09/25104
10/1.4104
10/18/04
09/26104
10/28/04
09/14/04
I
f
Œ)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-136
DATE:
Board of County comnf'1sio~
Douglas M. Anderson¡Vfu'nty Administrator
July 1, 2004
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Cost of Inmate Transfer to Highlands County
Attached is a list of the inmates that have been identified and cleared for transport to the
Highlands County facility. The Board has approved funding of $100,000 through
September 30,2004. I have calculated the days that these inmates would be housed in
Highlands County through September 30th and-multiplied that by the $40 per day
contracted housing cost. I calculate the cost to be $88,440.
DMNab 04-136
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Ken Mascara, Sheriff
Garry Wilson, Chief Deputy
Pat Tighe, Major - Director of Detention
Attachment
.'
~
Identified and Cleared for Transport
Banner, Rodney Romone
Brown, Larry J.
Cald",.,.ell, Gabriel A.
Collins, I\1ichael Lindell
Dannie, Heathcliffe
Dowell, Daniel B.
Gonzalez, Lazaro
Hendrix, Asa Leonardo
Hernandez, Heriberto
Hill, Lal'rTence John
Jones, Douglas Glen
McGee, Richard
ì\1cKinley, Alex
McLean, David Jr.
ì\1elchor, Solomon
Mon ds, James Anthony
Owens, Ed Chesely
Owens, Robert Earl
Pierce, George Edgar
Saucedo, Jamie E.
Settle, Jacob Adam
Srouji, Azmi
Stotler, Earl Denver
Sturry, Lorenzo Dawine
Tatro, Herman Albert
Thompson, Hank L.
Thomþson, John Howard
08/26/04 5 7
03/29/05 9.3
11/17/04 CJ 3
10/18/04 93,
10/19/04 '7?
08/12/04 13
09/27/04 90
08/19/04 5ó
01/05/05 9:3
02/17/059:3
09/15/04 7 t>
03/19/05 '1:3
04/03/05 9:3
08/21/04 !5 3
01/11/05 9 3
09/08/04 '1/
02/04/05 9 3
09/18/04 ß J
09/26/04 8 '7
09/14/04 Î 7
08/29/04 (þO
09/25/04 g 7
10/24/04 1 3
10/18/04 c; 3q
09/26/04 g I
10/28/04 'ì:>
09/14/04 71
þ Z- II ){'" 'IP jtl/l7 ~,.
B81 '1'1 0
..
DRAFT ~
2004-2005 July 12th Budget Highlights
y
The balancing of the proposed 2004-2005 budget has been more difficult than recent
years, The primary reasons - growth, increased costs, unfunded mandates, and inflation.
However, with the hard work of staff and their cooperation, we present you with a balanced
budget with no millage rate tax increase for the eighth year in a row.
Outlined below are new budget impacts in 2005 to the County's General Fund and Fine
and Forfeiture Fund:
1. Civic Center - The county supplement continues to increase for this facility. The
2003 actual was $201,337; the 2004 budget was $248,250; and the 2005 budget
is $394,831.
2005 Budget Impact. . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $146,581 '
2. Jail Pods - The first new 278 bed jail pod is scheduled to come on line June 1,
2005. The second 278 bed pod is scheduled to come on line July 1, 2005. The
2005 budgeted cost to operate these two pods is $4,562,259 bringing the total 2005
jail budget to $21,012,266. This amount is before the $3,102,500 is deducted for
200 federal inmates, leaving a net jail cost for 2005 of $17,909,766. The 2004 jail
budget was $15,206,055.
2005 Budget Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2,703,711
3. North County Charrette - As we move forward with the implementation of the
Charrette, we have budgeted funds to pay for the expertise necessary to carry this
out. At this time, we are recommending setting aside $750,000 for professional
outside services in next year's budget.
2005 Budget Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $750,000
4. Juvenile Detention Facilities - The Governor and State Legislature approved
transferring the financial responsibility of the State-run juvenile detention facilities
to' the counties. The estimated cost of this non-funded mandate for 2005 is
$1,500,000.
2005 Budget Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1,500,000
5. TRICO Budget - The increase in the TRICO budget for property, liability and
workers' compensation insurance is 25% or $427,735. This brings the total cost to
$1,983,258. The reported increase is due to increased insurance costs.
2005 Budget Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $427,735
(
Page 2
2004-2005 July 12th Budget Highlights
6. Humane Society - The current cost per animal is $64.25. The requested amount
by the Humane Societyfor2005 is $1 08 per animal. This requested increase brings
the current year budget from $210,000 to $350,000 in 2005.
2005 Budgetlmpact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $140,000
The total impact on the General Fund and Fine and Forfeiture Fund for 2005 from these
new programs, revenue cuts, increased costs and unfunded mandates is S5,668,027which
is over and above the traditional increases that are outlined below.
DRAFT I
,
;I
Opponents of plan to double homestead
exemption ask court to stop referendum
S 1)1!1c~o&&(
e' Q..- ~¡Y ,t- t/~
rrv) .¿)
TALLAHASSEE' Opponents of a plan to double Florida's $25,000 homestead exemption on Tuesdáy ~
asked the state Supreme Court to keep the issue off the November ballot, saying it could have a '/J...Jr1
disastrous impact on schools and local government services. . ff'"
By Linda Kleindienst, Tallahassee Bureau Chief
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 6/30
Former House Speaker Jon Mills warned justices that passage of the amendment being pushed by
millionaire Vero Beach businessman Jeffrey Saull and his committee, Families for Lower Property
Taxes, would have a "precipitous impact" -- but that voters would never know it by reading the proposed
ballot language.
A panel of state financial analysts last week agreed that, if passed, the initiative could cost cities,
counties and school boards $2 billion in lost property tax income if approved by voters.
"Isn't it common sense that ... it's going to have to come from someplace, ... that everything provided for
by government through taxation is going to be affected?" asked Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead, who
with the six other justices must decide whether the ballot language written by the proponents is clear
and accurate.
"I don't think voters will understand how this will affect the [school funding formula], which will lose $800
million," said Mills, who appeared before the court representing local government and school officials.
He argued that the proposed ballot language is deceitful because it tells voters they will get "tax relief' if
the measure passes but doesn't point out that local taxes, especially on businesses and higher-priced
homes, could also go up or services be cut as a result.
If the amendment gets on the ballot and passes, Florida homeowners would qualify for a $50,000
homestead exemption on their primary residence. That would knock $50,000 off their home's assessed
valuation for property tax purposes.
According to the Florida School Superintendents Association, that would cost Broward County schools
more than $84 million a year in lost tax revenue, $64 million of which would have to be cut from the
district's operating funds -- the equivalent of 1,527 full-time teaching positions.
Proponents, however, contend that Florida voters have the right to design their own tax system in the
state constitution.
"It will provide tax relief," said Arthur England, a former Supreme Court chief justice hired to represent
Saull's committee. "What counties, cities and schools want to. do is their problem. The citizens have a
right to decide they want a less bloated government."
For a citizen initiative to get on the ballot this year, supporters must collect signatures of 488,722
registered voters from at least 12 of the state's 23 congressional districts by Aug. 3. They must also
pass muster with the Supreme Court, which decides whether the proposed constitutional amendment
deals with a single subject and the ballot language is clear and accurate.
9
~
On Tuesday, the court heard arguments from supporters and opponents of four ballot measures: the
homestead exemption amendment; a call to boost the state minimum wage by $1 over the national
minimum wage, to $6.15 per hour, within six months; a repeal of the high speed rail mandate approved
in 2000; and a requirement for the Legislature to review billions of dollars in sales tax exemptions that
have been given to special interests.
There was no indication when the court might rule.
To date, Families for Lower Property Taxes has collected 292,290 signatures that have been validated
by elections supervisors around the state. The minimum wage amendment drive by Floridians for All has
collected 226,642 valid signatures, while the high speed rail repeal, Derail the Bullet Train, has 139,335.
Floridians Against Inequity in Rates officials said they have collected about 300,000 signatures, but only
74,087 have been validated so far.
FAIR is headed by former state leaders, including former Senate President John McKay, former
Comptroller Bob Milligan and former Attorney General Bob Butterworth, who want state legislators to re-
evaluate billions of dollars in exemptions granted by the Legislature over the past 60 years.
Proposed amendments and signature status:
. Florida Department of State
http://election.dos.state. fl. uslin itiatìves/in itiativelist.asp
County may fund effort to stop homestead initiative
By SANDI MARTIN, The News Chief, 6/29
BARTOW - Polk County may pitch in some cash to help fight a push to raise the state's homestead
exemption limit to $50,000, which many political pundits say could financially devastate local
governments.
County commissioners will consider on Wednesday whether to help fund a campaign spearheaded by
the Florida Association of Counties to oppose the proposed ballot initiative.
Property Appraiser Marsha Faux has calculated that if voters approve of raising the homestead
exemption by another $25,000, it could cost Polk County $18.1 million.
The school board would lose another $19.4 million, while the county's 17 cities would be hit for $3.8
million in lost tax dollars.
"What people need to understand is that elected officials are going to get it somewhere," Commission
Chairman Neil Combee said Monday morning.
Commissioner Jack Myers - who did not attend Monday's workshop - has placed the issue on the
agenda for the board's meeting on Wednesday.
10
·
Commissioner Paul Senft said the Florida Association of Counties, along with a number of other
organizations and business groups, plans to mount a campaign against the proposed amendment.
The campaign budget is set at around $1 million, he said.
If Polk decides to help pay for the campaign, the county's contribution will come to $29,987, Senft
explained.
Not everyone on the board is keen to fork over money to help crusade against hiking the homestead
exemption.
Commissioner Don Gifford said that although it appeared that the proposed amendment would create
major problems, he was concerned that the education campaign needs to have both sides, since it's
being funded with taxpayer money.
"If we're going to educate the public, it needs to be balanced," he said.
And Commissioner Randy Wilkinson flatly said he was against the campaign.
Not only will the campaign be biased, Wilkinson said, but recovering the lost funding in other ways would
be against the will of the people if they approved it.
"What do you think the public would think if we went around and upped their millage rate?" he asked.
"That'd be like a slap in the face."
Senft said that the money would have to be made up somehow if voters approve of the measure, likely
through cutting services and increased taxes.
Faux's calculations show that if the proposed amendment makes it onto the November ballot and
passes, more than a third of homeowners would pay no taxes because their properties would fall below
the $50,000 threshold.
The homestead exemption amendment is being pushed by Vero Beach millionaire Jeffrey Saull, who is
gathering the nearly 500,000 signatures he needs to get the question on November's ballot.
His campaign, called "Families for Lower Property Taxes, is promising homeowners that their taxes
would be cut on average $525 a year.
Legal Billboard Battle Forces Removal
By Rick Rousos, The Ledger, 6/28
LAKELAND -- A costly legal battle against billboards is yielding the kind of results for which city officials
had hoped.
11
@
)/
..Æì-;,-~-
...(",¡"o"'::::7'. ~~ -lLiC/~·~~~·.··Ã~·
~~ <,;rm-"< ~ ,,'
\"1-- ~:... ~'-.-
. .l.... 'd.· V.
. ~f 'I
iJ~("" o'f"' i,~
y:~~.
,.;J..-,'-. "-=-:-."'-
__' r·· ·"-~'i~
~b£ríff
KEN J. MASCARA
I'"
_ 3"-
~~.:".~
\'V"~~'-
\~.*
\ -
Telephone: (772) 462-3200 . Fax: (772) 489-5851
4700 West Midway Road· FOit Pierce, Florida 34981
June 14,2004
Ms. Paula Lewis, Chair
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Hand-delivered
h V r1
'fir
C ~7~t6
¡r;/l
Dear Madam Chair Lewis:
Continued overcrowding at the St. Lucie County jail has been the subject of prolonged discussion
over the past few months at Board of County Commissioners meetings and between myself,
Sheriffs staff and the county administrator, as well as other county staffmembers.
As I have repeatedly stated, the overcro\vding has caused a severe strain on the jail staff, both sworn
and civilian, as well as the overal1 budget.
The first unbudgeted factor straining this fiscal year's budget occurred as a result ofthe continued
cost associated with providing security for the contracted security upgrade at the jail. Even though
the security upgrade began in February 2003 and was scheduled to end in calendar year 2003, the
project is not yet completed. The budget impact for fiscal year 2003-2004 attributable to this factor
is S484,154.
In May 2003, when I submitted my proposed budget for the current fiscal year, I fully expected that,
pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners' vote in May 2003 to expand the jail's number of
pelmanent beds, deputies would be moving inmates into one of the new structures last month, and
into the second new structure this month.
The direction given to me was that as we approached the move-in date, I would submit a
supplemental budget request to cover the expansion costs to the Sheriffs Office.
Regrettably, the move-in date is now set one year later than originally anticipated. This ul1fortunate
circumstance has not diminished the fact that we have a continuously growing jail population,
which, as of today, is 1,250. I have all of the costs of the expanded jail population without the
human resources and capital facilities to accommodate that population.
Once it became clear that the increasing jail population was pushing costs upward and beyond the
capacity of the current fiscal year budget to accommodate these costs, I put into effect a series of
.;~~~n:;y;~ f)
;::> { \..~ I ~ ' I ¿, ,¡.
. ~ . -.-. ,.
If. -~ ......-....-. 10',:
\ "
.'., JUN 1 5 2004 15
Ms. Paula Le\vis, Chair
June 14,2004
Page 2
cost-cutting measures. These include: limiting non-detention-related overtime, severely curtailing
out-of-town travel, restricting purchases to emergency needs only and halting education and other
training oPPoItunities outside the Sheriffs Office. I also have used all non-tax revenues available to
me.
The full effect ofthese cost-cutting measures has not yet been fully realized.
In order to have qualified and trained employees ready to staff the new jail structures, I have had to
begin hiring personnel in the current fiscal year. During budget deliberations a year ago, I made the
Board of County Commissioners aware of this when I requested $750,000 forthese costs. The
Board's direction at the time was that I would submit this request as the hiring process progressed.
That time has arrived. I am now requesting 5527,477.98 pursuant to the Board of County
Commissioners' direction regarding costs to hire, train and equip the additional personnel.
I have attached schedules detailing the costs of the construction security details for county
construction as well as my request for funds for the new employees we are hiring, equipping, and
training.
If these trends continue, there could be a need for a supplemental budget request prior to year's end.
This request will be considerably less than the 52.3 million supplemental budget request I would
have had to submit to you to operate the new jail structures, had these structures been completed as
originally anticipated.
I will keep the Board apprized on a monthly basis of the budget impact that the jail overcro wdingis
causmg.
I continue to look forward to working with you and your staff in a collaborative effort to creatively
address this difficult situation.
Sincerely,
/,/ .
/.-:,' ;;7'
A~0;;/~~~~~~
Ken J;Mascara _'.h_
Sheriff
/
c. Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Board of County Commissioners
Attachment
Expenditure categories impacted by jail over crowding.
. Overtime and benefits. The need to provide security for an ever increasing jail
population requires additional deputy hours. The inmate to deputy ratio is
dangerously over extended.
. Bedding, clothing, meal trays, supplies, etc. Increased population requires an
increase in supplies of all types.
. Medical costs. The current contract calls for a charge of $1.85 for each additional
inmate when the population exceeds 1,050. A population of 1,250 inmates results
in an extra charge of$370 per day or $11,470 per month.
. Meal costs. Each meal costs $.909 for a cost of $2.727 per day. For each
additional 100 inmates the cost is $272.70 per day. This is an additional cost of
$8,453.70 per month.
. Water and sewer costs have increased due to overcrowding. The average increase
is between $7,500 and $9,500 per month.
. Bookings are up so booking supplies expense has increased as have janitorial
supplies and natural gas costs for cloths drying.
Budget Request for New Deputies
424.787.98
Salaries and Benefits
30,800.00
Cost of Academy
6,890.00
Psychological exam/polygraph
Bond and Liability Insurance
26,000.00
488,477.98
To be paid from impact fees
Equipment for new deputies
39.000.00
527,4 77.98
Total
, .
NEW JAIL EMPLOYEES
NAME DATE OF MONTHLY MONTHS TOTAL
HIRE SALARY/BENEFITS
UNCERTIFIED 03-01-04 3,720.83 7 26,045,81
CERTIFIED 03-29-04 4,046.04 6 24,276.24
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,086.47 6 24,518.82
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,256.90 6 25,541.40
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,256.90 6 25,541.40
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720,83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 05-03-04 3,720.83 5 18,604.15
UNCERTIFIED 05-03-04 3,720.83 5 18,604.15
UNCERTIFIED 05-10-04 3,720.83 4.7 17,487.90
CERTIFIED 06-07 -04 4,086.47 4 16,345.88
UNCERTIFIED 06-07 -04 3,720.83 4 14,883.32
UNCERTIFIED 07-01-04 3,720.83 3 11,162.49
4 CERTIFIED 07-01-04 4,256.90 4 3 51,082.80
8 UNCERTIFIED 07-01-04 3,720.83 8 3 89,299.92
424,787.98
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
/'/
MEMORANDUM
04-117
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson ounty Administrator
"''''-,--
,,~-"'-------
TO: Citizens' Budget Deve 0
DATE:
June 21, 2004
RE:
Jail Funding Request
This is a follow up to your June 18th meeting in preparation for your July 2nd meeting to
discuss and review the jail funding requests. I have broken down the information to be
reviewed and discussed into four categories:
1. Capital Cost To Construct A Low-Tech Housinq Facility At The Previous Tent
City Site TOGether With The Capital Cost To Convert The Existinq Jail Dorm Into
A Maximum-Securitv Facilitv
In addition to the capital cost, we are also requesting the Sheriff provide the
Committee and County staff with the estimated increased annual operating cost
to run these two facilities. Roger Shinn, Central Services Director, will be
working with the Sheriffs Office to provide the capital cost for this construction.
2. Sheriff's $527.477.98 FundinG Request To Cover New Correction Officers
The Sheriff has requested this amount to cover the cost to hire, train, and equip
additional personnel at the jail. Attached is a breakdown provided the Board of
County Commissioners by the Sheriff, as previously discussed, supporting this
request. The Committee needs to determine whether or not they are
comfortable with this information or need additional information.
3. Fy 2003-04 Security Cost -- $484,154 For Providinq In-house Security For
Security System UPGrade Workers
The County has not received any backup for this amount. It is also not clear
whether the Sheriff is planning on absorbing this into his existing operating
budget. By way of this memorandum, I am requesting the Sheriff provide the
Committee and County staff with the supporting documentation for this amount.
Per the Committee's request, I have attached the security system time line.
4. Cost-SavinGs. Additional Revenues. And Any Other Shortfalls
By way of this memorandum, I am requesting the Sheriff provide the Committee
and County staff with a breakdown of any additional revenues, and implemented
cost-savings that could be applied to the jail's 2003-04 Budget that could be
used to offset any increased cost. I am also requesting documentation of any
other unforeseen costs through September 30,2004. Hopefully, this information
Page 2
June 21,2004
Jail Funding Request
will provide us with what is needed to determine the financial status of the 2003-
04 Budget.
Also attached is the draft jail pod construction time line. As I receive the above
information, I will be forwarding it to the Committee for your review.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me.
DMNab 04-117
c: Board of County Commissioners
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Roger Shinn, Central Services Director
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Ken Mascara, Sheriff
Garry Wilson, Chief Deputy
Toby Long, Finance Director, Sheriff's Office
Pat Tighe, Major - Director of Detention
Attachment
"/r-r;~:-::~ ~~:~::~1:-Z --:. ::.::~ "-h _ -"::._-5-~-.~::--;';
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
......,...
.. t" --.
~'~~;:~\ -: -":-: :.> '-- - _.' -=-. '
DATE:
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Ed Parker, Purchasing Director
Roger Shinn, Central Services Director
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney j-- j
04-925 D)
June 17, 2004 ./ lit Mrr?
fA 1 ¡1 f) ~ r . \J
Jail Security Contract - Timeline (;
TO:
FROM:
C.A. NO.:
SUBJECT:
**************************************************************************
Attached for review is a draft timeline perJaining tQJh~jÇljts~ç:I,I.r:JtYf°l'1trCl_çt~_~__n_H
Please provide me with your comments. _H'._H_
DSM/caf
Attachment
Cß: ßet w/~
~"
--- ~--- --- - ------
- .~._~--~~--
- .--------~---'----- ._, ------.'-..-
- ----,-----
-- ,
- ~---_._-.-_-_._~-----~-_._.
- -- - --- - -
J .. .
, ·rr~n\\nr-=IÌ,
' ! .. .2.l.'.--:' .\ v,' I 2 I,"
j~ JUN 1 B 2DD~ ~ g
?O. ADMIN. OFFICE
~ftf~.:~¿...~~~"::-;-;;:S--7.;- -~~~.~_.":i+"::"--.' -~--¿=.:-
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
-"~-.....
.' ... --.
-~(4."'L-:-"'_C·- L)'-~~ --:_;- -:. ';..., .:.....- .-_.,:.....
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator
FROM:
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney
C.A. NO.:
04-905
DATE:
June 17, 2004
SUBJECT:
Jail Security Contract - Timeline
**************************************************************************
The timeline for the contract between the County and Norment Security Group,
Inc. is as follows:
-- -_.- . - --
Date
May 22, 2001
County retains Sims Wilkerson to evaluate the
security and fire alarm systems cit the St. Lucie
Còunty Correctional Facility and prepare a report
August 28, 2001
County retains Sims Wilkerson (and Vitetta
Engineering) to draft contract specifications.
February/March 2002
County issues RFQ 02-042 and prequalifies bidders
based on recommendation of Sims Wilkerson/
Vitetta
March 26, 2002
County issues Bid No. 02-057 to prequalified
bidders including Norment Security Group, Inc.
April 15, 2002
..__,,,______ Mandatory Pre-bid meeting held with prequalified
~bidd~rs; c~-~~ty s~afTañêf Sheriffstciff - -- .
- .------.-----.--
July 23, 2002
.- -County awards contract to Norment as low bidder;
contract amount is $1,962,000.00
October 9, 2002
Notice to proceed issued; contract time: 450 days
September 23, 2003
Change Order #1 approved increasing contract by
$26,892.95 for additional conduit for future
upgrades; new contract amount: $1,988,892.95; no
increase in contract time
January 2, 2004
Original specified completion date
January 14, 2004
Change Order #2 approved increasing contract by
$44,122.07 due to project delays, change orders
and variations; new contract amount is
$2,033,015.22. Contract time is increased by 100
days; new completion date is April 22, 2004
April 15, 2004
Change Order #3 approved increasing contract
time by 10 days; new completion date is May 2,
2004. No change in contract price.
May 2, 2004
Revised completion date
May 3, 2004
Memorandum received from . Major Tighe re:
Security Systems - Vendor Escorts
DSM/ caf
Copy to:
Central Services Director
n ..____ __._ ~..__ _______.
- - - - - -- - ------ ------ ----
-- _._-~---'--
-+--....
-.-. . - - . '.
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO:
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Ed Parker, Purchasing Director
Roger Shinn, Central Services Director
C.A. NO.:
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney t
04-923
. ~J 1\ J -t
/A C', (lA'
FROM:
DATE:
June 17, 2004
SUBJECT:
Rock Road Correctional Facility Expansion Project
Design/Build Timeline
**************************************************************************
Attached for review and comment is a draft timeline for the Rock Road
Correctional Facility Expansion Project. The timeline is based on information in my
files, copies of which are attached. Please note, I need the date when DLR completed
the design criteria package.
DSM/caf
Attachment
Copy to:
Board of County Commissioners
County Administrator
: ¡ ;::c'((~~n\V7~ ~,
.t~U~1-8· 2004 ']~
co. ADMIN. OFFICE
TIMELINE
DATE
May 6, 2003
Staff requests BCC to grant permission to advertise for
an RFQ for Design/Build Project for County Jail
Expansion; Staff also recommends that the County
Administrator initiate the process to retain a licensed
design professional to serve as the County's
representative; BCC defers item until backup information
provided.
May 27, 2003
BCC votes 4-1 to grant permission to advertise a Request
for Qualification for construction of two jail pods and
authorizes County Administrator to initiate the process
to retain a licensed design professional to serve as the
County's representative.
June 8,2003
RFQ 03-063 (Design/Build Expansion of the Correctional
Facility) was advertised
June 22, 2003
RFQ 03-071 (Owner Design/Build Consultant Services for
Correctional Facility) was advertised
July 14, 2003
Proposals opened for RFQ 03-071 - Design Criteria
Professional
July 23, 2003
Proposals opened for RFQ 03-063 - Design/Build firms to
design and construct two jail pods.
July 24, 2003
Selection Committee composed of County and Sheriff
staff meets on RFQ 03-071 (Design Criteria Professional)
and ranks DLR Group number one.
August 14, 2003
Selection Committee meets and short lists the following
firms (1) Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz; (2) Peter R.
Brown Construction, Inc.; (3) Biltmore Construction
August 19, 2003
BCC approves staff recommendation to negotiate with top
ranked design criteria professional firm, DLR Group, Inc.
September 12, 2003
October 7,2003
November 13, 2003
January 8, 2004
January 22,2004
January 27, 2004
February / March 2004
March 12,2004
April 12, 2004
BCC approves staff recommendation of short list of
design-build firms (1) Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz; (2)
Peter R. Brown Construction, Inc.; (3) Biltmore
Construction
BCC approves purchase of additional beds, tables and
chairs to alleviate overcrowding in Pod B-4 at a cost of
$24,985.80
BCC approves Agreement with DLR Group, Inc. -
Design/ Criteria Professional
DLR Group completes design criteria package for two jail
pods
RFP 04-12 including design/criteria package issued to
three shortlisted design/build firms.
Responses to Design/Build RFP 04-12 due; Centex Rooney
submits proposal of $20.5 million (with air cooled chiller
HV AC system)
Selection Committee meets and' recommends negotiation
with Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz design/build team
BCC approves Selection Committee's recommendation to
negotiate cost with the top ranked firm, Centex
Rooney / Schenkel Shultz
Centex Rooney develops new concept with estimated cost
of $19.9 million
Selection Committee agrees to time extension and design
latitude
Centex Rooney makes presentation to Selection
Committee
April 20, 2004
BCC defers action on Selection Committee's
recommendation to move forward with the award of
contract to Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz as the
Design/Build firm for the Rock Road Correctional Facility
Expansion project
April 27, 2004
BCC approves 3-1 Selection Committee's recommendation
to approve Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz as the
Design/Build Firm for the Rock Road Correctional Facility
Expansion Project at a fixed firm price of
$18,955,000.00, approve total funding of $ 20,500,000.00
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. R-8
),
DATE: May 6, 2003
REGULAR [XJ
HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ )
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Purchasinq
Ed Parker, Purchasinq Director
SUBJECT: Permission to advertise Request for Qualifications for Design/ Build for the St. Lucie County
Jail Expansion.
.
BACKGROUND: To solicit vendors to provide qualifications for a Design/Build Project for the St. Lucie
County Jail Expa~sion.
FUNDS AVAilABLE: N/A
PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board grant permission to advertise a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for Design/Build Project for the County Jail Expansion. Staff also recommends that
the County Administrator initiate the process to retain a licensed design professional appropriate to the
project to serve as the County's representative.
COMMISSION ACTION:
"
---
[ J APPROVED [] DENIED
f)d OTHER: Recornendation to defer item until
backup information ip provided to
Coordination/Signatures
County Attorney:(X)
c: /) ",/
I/~
Mgt. & Budget (X)
Other:
Purchasing Mgr.:(X) q r
Originating Dept:
Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, If Applicable)
Eft. 1/97
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. 7A
.~
j
DATE: May 27,2003
REGULAR [X]
HEARING [ J
CONSENT [ ]
~
, .
\ :
i
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Administration
. . . rJ::::;:.\:" £ JI pr
IJ"f..{'
SUBJECT: Permission 10 advertise Request for s for Design/ Build forthe St. Lucie County Jail
Expansion.
-
BACKGROUND: 'Jo solicit vendors to provide qualifications for a Design/Build Project for the St. Lucie
County Jail Expansion.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: 316-2330-549000-26003/Corrections Impact Fees
. ' , Qc..I.t'J v;, /' c:--t'3r ~
. N/A{) 15
If .
RECO N: Staff recommends that'the Board grant permission to advertise a Request for
or construction of two pods for the St. Lucie'County Jail. Staff also recommends that
the County'Administrator initiate the process to retain a licensed design professional appropriate to the
project to serve as the County's representative.
COMMISSION ACTION:
[ ) APPROVED [J DENIED
[ ) OTHER: Approved (4-1)
Barnes No
NCE: .
Coordination/Signatures
'.
C<>unty Altomey:(X)
Mgl. & Budget (X)
PLlrchasing Mgr.:(X) ...
Originating Dept:
Other;
Other:
. .~~.?,~.t~. '; ~. .::. .'~ ....c~ .~...::¿ -
., ... '. .,..-....
~ ~ -v {:[J~'i-~
' . L' '., ". ~
(.ltl~i l·:j,·;},,···· ,~"
r.ö;-·:..>··:~:···:;'''· .'. '. ..,;::; '..:..:;:'k
,J-::,O·, R ,J,.,D. A, ~
. '-.'....-..:1.'. . '. ", " .,' ..
ITEM NO. c4(e
DATE: 8/19/03
AGENDA REQUEST
REGULAR ( )
PUBLIC HEARING ( )
CONSENT (X)
ÀlJ;;:¡-ww./,.~;./iI""il"'''';¡J.~..."..,~.......itW~,v,''''I''''~~''''!(;:'''ò,IU;,
. ~. ' .
--;:.;:".,""!;~.,:.:.I ~~:-,;~~ " . '_, .
TO: 'BOARD OF COUNTY CO V1MISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
'\
i . .~
SUBJECT: Award of RFQ #03-('71 Owner Design/Build Consultant Services For Correctional
Facility.
Purchasing Department
Ed Parker, Purchasinq Director
BACKGROUND: On July 14. 2003 RFQ # 03-071 was open for Owner Design/Build Consultant
Services for Correctional Facility. On~ thousanti five hundred and seventy-three (1573) vendors were
notified, sjxty-~k1trt (68) biä docullents were distributed and four (4) responses were received. The
Selection Committee'met on July 24. 2003, to rank the firms that submitted detailed qualifications for
RFQ #.03-071 Owner Design/BL ild Consultant Services for Correctional Facility. The committee
ranked the firms in the ~ollowin~1 order: (1) DLR Group (2) ZH,A ..Inc. (3) USR Corporation. Staff
recommends approval to begin ccntract negotiation with the top rank firm DLR Group.
I: .
FUNDS AVAILABLE: Account #310003-2330-q62005-26003 - Impact Fees/S. Lucie County
Correctional Facility/Construct Ne'N Correctional Pods¡Suilding Consultant Engineer.
PREVIOUS ACTION: On May 6. 2003 Board of County Commissioners approved the County
Administrator to initiate the proce~s to retain a licensed design professional appropriate to the project
to serve as the County's represen-:ative.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff rec::>mmends approval to negotiate with the top rank firm DLR Group
and authorizationfor the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney.
~) APPROVED
( ) OTHER
( ) DENIED
~
COMMISSION ACTION:
COU
NDERSON
ADMINISTRATOR
Approved (5-0)
Coordinatl on/5 iq natures
County Attorney 00
Originating Dept. ( )
:K'
Mgt. & Budget Ç9 u.o~-L-
Other ( )
Purchas ing (X)
Æ:!P
Other ( )
(;""nrQ' (rhørt< f,v rnn\J nnlv if ::!nnli~::;hJp-)
':-~H~'.:':' . . , ", .' .
- ..", .. ".
~-~~ ~ ~j~[~iJŒ··~7~~~.-:~
f('1.1~'1·"
I: J. .Ø-R· I' D .. A:~':~"~"
.".:~.~~o;."'."~-';~ """''''''"''!'i~JIo\C¡J=:'tCõürta!'-iU~~*&;;I ,,''
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. c·if
DATE: August 19,2003
REGULAR [ ]
HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [X]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Purchasinq
ì
" ,
Ed-Parker, Purchasinq Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Short listed firms for RFQ #03-063 Design/Build Expansion Of The St. Lucie
GO\,1nty Correctional Facility.
,
ffACKGROUNf:¥/On July ~3, 2003 RFa # 03-063 was open for Design/Build Expansion Of The S1. Lucie
County Correctiónal Facility. One thousand four hundred and twenty-four (1424) vendors were notified,
seven~y-three (73) bid docume 1ts were distributed and seven (7) responses were received. The
Selection Committee m~t on August 14, 2003, and short-list~d '. the following firms: (1) Centrex
Rooney/Schenkel ShultZ', (2) Peter R. Brown Copstruction, Inc., (3) Biltmore Construction. Staff
recommends approval of the shoilist and request permission to invite these firms to submit technical and
cost proposal.'
FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A
PREVIOUS ACTION: On May 6,2003 Board of County Commissioners granted permission to advertise
a Request for Qualification for Design/Build project for the County Jail Expansion.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval ofthe short listed firms, (1) Centrex Rooney/Schenkel
Shultz, (2) Peter R. Brown Constr Jction, Inc., (3) Biltmore Construction and request permission to invite
these firms to submit technical and cost proposal.
Approved (5-0)
C:CpE:
Doug ~erson
County Administrator
COMMISSION ACTION:
Xl APPROVED [] DENIED
11 OTHER:
County Attorney: (X)
:1I
Coordination/Signatures
Mgl & Budget ()
Purchasing Mgr.:(X)
&P.
OriQinaUnQ Dep!:
Other.
Other:
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. C/ A µ
. DATE: SEPT.~ 2003
REGULAR [ ]
...,
PUBLIC' HEARING [ ]
\ CONSENT[X]
, :
,
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMVlISSIONERS
::, 'PRESENTED BY: ROGER SHINN
" DlRECTOR
...
SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES,
SUBJECT: A~DITIONAL BEDDING AT ROCK ROAD JAIL TO EASE OVERCROWDING OF JAIL INMATE
POPULATION - I
. /1
BACKGROUND: Overcrowding of jail inmate population has been an issue for quite some time. To assist
with a solution to this problem, staff has scheduled the construction of two new jail pods at the beginning
of 2004. However, at this time U- e jail inmate population has reached an all time high, exceeding a greater
number than is acceptable for o'lercrowding. 51. Lucie County, Sheriff's Office, Public Defender's Office,
State Attorney's Office and the Judiciary have all worked together doing what they can to ease the
overcrowding situation until the new jail pods"árß in place. To further assist with easing jail Inmate
._ ",.I .
overcrowding until placement o~these new pods, staff is requesting to use Bob Barker Company and CPM
"Welding to add an additional forty-four (44) beds @ $16,321.80 and Norix Groupior the addition of twelve
(12) tables@ $6A80.00 and. f,orty-eight (48) chairs @ $2,184.00 to pod B-4, the woman's pod, the most over
crowded area. Total cost for these items is $24,985.80 and staff is requesting permission to do a line to
line transfer in the amount of $30,000.00 to cover these cost. Please see attached quotations and
breakdown ,sheet. '
.
FUNDS AVAIL: 310003-2330-562000-200 (Reserves-Impact Fees Public Bldgs.)
(Correctional Impact Fees)
¡
PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of Bob
Barker Company for the purchase and installation of additional beds($7,521.80), CPM Welding ($8,800.00)
and Norix Group for the purchase of tables ($6,480.00) and chairs ($2,184.00) for pod B-4 to assist in
alleviating the overcrowding of jail inmate population at a total cost of $24,985.80.
MISSION ACTION:
'It] APPROVED [J DENIED'
.O[ ] OTHER: Approved (5-0)
CONCURRiZN
/ -:1 --
Doug And r7.n
, County Administrator
Coordination/Si~atures /~¡I~
Mgl t. Budget: ML;': J~~ Purchasing Mgr,: (-./1-
-
~
County Attorne~~
Originating De~.I.ft-'
. Finance: (Check for Copy only. if Applicable)
Other:
Other:
Eft. 1/97
AGENDA REQUEST
..... ........._ I..". .. '___'~..'
II ~.. .'.f""~."-"·~~"''-~''
. SO:" :;-.:'. .: rJ7;-;:::'I' _...··;¡·..·..,;."a·.,.-I'J
."Pl.·' ~
r.L:O·ÜN"TY .. ~'JII
. F LOR I D A -' . '+: ·
....~.~,... ....... ..... ..... ......-....
Tq: BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONER;S
- \
, SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney
ITEM NO. ~
DA TE: October 7, 2003
REGULAR [XX]
PUBLIC HEARING []
CONSENT [J
PRESENTED BY:
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
SUBJE€T: St. Lucie County Correctional Facility - Agreement with DLR Group, Inc,.
- Design Criteria Package
".
BACKGRÓtJND:
..
See a-tetched memorandum
FUNDS ÁVAILABLE:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
RECOMMEND A nON: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Agreement
with DLR Group, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to sign
-- the Agreement.
..
COMMISSION AmON:
.LX] APPROVED [ ] DENIED
[ ] OTHER:
., Approved (5-0)
County Attorney;
~
Originating Dept,.
Finonce: (Check for Copy only, if applicob/e)
las Anderson
County Administrator
Review and ~pp. v. Is
A$st.,:County..~øm.; /£IJ~~h(l~ing:
~"""¡,"",,,.p¡r'~ County -"S.'
.dr
Eft. 5/96
<~
t!
~.
~
.
~..
~
Fe
~
~:
,
i..a
I~,.
·
.....
'.
·
·
·
·
-.
·
·
·
·
·
-:
41
·
--
·
.
·
Jj
II
It
It -.
IJ..
.-
II
·
,,"
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO.I
;.~=~:~!.. .~~.1 :>;~:~~~:~:~.: .-f~.-:~~~.F ~~~f:~~:~·. .:~.~'~~~.. ~-- ~.-~"
. -- ... . ................. ....".. ,.... .,.." .. ........ ........-.
DATE: January 27,2004
REGULAR [x]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ J
,.._,__ __. _" '.n· _ _., . .. ~. _._ .. .__. ___,_, .. ~_ .
'- 4 - ... . - . -.... .
.':'., .- ~ -...-.-.....:.-;., ....~-;; -. ~ . -
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY: ROGERASHINN
DIRECTOR
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH
CENTREX ROONEY/SCHENKEL SHULTZ, THE TOP RANKED FIRM, FROM THE SDCC APPROVED
SHORT LISTED FIRMS FOR THE DESIGN/BUILD EXPANSION OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
BACKGROUND: Upon approval from the BOCC ofthe Selection Committee's recommendation of
short-listed firms, (1) Centrex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz, (2) Peter R. Brown Construction, Inc. (3)
Biltmore Construction and our request to invite these firms to submit technical and cost
proposals for the Design/Build Expansion ofthe St. Lucie County Correctional Facility, staff then
prepared a Design Criteria Package for these firms. Upon receipt and review of the short listed
firms proposals, please see attached, the majority of the Selection Committee determined Centrex
Rooney/Schenkel Shultz came the closest to the desired intent of the Design Criteria Package and
was the top ranked firm by the Selection Committee. The Committee is now requesting
permission to negotiate cost with Centrex Rooney, and upon the Committee's resolution affinal
cost, return to the Board for approval.
FUNDS AVAIL: 310003-2330-562000-26003 Impact Fees"':Public Bldgs/SLC Correctional
Facility/Building account
PREVIOUS ACTION: The B'oard of County Commissioners approved the short listed firms for the
Design/Build Expansion of the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility on August 19, 2003, Item No.
c-7f.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Selection Committee's recommendation to negotiate cost with the top ranked firm, Centrex
Rooney/Schnekel Shultz, for the Design/Build Expansion to the St. Lucie County Correctional
Facility.
MISSION ACTION: CE:
Xl APPROVED [] DENIED
i 1 OTHER: Approved 5-0
t::,,? n ·ìîr/{IC>.1
Mgt. & Budget: U(.,{/ J. 1/ ' 1.7/
o Anderson
County Administrator
L~ /...ð
Purchasing Mgr.: c: fI? r-
Originating Dept.
¡::"¡n:>n,-",' tr.h",,-I< fne r.nnv nnlv jf Annli..""hlp\
Other.
Other.
Eff. 1/97
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. 6
~i?Æl~~~~ïtf~~~
'ç~"'>:":' .-.
DATE: APRIL 20,2004
REGULAR [x]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY: ROGERA SHINN
DIRECTOR
SUBMITTED BY'(DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE DESIGN/BUILD EXPANSION OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY BY
CENTEX ROONEY/SCHENKEL SHULTZ.
BACKGROUND:
SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM
FUNDS AVAIL: 310003-2330-562000-26003 (Carrectional Facilities Public Bldg Impact Fee Fund/Bldg)
315-2330-562000-26003 (County Capital Fund/Building)
Other Funding Sources Proposed:
310003-2330-562000-200 (Correctional F~cilities Public Bldg Impact Fee Fund BJdg)
310003-1930-562000-200 (Other Public Bldg Impact Fee Fund/Bldg)
Loan Proceeds
PREVIOUS ACTION: The Board of County Commissioners approved negotiating cost with Centex
Rooney/Schenkel Shultz on January 27,2004, Item No.7
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Selection Committee's recommendation to approve Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz as the
Design/Build Firm for the Rock Road Correctional Facility Expansion Project at a fixed firm price
of $18,955,000.00, approve total funding of $20,500,000.00, and authorize the Chairperson to sign
the contract as prepared by the County Attorney.
MISSION ACTION:
L~ APPROVED [] DENIED .'
['] OTH E R: Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Coward Absent) Mollon to defe~ a~tlon ,
and re-agenda item for April 27. 2004 Board of County ComnuSSlon meetmg,
NCE:
Mgt. & Budge!:
!Af)
D ug Anderson
Coun~y Administrator
/J
Po,,,,,,,,,, M"., d f
County Attorney:
/L,y
,
Coordination/Signatures
Originating Dept:
Other:
Other:
~in~nrø' ,rho"" (I"\r' r_""" ,",nh, if Annfir~hl,:.'
Eff. 1/97
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. 6
DATE: APRIL 27, 2004
REGULAR [x]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY: ROGERA SHINN
DIRECTOR
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE DESIGN/BUILD EXPANSION OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY BY
CENTEX ROONEY/SCHENKEL SHULTZ. '
BACKGROUND:
SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM
FUNDS AVAIL: 310003-2330-562000-26003 (Correctional Facilities Public Bldg Impact Fee Fund/Bldg)
315-2330-562000-26003 (County Capital Fund/Building)
Other Funding Sources Proposed:
310003-2330-562000-200 (Correctional Facilit!es Public Bldg Impact Fee Fund Bldg)
310003-1930-562000-200 (Other Public BJdg Impact Fee Fund/Bldg)
Loan Proceeds
PREVIOUS ACTION: The Board of County Commissioners approved negotiating cost with Centex
Rooney/Schenkel Shultz on January 27, 2004, Item No.7
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the -Board of County Commissioners approve the
Selection Committee's recommendation to approve Centex Rooney/Schenkel Shultz as the
Design/Build Firm for the Rock Road Correctional Facility Expansion Project at a fixed firm price
of $18,955,000.00, approve total funding of $20,500,000.00, and authorize the Chairperson to sign
the contract as prepared by the County Attorney.
MISSION ACTION:
Kl APPROVED [] DENIED
[ J OTHER: Approved (3-1) Barnes - No
Hutchinson abstained due to
conflict of interest.
ENCE:
--
C,""~Attom~ Y
Originating De t: Í)4.../
Finance: (Chec:1< for Copy only, if Applicable)
coordination/Signatu~
Mgt. & Budget: 2Æ.IJ '1f¡
Purchasing Mgr.:
Other:
Other:
Eft. 1/97
"
.,
\...
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
EMORANDUM
04-129
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson
ounty Administrator
DATE:
June 28, 2004
8,
RE:
Jail Overcrowding
, .
,>-".;.. "","
BACKGROUND:
Monday, June 21st, the Jail Overcrowding Subcommittee held their first meeting consisting
of Captain Walsh and Major Tighe of the Sheriff's Office, Jody Renc of the Public
Defender's Office, and Jason Berger of the State Attorney's Office. It should be noted that
Jason Berger and Major Tighe traveled to Alachua County with Commissioner Barnes and
myself on June 1ih. The attached report, prepared by this subcommittee, contains
suggestions to assist in alleviating jail overcrowding. The report also discusses their review
of 1,230 inmates and their findings and opinions. Also attached is listing of those inmates.
The "X's" mean that they were determined ineligible for release by one of the agencies.
Attached is a June 5th list of 25 inmates that have been identified to be transferred to
Highlands County. Judge Angelos called me Friday and said that she would issue a Court
Order to transfer these inmates once I have submitted it to her.
Captain Hinman of Highlands County has contacted me on several occasions stating that
Highlands County is receiving pressure from other counties to rent beds to them. At this
time, he is holding these beds for us.
RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff is requesting direction from the Board on the transfer of 25 inmates to Highlands
County.
DMNab 04-129
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Attachments
./~ .
./
INMATES TO BE TRANSFERRED
NAME
RELEASE DATE
Aguilar, Gabriel
Andrews, Michael Joseph
Barfield, Antonio P.
Caldwell, Gabriel A.
Collins, Michael Lindell
Evans, Charles Elliott
Gonzalez, Lazaro
Hendrix, Asa
Hernandez, Heriberto
Hill, Lawrence John
Jones, Doublas Glen
Lasecki, John Peter
Lecanu, Maurice Pierre
Luisi, Vincent James
McGee, Richard
McLean, David Jr.
Melchor, Sololllo~~."
Monds, James Anthony
Murray, Jimmy
Owens, Robert Earl
Pierce, George Edgar
Prince, Jolmnie_"
Saucedo, Jamie E.
Settle, Jacob Adam
Srouji, Azmi
08/31/04
09/17/04
09/05104
11/17/04
10/18/04
09/28/04
10/18104
09101/04
01/05105
02/17/05
09/15/04
10102/04
12/05104
11/08/04
03/19/05
09/03/04
01/11/05
09/08/04··
12/27/04
09/18/04
09/26104
10/10/04
10/02/04
08/29/04
10/15/04
-- ,. --'.._---_.--~---~-'.-.
_._--~._------
-. --..------------
LIst#l .
06/05/04
___ u__.
- _. ·_____.___--_~_='_'__o"
n .~_._.__~__________...____ u_.______ .._ _____ _.__,,_
-----.--- ,,-------..
... _n_ ___._.
__ _··_____.__u____._
-- .u____,_,____ .___.__._..u_______.____._,_.______ _'u____
.._._. ·__'_u..___.
..--------.._-----_.
....---,--
..
'/"
, Jun.25, 2004 ¡2:03PM
Nc;.8520 p, 2/4
-
To;
Board of County Commissiol1Cl'S of St. Lucie COlillty.
From:
Jason D. Berger, Assistant State Attomey,
St. Lucie C01lJJ.t)! Court Suprnisor
Jodi Renc> Assistant Public Defender
Major F. Patrick Tighe: St. LucIe County Sheriff's Office
DirectrJr ofDepartmerrt of Detention
Captain Pat Walsh, St Lucie County Sheriffs Office
.~: Operations C~:q:¡.lJ1a.nder, Depart.ment of~etention
Date:
June 23, 2004
Sul:ject;
Jail Overcrowding
On Monday June 21) 2004, Capt Walsh and Major Tighe of the St. Lucie C011I.ltl' Sheriffs
Office, Jodi Renc of the Public Defenders Office, ~d JasOll Berger of the State Attorneys Otfice
were assigned to review and discuss the jai1overcrowding issue in order to meet the require.ments
of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County. The issues discussed are. outlined 8.5
follows: <'\
a.)
b..)
c.)
d.)
Inmates in jail on high risk/serious .Felony charges
Imnate.s in jail on vio}ations ofprobation
Imnak..s injail for failiPg to appeatfoI'còurt' , '.. h,_ ----. q-.
Irimates in jail on multiple cases, multiple charges, and/or hOlds
-------"-- -.-----
1.) The status a.u.d charges oÏ all I ,~Jºj,1')Ir),at~s .w~r~JeYl~W6clo.1f J1l,Iw:Z»~.Q94'c.7':;:c';;"-'~.~~_"C-=C'7"'"
rh~ find.i.ngs and opinions of this mee!ing are as follows. A 'great majority of a110fthe ÍID.:nates:",· '...- '.,.,
c:-U1ently b~t.ag houst:.d in the St. Lucìe County Jail feJJ into the follo'W"Ìng categories:
Jodi Rene, Public Defender, is curreníly assigned to work in the C01.Ulty jail. Jodi {eviews jail
cases on a daily basis, and Jodi resolves cases with the State on a daily basis. Bottom line is thai
cases are being resolved daily, and new cases axe coming in daily.
---...--.---- --...-
2.) Suggestion: Conduct a County Court Jail Docket every Friday:
The s~ggestion has been raised to conduct a County Court Jail Docket every Friday ID.oming
(regardless of the alphabet of the defendant, as is done in Martin County). A firial docket would
be set by the clerks office, and would be provided to the State Attorneys, Fublic Defenders and
the St Lucie County Sheriff's Office Jail, no later than 3:00 pJn On ~ve+y Tuesday (cåSës,' , - .
processed afterwards wou]d be placod on tho followÏ11g Friday'slail DOêket.) , The' State would
then f.orward plea offers by Th~day morning, and the Public Defenders would present thè plea.:..:.,_,_. ,
_ .~~e~~_ t? t~~ c,li~?-~ .pri,Ot, ~c th~¥~ja.l ! ~ p~l£e,t:::.~-,:--'~~~;~;~~~:,c~:';'~:-:.~:': ,.~,:-:,~;~~,~,-,;=-;:_~~ :~:..~?,'C'= ~=.'::-':":,::':':"':' _.:.cc
. --- -"'-'-'''.'--.'.- .---...------..--.. .--.---.---.. -.'-'. .--:'
.,-
-_. ---.----
--..- - - --.-. -...- --q.. - __.' .__u _.
. - --.,-- -.------.-----------..----
.. ·_···'__··u._ ..____.___'___...__.___.__ ._____.._____..
,-----_.. "-- . --
-- - -. - . .
. ~ - - . -
... -.-. --. --.-.,.- ..-
_... ______ un.._
.--- -. ---'-'-'0_'___,..
---..----.--,---.,- ------
- -.' -- .-.............._-........~~---..._~.'---_._. -~-~._._--
u,____,,_. u_.. __ h__ ".h
'-. --- --_.~._. -".'-.-'.- -
.-.----.,---------
,,,. . . ._---,... . -- ---.
---.------- - ..-- -._- -.-,. "_.~-----
------.-.-.--....----.-------.-,.- -.---.--,...-.-.--..-.... ,_. .
.. -.- '--'.-- . ... .'u___.__._h__._.________. h_. _~,.-....
. - - .u___ .... ___ .. , _.u _. ..,_ .. ~___ ___ _ .
'-". . - . -
.. _.. .
·_.._....n.."....... -'.----:-:=-,=",.'. f\
r;-"(~R~~ri~'~~
.. _ '\:\': JUN2 ~j _~__:~
. --·_·,,_"u '-" -,-,,-ur~å:-~-Ä6M¡N. OFFICE ' --,.
---- ._--,
---'._~----
·Jun.25, 200lt i~:OBPM
No,8520 P,3/4
3,) Suggestion: Package .Plea Ag!{';~rnents
a.) An attempt should be made by all to resolve all of a defendants
pending felony case!) at the saro.e rime with his/her other pending
cases (felony and misdeme8l1or.) ,
b.) An attempt should be made by all to resolve all of a defendants
pending misdemeanor cases at the same ~me 'With his/her other pending
misdemeanor cases. .
The suggestio'n is to have a standing Administ.-ative Order allowing COlUlly Court Cases
to be transferred to CÎ1cuit Comi for pUIposes of resolving package plea agree:ments.
4.) Suggestio:o: Plea Agreements at First Appearance
Currently, tbe St. tude County judiciary t,a.ke turns handling first appearances oil a. weekly basis.
These first appeamnce hearir,¡gs occur during various times) depending on whichj~ge is
hatldiing them. The suggestion is to have a 1 :00 PM concrete time in which first appearancos are
schedu.!ed and hanâ1ed (other Circuits have a retired'·"iirst appearance" judge handle first
appearances in the afternoon.) Th~re ¡u't currently an a.verage ci 15 to 40 first appcaxances per
day. With a finitel:OO Pr.'1 scheduk for first appeara.q~es, both the State A~ornoy's Office a.nd
the Public Pefendexs Office can schedule for a.nd be '!{iescnt to attempt to resolve misdem.eaJ.1or
cases (not involving victims.) This suggestion would require the clerk.s o.ft1ce to furnish the SAO
with à copy oftb,e arrest affidavit, NCICI FCIe and/or drivers IiceìJ.Se reçords} so that an'~'cu.
infor.ro.ed plea offer cån be made (currcntly the State Attorn.ey's Office does not receive a.üÿ
}.)ql~erwork at~st appearances.) Othervlise, without any paperv¡ork or iqformation, the State
cannot be pr~ared to make any plea offers, .
5.) Baker ActslM~ntal Health PatiÐIlts: . ... _ ___ .. ,____._.. _,___
Currently there are severa.! mentally ill indivit1ua1s being booked into tbe jail because the mental
health receiving! treatmen.t facilities are full, and/or will not admit them. Not only do ma.ny of
these itld~.viduals not belong injaiI, but they are also taking up spa::e in the jails ttlt:'dical unit
(which more than doubles the daily COsis.) T.be suggestion is to wodl; with law enforcement and
the mental health cO:ro.nJ.ut1Íty to improve the mental health process and ensure that individuals
who require mental. health treatJ:n~nt are properly placed in a me.ntal health facility.
----.----
6.) Notices to AppeariArrests Made by Law Enforcement:
CtlITently the jail has been doing Notices To Appear on those individuals eligible for release
upon an~st. TIle p~rson is arrested, :fingerprin~ed, booked, photographed, and then released on the
notice to appear. This process has helped the jail overcrowding skùation tremendously, while
also ensuring that the defenda.nfs attest is properly documented., _____.p__ __
._--~------~- ..-...
_._._~ .--------,. ...- ----,- .-------------.--- -- ------- ----_.__._~_._-"-
_.,_ ___. __.___.__..u____._ '_____._.___ __ __._ ____
---- -..-..------ . _ .-. --. ~- '.-- ---- ---
- ---~-_._----- -----~.__.,~._-_.~--- -,----_..
--------- -- .-
.__ _._ __ .._u ____.__.
.. _. - - - ...__ ___u.____-.
-- _.- -- --- ._-,-
_ --- -. --.--- --.--
...-- --.- ------.-
-.. ------... .-.
·Jun.25. 2004 12:09PM
No.8520' P, 4/4
7.) Suggestion:' Upgrade the jails fust appearance room to a courtroom setting
Currently> the jails first appearance room has very' poor a~oustics. The suggestion is to upgr.ade=
the jails íìr$t appearance rOOm to a courtroom setting with proper acoustics> carpeting, and
permanent seating. (See the first appearance rooms in Alachuå) Broward, Dade and Orange
Counties.)
8.) Electronic Monitoring! GPS System \vith or WIthout required day reporti:p.g:
Thï.s suggestion would allow qualified o:f:fendets to remain out of jail (pre-tria!) on an elecù:onic
monitor. The: offender would be required to pay for the monitor at a current estiwate of .$1.00 per
day. Offenders could also be reqUÏIed to check in daily 'With a reporting officer.
9.) Jails reporting requirements:
Theja,Ù currentlypro....ides amontbly list to the Judges and to Court Admin..istratiotl oftJl0se
individuats held on misdemeanor for greater than 75 days) and those individu<4s held on Felonies
fo.r greater then 150 days. '
Respectful1y SubmittC?d
~~..
(9- _.
Jason D. Berger, sistant State Attorney, St. Lucie Còunty Court Supervisor
Jodi R€'.nc~ A~sistant ~ublic Defea~ar . d~,,-' , ",
Mf1jor F.. Patrìck Tighe t/ ,," -r ~'2 7-: . /' )'
v ~ '-':-~~T~~'-
Director of DfPa.rtm.ent of Detention ~ ...
... /) .-..1-./1 --I J ) ß /
Capta.tn Pat:ncla Wal.sb L/6.c.i~ ~~_ (;(./~,_" n_,
Operations Commander> Dopa.rb:nent ofDete.ÍJ.tion
- - _______ _.. n._
. .._---~-~,-----_.-
._n______.,_ __.___~._____. ____
.. ,.-----...-,- ~_. - .. ---_._--_.__.._---------~------
----"-.---'---..-,----.---- .. - ----------
--_._------.- -
.. ---------·-_____.~_,_u,__~_,_.. -__________...._______ __ _________.___, ______________ .__. ___n_________~.__ _________'____
- -. ._----. ---.
.--.----- -- -,----
__ .. ___ ___ u
'-'
.....,
TEMPORARY HOUSING FOR MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES
These options are based on the need for a 40 x 100 or 4000 sq. ft. structure to house fifty
(50) inmates in a dorm style environment, the cost would run approximately:
===============================================================
OPTION #1-METAL BUILDING (insulated)
40' X 100' building @ $12.00 per sq. ft.
Includes installation by contractor.
(Requires 90 to 120 days for delivery and erection and an additional
30 days for fire and security)
TOTAL COST:
$48,000.00
OPTION #2-BIG TOP STRUCTURE
(Steel frame and vinyl fabric cover)
TOTAL COST:
Structure 40' wide x 80' long x 18' center height x 12' walls
(Requires 28 to 30 days for delivery, six day installation and
an additional 30 days for fire and security systems.)
Shipping
Optional technical assistance
Engineered drawing & calculations to meet 130 wind loads
TOT AL BASE COST:
$42,000.00
$ 750.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 600.00
$47,350.00
(*Total base cost includes inmate labor for installation-if labor and equipment is
provided by contractor add an additional $20,000.00.)
(* Optional Mesh Vinyl Screen 100 x 8 side panels to allow for air flow $3,300.00)
OPTION #3-SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES
(Aluminum frame with vinyl cover)
40' x 100' Non-Insulated Structure
(Requires 25 to 30 days for delivery and set up and an
additional 30 days for fire and security systems.)
Shipping
Technical Consultant
TOTAL COST:
$58,000.00
TOT AL BASE COST:
$ 2,490.00
$ 2,700.00
$63,190.00
Insulated Structure
TOTAL BASE COST:
$97,330.00
(*Total base cost includes inmate labor for installation-if labor and equipment is
provided by contractor add an additional $20,000.00.)
(* Additional requirements for this structure: scaffolding and cherry picker)
Page 1 of2
'-'
w
The followinf! items are needed for all structures:
TOTAL:
$21,000.00
$35,000.00
$30,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$ 1,800.00
$77,830.00
Footers and Slabs
Electrical
Fire Alann System
Sprinkler System
Security Add
Exhaust Fans
--------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE:
Current toilet facility for housing fifty (50) inmates is adequate.
Florida Jail Standards=one shower and toilet for twelve inmates.
(* Additional Restroom and Shower Facilities $100,000.00)
(* Air Conditioning $70,000.00)
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
· Wind Load
· Drawings to include electrical
· Estimated electrical load draw per building
· Drawing to show electrical load feed
· Show emergency lighting exit signs and smoke detectors
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE 6
Acceptable distance between buildings (egress must meet code).
Building must meet fire codes and must be sprinkled.
GROUP 1 UNRESTRAINED
Must have freedom of movement.
Must meet occupancy load requirements.
EMERGENCY LIGHTING
EXIT SIGNS
**Need to still consider the logistics' of making it fit.
Page 2 of2
20 Years of
Quality & Design
Installations
Worldwide
~un 16 2004 3:14PM
BTM
850-584-7713
p.2
j
\w'
..".,
1M.
June 16, 2004
Mr. Roger Shinn
St Lucie County
3071 Wilfee Road
Ft Pierce A 34982
Phone (772)462-1432 FX# (772)462-1444
ProDOsal for St Lucie Count~ 4Ox100x18x12 Inmate Facilltv Droiect
ITEM O1:.y DESLKH·. ION PRICE
Vinyl Shelter 1 40' Wide X 100' Long X 18' Center Height X 12' Side wall $ 42,500.00
4Ox100x18x12 Shelter ·
Colors available · 280Z. Cover, White VinYl I Flame Reta"dant Fabric.
White, Tan, Fabric Ends at ground Level on each side with Roll u~ side
panel feature·
· Frame Members: 24- Heavy Wall Galvanized Tubular Steel
Trusses on 10' Centers
· *-Qesigned for 130 L1PH Wind Load
· All Weld Joints Coated With 97% Zinc "Cold Ga'"
· All Connections Via a Slip Fit and Bolt Connection
· 10 Year Warrantv (16-20 vear life 8Xcectancv)
·Mesh Vinyl Screen 2 Mesh Vinyl Fabfic is 8' High x 1 00' long is attached on each $ 3,300,00
100' foot side to allow air flow into the shelter during the
1 Der side summer months
End Panels 1 per end 2 Vinyl Fabric Access End Panels with 2- 3'xT man doors on included
each end
Exhaust Fans 2 36" x 36" Exhaust Fans $ 1,800.00
1 per (all electrical hookup is the responsibility of the customers
end electrician)
"Engineering 3 sets Raised Sealed Engineered Drawings & Calculations64 certified $ 600.00
bva Florida PE for the Frame to withstand 130 MPH wind
Shipping FOB Ft Pierce FI Job site $ 750.00
TOTAL Customer is responsible for all aspects of the concrete surface. $ 48,950.00
cost insta11ation etc... (Dlu.Oøtlona)
Optional 1 .. We wiU send our technical representative to your site to
Technical Assistance person assist your 6-8 person Installation team for up to 6 days during $4,000.00
the erection of each 40 x 100 shelter on the customers for up to 6 days
Additional days at concrete surface
$530.00 Dar day (all concrete cost & site preparation is the customer responsibility),
Optional Big Top will furnish all equipment and laborers to install the $15.950.00
Installation shelters on your concrete surface for each shetter
Additional days at (all concrete cost & site preparation Is the customer responsibility),
$700.00 Der dav
Payment Terms:
Net 30 days fÌ'om Installation with City, State. or Government PO #)
Lead Time: 28-30 Working Days from receipt of order.
. AU aSsembly instructions, hardware. and wedge anchors for installing this sheher are on your Concrete
S1II"Íace wi1l be included with shipment.
Sincerely.
æoUy~
Bobby Edwards
Sales Manager
F:\word\OBobby\2004\S1 Lucic County 4OxlOOxlBx12 130 MPH 06-16-04.dot
Big Top Mfg 3255 N. US 19 - Peny, Florida 32347 USA
(6501584-7786 - Fax: (850) 584-7713 - 011-850-584-77116 Internallonal
www.biatooshelters.com --- e-mail: Bobbvtlùblotoøshelters.com
Jun 16 2004 3:14PM
8TM
850-584-7713
p. 1
'-"
..",;
"
3255 North US 19
Perry, Florida 32347
Cell Phone 1-850-872-8392
Phon.1~OO-277-8877
FAX 1-850-584-7713
InternatlonaIOO1-850-ð84-7786
Webslte: www.blgtopshelters.com
E·mall: bobby@blgtopshelten.com
u ~ ACT U R rHO
To: Mr. Roger Shinn
St Lucie County
Fax:
Fax (772)462-1444
From: Bobby Edwards
Date:
June 16,2004
Re: Quote
Pagøs:
3 (including cover sheet)
Thank you for this opportunity to quote your shelter system.
The pages to follow are the quotation & Drawing of the shelter system you requested .
Please review this QuotatIon and. upon your approval, please sign this and fax to me with you Po # ,
ThiS will reserve 8 position on our production schedule.
Upon receipt of your PO #we will begin fabricatIon of your shelter and Install your shelter the week
on July 28,2004 or sooner.
We want and need your business.
Patiently awaiting your response,
æoJJy~
Sales Manager
"'0
C
<D
"'0
....
~
.2
Q)
£;
CI)
a
Q)
E
a
en
-7713
0+-
::3
o
F-..~
)( ~
- -0
c'f')c'f')
. I
('..I......
C""-I
><
OC'J>
><
>< Q)
.c
o
~
<......> a
-§ Ö 05
............I _:t:::
tñ 8 ~
:z:
gs
::J
.=
:::: 0
<o:::tCf)
('J .--
.....
o
8
c
~
'"
)<
c'f')
-0
~
-
Q
VJ
c:
--
~
-0
~
Q)
.>
o
o
..
o
o
'"
~
p~
!#l '1~~~~c~r!~~f~~g~!.r~dTR~I!~I!!.!~~~~C.
www.sprung.com
June 15, 2004
Roger Shinn
St. Lucie County Sheriff
4700 W. Midway Rd.
Ft. Pierce, FL
34981
Telephone: 772-462-1432
Dear Roger Shinn,
We are pleased to submit the following quotation for a Sprung Structure to be located at your site in Ft. Pierce,
Florida, Sprung is the inventor of the stressed membrane structure which has been patented Worldwide. With
over 114 years of experience, Sprung offers an innovative, cost effective building alternative which dramatically
accelerates construction time lines while providing complete flexibility for the future.
STRUCTURE
DESCRIPTION:
SIGNA TURE SERIES, 40 feet wide by 100 feet long,
measured by maximum width by maximum length, including
the following accessories:
1 - Complimentary Graphic Logo at Entrance
1 - Double Glass Door(s) eM Hood, Panic & Closers (6'OX7'0'?
- Engineered Stamped Drawings
3 - Exterior (150 Watt) Hood Light(s)
4 - Framed Opening(s) - Maximum 16 Sq. Ft.
- Perimeter Aluminum Flat Bar
2 - Single Personnel Door(s) eM Hood, Panic, Closer & Top Lite (3'0"X6'B'?
12 MONTH FIRM LEASE:
ARCHITECTURAL
MEMBRANE AND
COLOR SELECTION:
Polyurethane or Acrylic coated Shell White, Granite Gray or Desert Sand opaque
membrane, complete with translucent skylight.
MONTHL Y LEASE
PRICE:
F. 0, B. Salt Lake City, Utah; Sales and/or use taxes extra:
(Two thousand six hundred and sixty-eight
dollars.)
$2,668.00
TERMS,OAC.:
Payable monthly in advance.
36 MONTH FIRM LEASE:
Structure and accessories as above:
ARCHITECTURAL
MEMBRANE AND
COLOR SELECTION:
Polyurethane or Acrylic coated Shell White, Granite Gray or
Desert Sand opaque membrane, complete with translucent
skylight.
Suite #200,1850 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, GA 30080
1-800-528-9899 . Office: (770) 432-8761 . Fax: (770) 432-8846
. Allentown, PA . Atlanta, GA . Houston, TX . Indianapolis. IN . Los Angeles, CA . San Francisco, CA · Salt Lake City, UT
SI. Lucie County Sheriff
June 15, 2004
40 x 100
MONTHL Y LEASE
PRICE:
TERMS,OAC.:
PURCHASE:
'-"
",-,'
2
F. 0, B, Salt Lake City, Utah; Sales and/or use taxes extra:
(One thousand four hundred and thirty-one
dollars.)
Payable monthly in advance.
PURCHASE PRICE:
Structure and accessories as above:
Total Purchase Price,
F. O. B. Salt Lake City, Utah; Sales and/or use taxes extra:
(Fifty-eight thousand four hundred and forty
dollars.)
TERMS,OAC.: 50% with order; balance upon delivery of the structure,
DELIVERY: Normally from inventory. At your request we can arrange, on
your behalf, for delivery of this structure by commercial carrier
to your site in Ft. Pierce, Florida at a fixed cost of $2,490.00,
sales and/or use taxes extra.
PURCHASE OPTION: The Lessee has the option to purchase the structure as
follows:
ERECTION:
i) If all lease payments have been made on time during the
first three months of the lease period, 100% of these payments
will be credited towards the purchase price, or
ii) If all lease payments have been made on time during the
first twelve and/or twenty four months of the lease period, 90%
of these payments will be credited towards the purchase price.
Either option can only be exercised by presentation of
Lessee's cheque for the full purchase price, less the applicable
credit.
We will supply a Technical Consultant on site to provide
information about structure assembly and erection and will
supply hand tools for your use, at no charge, The Technical
Consultant is not authorized to perform any other services.
Customer is responsible for supervision of and safety
compliance in structure location, assembly and erection.
Recommended equipment and manpower:
a) Scaffolding.
b) Electrical power to site.
c) 5 workmen for approximately 5, 8 hour working days.
$1.431.00
$58.440,00
SI. Lucie County Sheriff
June 15, 2004
40 x 100
PICKER:
HAND TOOLS:
TECHNICAL
CONSUL TANT:
ANCHORAGE:
DISMANTLING:
PERMITS,
LICENSES AND
TAXES:
'-"
..."
3
We request that you supply a picker, with operator, for
approximately 6 hours to assist in raising the free span
aluminum beams during the erection sequence.
Although specialized hand tools are supplied for your use at no
charge, you are responsible for the tools until they are
returned, prepaid, to our depot in Salt Lake City, Utah following
erection of the structure.
Although the Technical Consultant is supplied, his travel,
accommodation and meals will be charged to you at a fixed
cost of $2, 700.00, sales and/or use taxes extra.
Concrete Footing. Base reactions will be provided when
required.
Leased structures will require our Technical Consultant for
dismantling. The same terms as outlined above under the
heading "Erection" and "Technical Consultant" will apply,
except that dismantling procedures will take approximately
one-half of the erection time. It will be your responsibility to
return the structure and tools, prepaid, to the depot in
Salt Lake City, Utah.
It will be your responsibility to obtain all permits and licenses
and pay all applicable taxes. This structure is designed to
meet 110 mph, Exposure C Wind, as per ASCE-7-93 (BOCA,
SBCCI, UBC) and 130 mph, Exposure C, 3 second gust as per
ASCE-7-98 (IBC).
This quotation is valid for 60 days.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this quotation. To demonstrate our confidence in the integrity of the
Sprung Instant Structure we attach for your review our Guarantee Certificate No: E 0100. We look forward
to being of service to you.
Yours very truly,
SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES, INC.
Rob Piatkowski
Sales Manager
f
!Rl~~~!~r!~~f~~~!.r!~~I!~t!~er:!~u~~C.
www.sprung.com
June 15, 2004
Roger Shinn
St. Lucie County Sheriff
4700 W. Midway Rd,
Ft. Pierce, FL
34981
Telephone: 772-462-1432
Dear Roger Shinn,
We are pleased to submit the following quotation for a Sprung Structure to be located at your site in Ft. Pierce,
Florida, Sprung is the inventor of the stressed membrane structure which has been patented Worldwide. With
over 114 years of experience, Sprung offers an innovative, cost effective building alternative which dramatically
accelerates construction time lines while providing complete flexibility for the future.
STRUCTURE
DESCRIPTION:
SIGNA TURE SERIES, 40 feet wide by 100 feet long,
measured by maximum width by maximum length, including
the following accessories:
1 - Complimentary Graphic Logo at Entrance
1 - Double Glass Door(s) c/w Hood, Panic & Closers (6'OX7'0")
- Engineered Stamped Drawings
3 - Exterior (150 Watt) Hood Light(s)
- Fiberglass insulation to the Skylight (8 Inch) c/w White Interior Membrane
4 - Framed Opening(s) for Insulated Structure - Maximum 16 Sq. Ft.
- Perimeter Aluminum Flat Bar
2 - Single Personnel Door(s) c/w Hood, Panic, Closer & Top Lite (3'0'X6'8'')
- Tedlar Coated Exterior Membrane with translucent Skylight
12 MONTH FIRM LEASE:
ARCHITECTURAL
MEMBRANE AND
COLOR SELECTION:
Tedlar coated opaque membrane in Shell White, Desert Sand, Salem Blue, Concord
Cream, Granite Gray, Georgian Gold, or Mediterranean Olive from inventory.
MONTHL Y LEASE
PRICE:
F.O,B, Salt Lake City, Utah; Sales and/or use taxes extra:
(Four thousand eighty-five dollars.)
$4,085,00
TERMS,OAC.:
Payable monthly in advance.
36 MONTH FIRM LEASE:
Structure and accessories as above:
ARCHITECTURAL
MEMBRANE AND
COLOR SELECTION:
Tedlar coated opaque membrane in Shell White, Desert Sand,
Salem Blue, Concord Cream, Granite Gray, Georgian Gold, or
Mediterranean Olive from inventory.
Suite #200, 1850 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, GA 30080
1-800-528-9899 . Office: (770) 432-8761 . Fax: (770) 432-8846
. Allentown, PA . Atlanta, GA . Houston, TX . Indianapolis, IN .Los Angeles, CA . San Francisco, CA . Salt Lake City, UT
St. Lucie County Sheriff
June 15, 2004
40 x 100
MONTHL Y LEASE
PRICE:
TERMS,OAC.:
PURCHASE:
'-'
'wi
2
F. O. B. Salt Lake City, Utah; Sales and/or use taxes extra:
(One thousand nine hundred and three dollars.)
$1,903.00
Payable monthly in advance,
PURCHASE PRICE:
Structure and accessories as above:
Total Purchase Price,
F. O. B. Salt Lake City, Utah; Sales and/or use taxes extra:
(Eighty-seven thousand four hundred and forty
dollars.)
TERMS, OA C.: 50% with order; balance upon delivery of the structure.
DELIVERY: Normally from inventory. At your request we can arrange, on
your behalf, for delivery of this structure by commercial carrier
to your site in Ft. Pierce, Florida at a fixed cost of $4,980.00,
sales and/or use taxes extra.
PURCHASE OPTION: The Lessee has the option to purchase the structure as
follows:
ERECTION:
i) If all lease payments have been made on time during the
first three months of the lease period, 100% of these payments
will be credited towards the purchase price, or
ii) If all lease payments have been made on time during the
first twelve and/or twenty four months of the lease period, 90%
of these payments will be credited towards the purchase price.
Either option can only be exercised by presentation of
Lessee's cheque for the full purchase price, less the applicable
credit.
We will supply a Technical Consultant on site to provide
information about structure assembly and erection and will
supply hand tools for your use, at no charge. The Technical
Consultant is not authorized to perform any other services.
Customer is responsible for supervision of and safety
compliance in structure location, assembly and erection.
Recommended equipment and manpower:
a) Scaffolding.
b) Electrical power to site.
c) 5 workmen for approximately 13, 8 hour working days.
$87.440.00
St. Lucie County Sheriff
June 15, 2004
40 x 100
PICKER:
HAND TOOLS:
TECHNICAL
CONSUL TANT:
ANCHORAGE:
DISMANTLING:
PERMITS,
LICENSES AND
TAXES:
'-'
....."
3
We request that you supply a picker, with operator, for
approximately 6 hours to assist in raising the free span
aluminum beams during the erection sequence.
Although specialized hand tools are supplied for your use at no
charge, you are responsible for the tools until they are
returned, prepaid, to our depot in Salt Lake City, Utah fol/owing
erection of the structure.
Although the Technical Consultant is supplied, his travel,
accommodation and meals will be charged to you at a fixed
cost of $4,910.00, sales and/or use taxes extra.
Concrete Footing. Base reactions will be provided when
required.
Leased structures will require our Technical Consultant for
dismantling. The same terms as outlined above under the
heading "Erection" and "Technical Consultant" will apply,
except that dismantling procedures will take approximately
one-half of the erection time. It will be your responsibility to
return the structure and tools, prepaid, to the depot in
Salt Lake City, Utah.
It will be your responsibility to obtain aI/ permits and licenses
and pay all applicable taxes. This structure is designed to
meet 110 mph, Exposure C Wind, as per ASCE-7-93 (BOCA,
SBCCI, UBC) and 130 mph, Exposure C, 3 second gust as per
ASCE-7-9a (IBC).
This quotation is valid for 60 days.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this quotation, To demonstrate our confidence in the integrity of the
Sprung Instant Structure we attach for your review our Guarantee Certificate No: E 0100. We look forward
to being of service to you.
Yours very truly,
SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES, INC.
Rob Piatkowski
Sales Manager
\
.,
'-'
'w
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-114
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE: County Funded Court-related Positions
Attached is a report prepared by Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director, listing the
court-related positions currently funded by S1. Lucie County. The left-hand column is the
total cost of these positions with the right-hand column being S1. Lucie County's portion
coming from property taxes, which totals $145,807.23.
DMAlab 04-114
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Attachment
~
'wI
Judge Bryan & Judge Kenny
Part-time
General Master Judicial Support
Contracted General Master
Part-time Office Assistant II
Court Administrator Admin
Personnel Specialist
Admin Secretary I
Pro Se Program
Pro Se Coordinators
Part-time Pro Se Coordinator
Mediation Program Coordinator
Contracted Domestic Relations Hearing Officer
Teen Court Program
Teen Court Director
Admin Secretary I
Contracted Civil Traffic Hearing Officer
SLC
2003-04 2003-04 SLC
Budget Budget Tax $
$ 7,182.00 $ 7,182.00 $ 7,182.00 1,8
62,400.00 62,400.00 62,400.00 1,8
5,552.00 5,552.00 5,552,00 1,8
97,666.00 40,140.73 40,140.73 2,8
46,443.00 19,088.07 19,088.07 2,8
46,603.00 19,153.83 3
81,898.00 11,444.43 11,444.43 4
108,522.00 44,602.54 3
32,585.00 15,792.00 5
488,851.00 225,355.60 145,807.23
Court Related Positions:
Total:
Notes:
1 Fine & Forfeiture (F&F) funded.
2 Funded by all four counties (St Lucie (41,10% -F&F), Martin, Indian River & Okeechobee) based on each
counties percentage of the total population of the Circuit
3 Funded by Teen Court (traffic fines) & Mediation/Arbitration (filing fees) $ from all four counties Trust Funds -
moneys are allocated by Administrative Order,
4 Funded by grants(66%) and all four counties (St Lucie. Martin, Indian River & Okeechobee)
based on each counties percentage of the total population of the Circuit
5 Funded by grant & traffic citations,
a Budgeted for nine months - Article V (State will fund these programs starting on 711104)
'-"
"wtI
St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office:
2000
Actual
2001
Actual
2002
Actual
2003
Actual
2004
Budget
2005
Request
Judicial 1,399,084 1,692,893 1,777,668 1,899,600 2,027,285 2,285,290
Law Enforcement 18,107,363 18,346,793 19,266,675 20,696,309 22,150,753 24,790,419
Corrections/Detention s 12,602,365 12,847,965 12,921,120 13,801,009 15,205,933 16,450,007
New Jail Pods 4,562,259
Subtotal 32,108,812 32,887,651 33,965,463 36,396,918 39,383,971 48,087,975
Excess Fees (73,242) (74,857) (75,582) (109,631)
Federal Prisoner Revenue (3,102,500)
Total 32,035,570 32,812,794 33,889,881 36,287,287 39,383,971 44,985,475
2% 3% 7% 9% 14%
/
. ,
/ .
. I
. ,
. .
~
"""
2004-2005
BUDGET REQUEST
~-eR/¡;.
e:, ~
(J)
-\
.
>-
I-
~
«(j 0-
C/E cO
>,
\w
....,
}/.
~i
. _,_~BI"',.
. ""'i:'" <'-LUC "~-~...'
'._ ~: ',~' ~1ír;'
... I,':;
',.. ~..((/
,~~~
~btrí~f
KEN J. MASCARA
Telephone: (772) 462-3200 . Fax: (772) 489-5851
4700 West Midway Road· Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
May 3, 2004
The Honorable Paula Lewis, Chair
St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County, Florida
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Chairwoman Lewis:
It is my pleasure to present my budget for the fiscal year 2004-2005. This budget reflects
the expenditures associated with the opening and operation in fiscal year 2004-2005 of the
new jail dormitories that the Commission recently approved.
I have included in the budget document a breakdown of revenue sources that will be used
to fund the Sheriffs Office operations, Please note the non-tax sources used to help defray
the increased costs. In consultation with your staff we have included the housing of two
hundred federal inmates for a portion of the year. We believe we will have the beds
available to house these federal inmates, and we will be fully staffed in the new facility.
The U.S. Marshals Service will not sign an agreement with the St. Lucie County to house
their inmates until the new jail facility is near completion. The Marshals Service has
verbally assured us that they are eager to house inmates at the St. Lucie County jail as
soon as space is available.
During the first three years of my administration have been focused on increasing wages at
the Sheriff's Office to a level that is fair and competitive. Our recent success to date in
attracting quality individuals to begin to fill the fifty-two new positions at the jail was only
possible because of this three-year effort.
As our county continues to grow at a record pace, I pledge to continue to work with the
County Commission and its staff to address growth issues as they arise.
Other than the increases due to staffing and operational cost of the new jail dormitories,
items that have driven up the costs in the budget are increases in health care (both
employee and inmate). retirement, workers compensation insurance, automobile insurance,
and liability insurance, These are increases that all governments are faced with and over
which they have essentially no control.
'-'
...."
(
The Honorable Paula Lewis
May 3, 2004
Page 2
As in previous years, I look forward to working with the County Commission and county
staff as we move through the budget process,
Sincerely,
ds
'-"
....,
St. Lucie County Sberifrs Office Budget Certificate 2004-2005
As required by Chapter 30.49(2)(a), I hereby certify that the proposed expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 are reasonable and necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the S1. Lucie County Sheriffs Office. Further, the functional distribution is
as follows:
16 Judicial 2,285,290
21 Law Enforcement 24,790,419
23 Detention 16,450,007
23 Detention (New Jail Pods) 4,562,259
Total Budget Expenditures
48,087,975
Miscellaneous Revenue
-117,000
Final Adjusted Budget Expenditures
From ad val arum
47,970,975
,r&i~~,
'51! ~ g~/flf.1J!
Respectfully submitted,
Ken J. Mascara, Sheriff
3
\wi
'WI
2004-2005 St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office Proposed Expenditures
Pursuant to FS 30.49(2)(a)
Salary of the Sheriff
$126,687
Salaries of deputies and assistants (ine!. benefits)
35,432,908
Expenses, other than salaries
11,415,692
Equipment
690,688
Investigations
72,000
Reserve for Contingencies
350,000
Total:
$48,087,975
Expenditures budgeted in the Special Revenue Fund
(grants, joint ventures, etc.)
3,646,898
4
'-'
2004-2005 BUDGETED REVENUES
Ad Valorum Tax Revenue
Impact Fee Revenue
Federal Prisoner Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
5/3/2004
""
44,622,975
245,500
3,102,500
47,970,975
(
line
##
'-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
5/3/2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40-1
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
16000 Judicial
512000-Salaries
513000-0ther (LIS Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA Mandatory
526000-Benefits
534000-Contracted Services
540410-Meals - Per Diem
541200-Pastage
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Ins.
546000-Tech Maintenance Cantracts
546425-Radio Accessories
547000-Printing & Binding
549420-Camputer Supplies & Access.
549445-Repairs & Maintenance
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552490-Equipment under $750
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554100-Educational/Seminars
554150-Tuition Reimbursement
564410-Capital Outlay - Vehicles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
'...I
Proposed
2004-2005
1,178,864
11,006
3,060
18,960
27,000
76,811
17,964
621,986
263,000
200
50
25,652
o
100
100
200
500
500
3,500
1,650
3,500
15,000
500
500
4,000
o
10,688
Personnel Services - Judicial
Operating - Judicial
Capital Outlay - Judicial
TOTAL JUDICIAL
21000 Law Enforcement
511100-Executive Salary:Sheriff
512000-Salaries (subtotal)
513000-0ther (L/S Vac/Sick/Lang)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
Holiday Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA Mandatory
52 6000-Bene fits
531000-Prafessiona1 Services
53143D-Atty Fee/Professional Fees
53149D-Accreditatian Costs
1,955,650
318,952
10,688
2,285,290
126,687
10,980,108
211,401
24,480
143,520
188,516
473,000
753,220
176,156
5,328,193
70,000
10,000
5,000
line
##
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
5/3/2004
'-"
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
534000-Contractural Services
535000-Investigations
540000-Travel and Per Diem
540410-Meals - Per Diem
540420-Private Vehicle Allowance
540440-Airlines, Lodging & Tolls
54l000-Communications
541l00-Telephone
54 1150-Cellular Phones
54l200-postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
5444l0-Leased Vehicles
545410-Auto Fleet Insurance
545420-Banding, Liab & Prop Ins.
546000-Tech. Maintenance Can tracts
5464l0-Auto Repair and Maintenance
546420-Radio - Install/Removal
546425-Radio Accessories
546430-Radia Rep. & Maint (Contrct)
546440-0ffice Equipment Rep & Maint
547000-Printing and Binding
547420-Copier Supplies
549100-Advertising
549410-Auto - Other Charges
549413-Towing
5494l5-Paint and Lettering
549420-Computer Supplies
549430-palygraph
549435-Crime Lab
549445-Repair & Maintenance
549450-Physical Examinations
549453-Automated Services
549460-Aviation
549470-Marine Repair, Maint, Dack
55l000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552410-Fuel and Lubricants
552420-Amrnunition
552430-Fingerprinting Supplies
552433-Phota Supplies
552440-0ther Investigative Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $750
552590-Photo Equipment
552700-Rentwear
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554000-Books, Publ, Subscr & Member
554100-Educatianal Seminars
554150-Tuitian Reimbursement
554500-Newspapers
554900-Training Equip & Supplies
564410-Capital Outlay - Vehicles
..."
Propased
2004-2005
60,000
72,000
2,000
500
500
2,000
72,000
120,000
110,000
20,000
140,000
48,513
80,000
352,671
349,932
200,000
255,000
2,000
3,000
250
1,000
30,000
25,000
8,000
20,000
100
8,000
40,000
10,000
106,433
50,000
18,000
157,300
288,465
58,708
40,000
70,000
20,000
810,000
50,000
3,000
9,000
500
90,000
1,200
5,000
75,000
15,000
15,000
45,000
15,000
1,000
15,000
625,000
line
#
'-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
.....,,;
Proposed
2004-2005
109
110
III
112
113
III
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125 ---¡
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
5/3/2004
564450-Capital Outlay - Motorcycles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
571000-Debt Service
573000-Transfer ta BOCC/Computers
581000-Interfund Transfers
599999/CONTINGENCY-L/E
o
o
241,456
36,271
1,206,339
200,000
PERSONNEL SERVICES
OPERATING - L/E
CAPITAL ASSET - L/E
CONTINGENCY - L/E
- L/E
TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
23000 Detention
512000-Salaries
513000-0ther (LiS Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
Holiday Pay
5HOOO-Overtime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA MM
526000-Benefits
531000-Professional Services
531410-Hospital/Physicians-Inmate
531490-Accreditation Costs (Detention)
534000-Contractural Svcs/Off Equip
540000-Travel & Per Diem
540410-Meals - Per Diem
540415-Prisaner Transport
540417-Prisoner Transport-Dept Veh.
540440-Airline, Lodging & Tolls
541100-Telephone
541150-Cellular Phones
541200-Postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
545410-Auto Fleet Insurance
545420-Banding, Liab & Prap Insur.
546000-Tech. Maintenance Contracts
546420-Radio Install/Removal
546430-Radio Repair & Maint (Cantr)
546440-0ffice Equipment R & M
547000-Printing and Binding
547420-Copier Supplies
549100-Advertising
549410-Auto - Other Charges
549415-Painting and Lettering
549420-Computer Supplies
18,405,281
5,560,138
625,000
200,000
24,790,419
7,153,297
64,470
15,300
63,600
266,757
300,000
487,532
114,020
3,790,516
20,000
2,409,640
3,000
20,000
1,000
1,000
152,000
o
2,500
o
5,000
2,500
275,000
8,000
o
113,573
°
500
1,000
500
5,000
8,000
3,000
o
o
11,000
line
II
',.
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
5/3/2004
"-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
549445-Repair and Maintenance
549447-Jail - Other
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552430-Fingerprinting Supplies
552433-Photo Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $750
552600-Jail Food
552610-Jail Supplies
552620-Jail Paper Goods
552630-Jail Laundry
552640-Jail Janitorial Supplies
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554000-Books, Publications' Mag.
554100-Educational/Seminars
554150-Tuition Reirnb.
554900-Training Supplies
564000-Capital Outlay
564410-Capital Outlay - Vehicles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
599999/CONTINGENCY-CORR
PERSONNEL SERVICES - DETEN
OPERATING - DETEN
CAPITAL OUTLAY - DETEN
CONTINGENCY - DETEN
TOTAL DETENTION
PERSONNEL SERVICES - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
OPERATING - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CAPITAL OUTLAY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CONTINGENCY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
TOTAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET REQUEST
.."
Proposed
2004-2005
25,000
3,000
11,000
4,500
600
1,000
1,000
10,000
775,200
75,000
15,000
5,000
40,000
60,000
6,000
1,000
15,000
1,500
2,500
o
o
o
100,000
12,255,493
4,094,513
o
100,000
16,450,006
32,616,424
9,973,603
635,688
300,000
43,525,715
~
. .,,;I
GENERAL BUDGET COMPARISON
PERSONNEL SERVICES - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
OPERATING - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CAPITAL OUTLAY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CONTRINGENCY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
2003-2004
BUDGET
31,110,452
8,295,519
516,876
300,000
TOTAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET
MINUS MISCELLANEAOUS REVENUE
TOTAL AD VALORUM TAX BUDGET REQUEST
40,222,847
-117,000
40,105,847
TOTAL PERCENT INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS YR:
8.24%
5/3/2004
2004-2005
REQUESTED BUDGET
32,616,424
9,973,603
635,688
300,000
43,525,715
-117,000
43,408,71S
(
line
#
'-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
.",,;
Proposed
2004-2005
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
5/3/2004
Jail Population Increase & New Pod Costs
512000-Sa1aries
Holiday Pay
521000-FICA
521100-FICA MM
526000-Benefits
531410-Hospital/Physicians-Inmate
540415-Prisoner Transport
541l50-Cellular Phones
541200-postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Renta1s and Leases
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Insur.
547420-Copier Supplies
549420-Computer Supplies
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $~50
552600-Jail Food
552610-Jail Supplies
552630-Jail Laundry
552640-Jail Janltorial Supplies
554100-Educational/Seminars
554900-Training Supplies
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
599999/CONTINGENCY-CORR
PERSONNEL SERVICES - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
OPERATING - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
CAPITAL OUTLAY - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
CONTINGENCY - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
TOTAL REQUEST fOR INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
GRAND TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES:
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY:
GRAND TOTAL CONTINGENCY:
GRAND TOTAL OF BUDGET REQUEST:
SHERIF,'S TOTAL OFFICE BUDGET
MINUS ~ISCELLANEAOUS REVENUES
TOTAL AD VALORU~ BUDGET REQUEST
1,730,436
66,555
111,413
26,056
1,008,710
804,360
16,000
3,000
1,000
97,000
22,000
62,798
9,000
2,000
5,000
63,500
75,000
295,431
6,000
3,000
30,000
16,500
2,500
55,000
50,000
2,943,170
1.514,089
55,000
50,000
4,562,259
35,559,595
11,487,692
690,688
350,000
48,087,975
48,087,975
-117,000
47,970,975
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
'-' ..."
-, "~-- ..
:"!.)"'L "', ",,~;', .::¡.,"':-¡,' . '___,:7:':" ~ <",,:,'biii~_\(';
.
.. ..
COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
DOUGLAS M, ANDERSON
December 14,2004
David F. Samuel
426 S.E. Gasperilla Avenue
Port St. Lucie, FL 34983
RE: Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Dear Mr. Samuel:
I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for serving on the Citizens' Budget
Development Committee for nine years. I enjoyed working with you as you
were a true asset to the Committee.
Again, thank you. Good luck to you in your future endeavors.
Sincerel ,
# .(j-. 4-
ougías M. Anderson
County Administrator
-
DMA/ab 04-150
c: Board of County Commissioners
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
JOSEPH E. SMITH, Districr No.1. DOUG COWARD, District No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, Disrrict No. J · FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Districr No.4· CHRIS CRAFT, Districr No.5
Counry Adminisrraror - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (772) 462-1450 · TDD (772) 462-1428
FAX (772) 462-1648· email: douga@co.st-Iucie.fl.us
web site: www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
'-"
"""
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEMORANDUM
Commissioner Doug Coward
TO:
J' bY fbO
r />1 JJI t ip:f(p
/1 r~yA
~,6¡~~\
ADDITION TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2004 1;) (A þÞ ,
~
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Doug C~ County Commissioner, District 2
FROM:
DATE:
November 3, 2004
SUBJ:
Please add an item for the consent agenda on November 9th, to have Toby Phi/part as my new appointee
on the Citizen's Budget Committee. His telephone number is 466-3099.
Thank you.
CC: Missy Stiadle, Assistant to the County Administrator
~
~ il'\V7ß 1,
NOV 0 ~ zou~ l~
co, f\DMiN. OFFICE
..
'-"
-....I
AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. 3A
rlt1$1;~:.:::":~~~Jf;~~~:~~~"., ,:~~,~l:Y!fJ~~ì:<'~~C, 1:t ~~ ~~ .' , ~_
DATE: November 9,2004
'F;4~~~;!~, ':~~l~'~:~)<!;;:~:~~; ",.- ,~. " , . ~
REG U LAR []
PUBLIC HEARING []
CONSENT [X]
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Administration
SUBJECT: Request permission to make appropriate chang
BACKGROUND: Please see attachment memo.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/ A
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the changes outlined in the attached memo
and direct the County Attorney to prepare appropriate documents.
COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE:
[] APPROVED[] DENIED
[] OTHER:
Douglas M. Anderson
County Administrator
Review and Approvals
County Attorney: _ Management & Budget:
Originating Dept: _ Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable)
Purchasing:
Other:
Effective: 5/96
'-'
'WI
.:~~~;tr*~~~~~~1~~1}~j¡~~\~~~;~ 3~~>:~y ~\.. .. ~ li,\. ¡~3 <
_J-~'
,~ - --:.t-
o - .
. .' ---. ..- .-
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
.7 ,.~.~"';~ ¡..:<~~,!¡"?~~-',}>:..<-" -'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM:
RAY WAZNY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
DATE:
RE:
REQUESTED CHANGES TO VARIOUS BOARD COMMITTEES
Staff recommends that the Board make the following changes:
1) Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
a) The Committee was created by Resolution No. 99-102
b) Recommend the Board defer Committee meetings pending Port
Development.
2) High Speed Rail Committee
a) The Committee was created by Resolution No. 86-132
b) Recommend the County Attorney prepare a resolution for the Board's
approval to abolish this committee.
3) Bicycle Advisory Committee
a) The Committee was created by Resolution No. 90-12 A
b) Recommend the County Attorney prepare a resolution for the Board's
approval to abolish this committee.
4) Technology Committee
a) The Committee was created by Resolution No. 00-258
b) Recommend the County Attorney prepare a resolution for the Board's
approval to abolish this committee.
5) Manatee Protection Committee
a) The Committee was created by Resolution No. 90-97
b) Recommend the County Attorney prepare a resolution for the Board's
approval to abolish this committee.
6) Council of Local Stormwater Management for the St. Lucie River and the Indian
River Lagoon
a) The Committee was created by Resolution No. 88-191
b) Recommend the County Attorney prepare a resolution for the Board's
approval to abolish this committee.
C: Board of County Commissioners
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Karen Butcher, Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator
Dennis Wetzel, Information Technology Director
Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Resources Manager
'-'
'wi
RESOLUTION NO. 99-102
A RESOLUTION CREATING THE FORT
PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE;
AND PROVIDING FOR DUTIES AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made
the following determinations:
1. The Seaport Advisory Committee was established by the Port and Airport Authority in
1981.
2. On April 13, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners changed the name of the Seaport
Advisory Committee to the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee in order to broaden the scope
of the committee.
3. On April 13, 1999, this Board also discussed and approved the objectives of the Fort
Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee.
4. This Board should create the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee for the purpose of
advising the Board of County Commissioners on matters relating to Harbor related proj ects and to
review and provide recommendations to the Board on Harbor projects and operations.
5. This Board should further define the duties and functions of the Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of S1.
Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby create the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee. Such
Committee shall have the following duties and functions:
a. To review and make recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners on Harbor related projects.
'-"
"""
b. To identifY and make recommendations on Federal and State Harbor project
grants.
c. To continually review Harbor operations, policies and safety.
d. To review environmental issues affecting the Indian River Lagoon and make
recommendations to protect the bio-diversity of the Indian River Lagoon.
2. The actions, decisions and recommendations of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory
Committee shall not be final or binding on the Board of County Commissioners, but shall be advisory
only.
3. The Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee shall consist of nine (9) members who shall
be appointed as follows:
a. Each Board member shall appoint one (1) member to serve on the Committee,
and the Chainnan shall be selected ITom these appointments and shall run
concurrent with the term of the appointing 'Commissioner.
b. Three (3) members shall be selected for appointment to the Committee by
each of the following municipalities for two (2) year terms:
1. One (1) designee ITom the City of Port S1. Lucie.
2. One (1) designee ITom the City of Fort Pierce.
3. One (1) designee ITom St. Lucie Village.
c. The remaining one (1) member shall be appointed At Large by the Board of
County Commissioners.
d. All members shall serve without compensation.
4. Vacancies for all appointments shall be filled upon:
a. Death of a member.
b. Resignation.
c. Removal by appointing authority.
d. Three (3) unexcused absences in a six (6) month period.
Vacancies shall be filled by the Commissioner who nominated the member who
created the vacancy subject to the appointment approval of the Board of County
Commissioners for the unexpired term only.
'-'
..;
5. The Committee Chainnan shall establish a time and place for holding meetings as shall be
necessary and the Committee shall adopt· such rules of organization and procedure as may be
required.
6. The Committee may establish sub-committees for specific subjects or tasks ITom among
its members. The Committee shall hold its first meeting as soon as possible ITom the date this
resolution is adopted.
7. The County Administration staff shall provide support for the Committee and shall keep
a record of its proceedings.
8. If any action, sentence, or clause oftbis resolution is held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Chairman Paula A. Lewis XX
Vice Chairman John D. Bruhn XX
Commissioner Cliff Barnes XX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX
Commission Doug Coward XX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 1999.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
DEPUTY CLERK
CHAIRMAN
C,Jennifer Cruz - Re: Technology Com~ee
....,I.
P~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dennis Wetzel
Cruz, Jennifer
11/2/20041:34:46 PM
Re: Technology Committee
There was previously a Board of Governors back when IT was called Automated Services and all the
Constitutional Officers sat on the board wth the County Administrator. The BoCC hired a consultant, MGT
of America in 1999 and they recommended the Board of Governors be replaced as it was no longer
functioning. The Technology Committee was that replacement. However most of the Constitutional Offices
now have their own IT staff and they did not express interest in attending the Technology Committee
meetings. The IT Executive Secretary has tried for over a year to schedule a meeting an there does not
seem to be enough interest to hold a meeting.
Dennis Wetzel
Director
Information Technology
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce.
St Lucie County, Florida
34982-5652
772-462-1748
'-'
-....I
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Cruz - Technology Committee
""..,
~~I$,-"'r>r~
~. ---
~",,-
, "''''''-",,",''=
-~
=~~~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
cc:
Ruth DeStafney
Dennis Wetzel; Jennifer Cruz
8/5/2004 2:39 PM
Technology Committee
Traci Sullivan
Jennifer,
I located Traci's file on this committee. According to the documentation there was a resolution (#00-257) that
abolished the Board of Governors and another resolution (#00-258) creating the Technology Committee and was
approved by the Board on December 19, 2000.
Let me know if you need anything else concerning this item.
Ruthie
Ruth DeStafney, Administrative Secretary
St. Lucie County BOCC
Information Technology Dept.
2300 Virginia Ave
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
772-462-1179 (direct line)
772-462-1443 (fax)
Email: ruthd@co.st-Iucie.fl.us
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\Local %20Settings\ T emp\G W} 0000 1.... 11/2/2004
'-'
'wi
~
(?/
RESOLUTION NO. 86-132
A RESOLUTION ADTBORIZ IBG THB CRBM'ION
OF A BIGB SPBBD RAIL ADVISORY (X)IOIIftBE
AND PROVIDIBG FOR DUTIBS AND FUNCTIONS
OF '1'BB COIUII'1'TBB
784689
WBEREAS, the Board of county Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, has determined that the Board should create a
High Speed Rail Advisory Committee, and
WHEREAS, this Board has determined to further define the
duties and functions of the Committee,
NOIf, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, that:
1. This Board creates the st. Lucie County High Speed Rail
Advisory Committee.
2. The Committee shall consist of seven (7) members who
shall be appointed as follows:
(a) Each Board member shall appoint one (1) person to
serve on the Committee.
(b) The Board shall appoint two (2) members from a list
submitted by the Go Team, the St. Lucie County
Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Port St. Lucie
Chamber of Commerce.
(c) All Committee appointments shall be subject to the
approval of this Board.
3. Each member shall serve at the pleasure of the person
appointing the member during the term of the person
appointing the member. Vacancies shall be filled upon:
(a) Death of a member
~o~~ 516 PÀ~ 488
'-'
..."",¡
-
(b) Resignation
(c) Removal
(d) Three (3) unexcused absences in a six (6) month
period.
Vacancies shall be filled by the person who nominated
the member who created the vacancy, subject to the
appointment approval of this Board.
4. This Board directs the Committee members to designate
appropriate officers from the appointments to the
Committee as approved by the Board.
5. The Committee shall establish a time and place for
holding meetings as shall be necessary and the Committee
shall adopt such rules of organization and procedure as
may be required.
The Committee may establish
subcommittees for specific subjects or tasks from among
its members. The Committee shall hold its first meeting
no later than four (4) weeks from the date this
resolution was adopted.
6. The Committee shall have the following duties and
functions:
(a) Serve in an advisory role to the St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners in matters relating
to the promotion and development of the Florida
High Speed Rail System.
(b) To make recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding policies relative to the
establishment and adoption of the Florida High
Speed Rail System.
o ~ r:.4 6 p"GE 4:89
~oo~ ÛJ.
'-
.....,¡
(c) Review all pertinent documents relative to the
establishment and adoption of the Florida High
Speed Rail System.
After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as
follows:
Chairman Bavert L. Fenn
Aye
Aye
Absent
Vice Chairman Jim Minix
Commissioner E. E. Green
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner
Aye
Aye
Commissioner Jack Krieger
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 23rd day of September, 1986.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COOH'l'Y COIlllI&SIORBRS
ST. LUCIE C()(J!nY,. ft.oRIDA
~~~¡}af'
CLBRK r
Ji.~ ~ r;- .
BY > ~
CHAIRMAN -t.' .
. ..t..¿ "j 4>
APPROVED AS TO FORM Áínf
¡lh~
COOR'l'Y A:
784689
'86 OCT -1 P3:04(
fill
ROGU,:. '.
ST. LlIC:E ' ....
~O~K 516 PAGE ~90
~: g b'" 1\
~-<~ 'gD:5fb
~~
-
1022143
RecFe IQ..-sÒ DOUG
1'_:'" ~ t,'ec $ __ St. L\.:ci
D,,;.- ?"l:: $
In¡; T· :. :~
- - . -- - -.- -.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-12J~~I~ /î;{V
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REORGANIZATION
.. - ~ OF A BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND
PROVIDING FOR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of st. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. In 1986 the st. Lucie County Urbanized Area Metrop
develop
'an
acceptable
comprehensive
community
b
Planning Organization created an Urban Ar~a Bicycle Ad
Cornmi ttee for the purpose of providing information in
transportation plan; giving advise on matters relating to b
transportation;
and
providing
technical
assistance
and
information
on matters relating to bicycle transportati n to
lòcal agencies and offices requesting information and assi
2. As the Bicycle Advisory Committee has not met fo some
a
including schools, law enforcement agencies, civic organiza
and interested citizens.
time, it is necessary to authorize the reorganization
Bicycle Advisory Committee and provide duties and functio s of
said Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Commissioners of st. Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby authorize the reorganizatio of a
Bicycle Advisory Committee in st. Lucie County, Florida fo the
following purposes:
( a) To advise the Board of County Cornmissione s on
matters relating to bicycle transportation.
-"
J:
gO~K 675 PAGf934
Iio.
J
~
-
e
(b) To provide technical assistance and informaticn on
matters relating to bicycle transportation to local
agencies and offices requesting said inforn ation
and assistance: including the Metropolitan Plënning
Organization, schools, law enforcement ager.cies,
civic organizations and interested citizens.
(c) To study the need and possible locations for
bicycle paths within st. Lucie County.
2. The Coromi ttee shall consist of a total of eleven (11)
voting members as follows:
(a) One elected official from each of the thre (3)
local governmental entities - the Ci ty of Fort
Pierce, the City of Port St. Lucie, and st. Lucie
County, appointed by the respective entity, ttereby
filling three (3) appointments.
(b) Each Board member shall appoint one (1) perso~ who
represents one of the following interests as a
representative to serve on the Bicycle Ad.. isory
Committee, thereby filling five (5) addi't ional
appointments:
(1) Planning
(2) Transportation E~gineer
(3) Education
(4) Law Enforcement
(5) Bicycle Shop
(6) Employer or Local Business
(7) Parents Group (P.T.A. etc.)
( 8 ) Parks and Recreation
(9) Civic Service Organization
(10) Interested/Active Bicyclist
(11) Bicycle Club
(12) Senior Citizen Group
(13) Citizen at Large
(i) Each of these five (5) members appointed 3haII
serve at the pleasure of the commiss'on~r
appointing the member.
(ii) Each Board appointment shall be subject t~ the
approval of the Board of County Commissio~ers.
(c) The remaining three (3) appointments shall be made
at large and represent at least one of the
following interests:
( 1 ) Planning
(2) Transportation Engineer
RO~K 675 PAGE 935
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(i)
(ii)
e
e
3. The Bicycle Advisory Committee shall select a Ch
and Vice-Chairman.
Education
Law Enforcement
Bicycle Shop
Employer or Local Business
Parents Group (P.T.A. etc.)
Parks and Recreation
Civic Servi~e Organization
Interested/Active Bicyclist
Bicycle Club
Senior Citizen Group
Citizen at Large
The at large members appointed shall se
the pleasure of the Board.
Each at large member appointed shal
subject to the approval of the Board of
Commissioners.
The Committee shall establish a time and plac
holding meetings as shall be necessary an
Commi ttee shall adopt such rules of organi
and procedure as may be required.
(a)
(b)
for
the
ation
The Committee may establish sub-commit-tee
specific subjects or tasks from among its me
The Committee shall hold i-ts first meeting as
as possible from the date -this resolutia
adopted.
4. Vacancies for all appointments shall be filled upo
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(a)
Death of a member.
Resignation.
Removal.
for
ers.
soon
is
Vacancies for any of the three (3) local gover
posi tions (as described in paragraph 2 ( a) a
shall be filled in the same manner as they
originally appointed - by the respective enti-t .
Vacancies for any of the five (5) individ
appointed positions (as described in paragraph
above) shall be filled by the Commissione
appointed the member who created the vac
subject -to the appointment approval of -this Bo
Vacancies for any of the three (3) a-t
appointments (as described in paragraph 2(c)
(b)
(0)
~615 flit 936
- .
,. . ..
.
-
shall be filled in the same manner as they were
originally appointed - at large - and subj e t to
the appointment approval of this Board.
5 . The
Public
Works
Department,
and
other
departments as required, shall provide staff support
Committee.
the
prohibited by law.
6. This resolution shall apply to all respects
follows:
After motion and second the vote on this resolution
AYE
Chairman. R~ Dale TrefeLner
Vice Chairman Havert L. Fenn
AYE
AYE
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
Commissioner Jim Minix
Commissioner Jack Krieger
ABSENT
AYE
/
ATTE.ST:
~ASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1990
~O~K 675 PAGE 937
'-'
-.....I
I I
e
.
r'
RESOLUTION NO. 00-258
A RESOLUTION CREATING THE
TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE,' AND
PROVIDING FOR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of S1. Lucie County, Florida, has made
the following determinations:
1. The Board of County Commissioners engaged MGT of America, Inc. ("MGT'') to conduct
a study of the entire Automated Services Department
2. In the 81. Lucie County Automated Services Management Study Final Report dated
August 31, 1999, submitted by MGT, MGTrecommended the Board ofGovemors be abolished, and
further recommended a Technology Committee be created in its place.
3. This Board should create the Technology Committee for the purpose of advising the
Board of County Commissioners on matters relating to Information Technology County-wide; and
to review and provide recommendations in all aspects relating to standard policies, procedures, and
budgetary needs.
4. This Board should further define the duties and functions of the Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bytheBoardofCòunty Commissioners ofS1.
Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby create the Technology Committee. This Committee shall have
the following duties and functions:
a. Review and update the Technology Plan annually.
b. Monitor the level of technology support available to county offices and
devise strategies for improving it as necessary.
c. Assist in establishment of technology budgets.
'-'
'wi
... A
,.
e
e
-'
,
d. Provide assistance and guidance on the types' and amount of training that
should be available.
e. Set priorities that help guide the development efforts of Information
Technology.
f. Develop hardware, software, and network standards.
g. Offer advice on technology grant applications/proposals.
h. Recommend revisions iri policies and procedures that impact technology use.
2. The action, decisions and recommendations of the Technology Committee shall not be
final or biriding on the Board of County Commissioners, but shall be advisory only.
3. The Technology Committee shall consist of (14) members who continue funding the
Information Technology Operating Budget and shall be appointed as follows:
a.. The County Administrator or his designee shall act as Chairman of the
Technology Committee and appoint members with voting rights from
Departments under the Board of County Commissioners. The Constitutional
Officers; Court Administrator; State Attorney; and Public Defender will each
appoint one voting member to serve on the Committee.
b. The Committee may establish sub-committees for specific subjects or tasks
from among its members to reduce the amount of time each Technology
Committee member must devote to the functions of that committee and to
spread the responsibility for contributing to the County's technology
strategies among a larger nwnber of people.
c. All members shall serve without compensation.
4. Membership sball be tenninated upon:
a. Death
b. End of Employment
c. . Removal by majority vote of the Committee
d. Three (3) unexcused absences in a six (6) month period.
Vacancies for all appointments shall be filled by the majority vote of the
Technology Committee.
5. The Committee Chairman shall establish a time and place for holding the meetings as
'-
. .
r
e
.-
'-'
.
shall be necessary and the Committee shall adopt rules of organization and procedure as may be
required.
6. The Committee shall hÇ>ld its first meeting as soon as possible from the date this
resolution is adopted.
7. The County Administration staff shall provide support for the Committee by providing
the required public notice, preparing agendas and keeping a record of its proceedings.
8. If any action, sentence, or clause of this resolution is held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by any Court of competent jurisdiction then said holding shall in no way effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Chairman Frannie Hutchinson
AYE
Vice Chairman Doug Coward
AYE
Commissioner Paula A. Lewis
AYE
Commissioner Cliff Barnes
AYE
Commissioner John D. Bruhn
NAY
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2000.
ATTEST:
-
,.
. ,
Tota1,~
(/t-< C~·~
t.f~tfz~
tt}ð ßð~ -' ·
. ~ r _ f:;.L¿ jA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CRE1\TION OF THE
7~ MANATEE PROTECTION CITIZENS ADVISORY
-,- COMMITTEE, AND PROVIDING FOR DUTIES AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
.
1038798
!"~ ~~ ~ J. 1:). 90
_d Fee ;
u·)c Tax S _._
1nt Tax ~
RESOLUTION NO.
90-97.
J ~ va
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of st. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. This Board should create a Manatee Protection Ci izens
Plan,
planning and recommending
required
ction
Advisory Committee for the purpose of reviewing the I
Manatee Plan, developing a draft permanent Manatee
the
cing,
developing a draft ordinance, and advising on boating afety
rules,
regulations
and
policies
contingent
upon
state
requirements.
2. This Board should further define the dutie and
functions of the Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Commissioners of st. Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby create the Manatee prot ction
Citizens Advisory Committee.
2. The Manatee Protection Citizens Advisory Committee shall
consist of fifteen (15) voting members to be appointed by this
Board representing the following interests:
(a) Recreation Boating
(b) Sports Fishing
(c) Commercial Fishing
(d) Marinas
(e) Environmental/Conservation Groups
(f) Law Enforcement/Marine Patrol
(g) Coast Guard Auxi1iary
(h) Bait/Tackle Shop Proprietors
(i) Marine Equipment and Supp1y Company Proprieto s or
Representatives
(j) General Public
gO~K686 rÅcE2798
, I
'-'
.
....."
.
3. Each Commissioner shall make three (3) appointmen s to
serve
at the discretion of the Cammissioner making the
appointment or until June, 1993.
4. Each appointment shall be subject to the approval 0 the
Board of County Commissioners.
5. The Committee will remain in effect until June, 993,
when the Permanent Manatee Protection Plan for st. Lucie C
select a Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Election . shall
the
must be approved by the State or until the County Coromi
determines otherwise.
6. The Manatee protection Citizens Advisory Committee
first of October of each fiscal year and the Chairman and ice-
Chairman will serve for the period of one (1) year.
(a) The Committee shall establish the time and lace
for holding meetings as shall be necessary an the
Coromi ttee shall adopt such rules of organi ation
and procedure as may be required.
(b) The Committee may establish sub-committee for
specific subjects or tasks from among it's me ers.
7. Vacancies for all appointments shall be filled upo
(a) Death of a member
(b) Resignation
(c) Removal
8. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as they
were originally appointed - by the respective Commissioner - and
subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioner .
9. This resolution shall apply to all respects
less
prohibited by law.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution w s as
follows:
~O~K 686 PÁGE 2799
·~ .
on ~ .
'-'
It
.
-. '
Chairman R. Dale Trefelner
AYE
Vice Chairman Havert L. Fenn
AYE
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
AYE
Commissioner Jack Krieger
ABSENT
Commissioner Jim Minix
AYE
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 3rd
~
1990.
·90 Am 16 A9 :31
1038798 6)\
fILED ANO RF(:0Rn¡:T
OOUGl¿:;· :.:¡xúh
51. LUC;¡: UJUNT f.
~O~K 686 PÁG~ 2800
.' ^
'-'
"""
RESOLUTION NO. 98-191
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING EACH OF THE
LOCAL GOVERNl\1ENTS IN THE ST. LUCIE
RIVER AND INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
WATERSHED DESIGNATE AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL AND A STAFF MEMBER TO
REPRESENT THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STORMW ATER PROGRAM, AND AGREE TO
JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN A COUNCIL OF
LOCALSTO~ATERMANAGEMENTFOR
THE ST. LUCIE RIVER AND INDIAN RIVER
LAGOON
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie CountY, Florida, has made
the following determinations:
1. St. Lucie County has established a Stormwater Management Program to provide flood
protection and improve the quality of stormwater runoff prior to discharge to the St Lucie River and
Indian River Lagoon.
2. Other local governments in the same watershed have also established stormwater
management programs, including Port St Lucie, Stuart, Ft. Pierce, Sewalls Point and Martin County.
3. Controlling the quantity and improving the quality of stormwater runoff within the
watershed of the River and Lagoon is critical to their restoration.
4. Intergovernmental coordination can help each local government improve stormwater
quality to the benefit of all residents in and visitors to the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners ofSt.
Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby request that each of the local governments in the watershed
designate an elected official and a staff member to represent their local government stormwater
program.
. .
.'
'-'
....,
. .
2. This Board further requests that each government by resolution agree to join and
participate in a Council of Local Stonnwater Management for the St. Lucie River and Indian River
Lagoon.
3. This Board recommends that such Council meet quarterly to discuss projects to improve
water quality, seek funding sources for construction of same, and generally work to improve local
stonnwater management consistent with the regional plans of South Florida Water Management
District and United States Army Corps of Engineers to restore the River and Lagoon.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Chainnan Gary D. Charles, Sr.
AYE
Vice Chairman Paula A. Lewis
AYE
Commissioner Cliff Barnes
AYE
Commissioner Ken Sattler
AYE
Commissioner John D. Bruhn
AYE
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1998.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COm.,¡r COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COm.,¡r, FLORIDA
BY,)!~ ~ t
APPROVElJjS TO FORM AND
CO CTNESS:
. ~9!ß.
COUNTY ATT
~
....,
FROM:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-201
TO:
DATE:
RE: Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
The Public Safety Coordinating Council is scheduled to meet on October 28, 2004 at 3:30
p.m. Dr. Kalmanoff, Executive Director of the Institute for Law and Policy Planning (ILPP),
will provide the council with an update on the Criminal Justice System Study.
The Citizens' Budget Development Committee is invited to attend this informative meeting.
Enclosed is a draft Sf. Lucie County Criminal Justice System Assessment report from ILPP
for your review.
DMNab 04-201
c: Board of County Commissioners
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Public Safety Coordinating Council
\ Ken Mascara, Sheriff
Garry Wilson, Chief Deputy
Toby Long, Finance Director, Sheriffs Office
Pat Tighe, Major - Director of Detention
\w
...,.;
ILPP
Institute for Law and Policy Planning
I.
\
St. Lucie County
C· · al Justice
System Assessment
System Data Draft · October 2004
~
......., ~ .~. ;~_r-"' -~ ",'
. -~" -:....
:;;\ OCT 2 1 2004 Y
co. ADMIN. OFFICE
'-'
....,
riminal J
D
~~---------,,-~-------~
ILPP
\
2613 Hillegass Avenue· Berkeley, California· 94704
Phone 510.486.8352 . Fax 510.841.3710
'w'
......,
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 1 OF 25
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary report contains data derived from the St. Lucie County Criminal Justice
System Assessment. The study was commissioned by the Board of County Commissioners
and conducted by the Institute for Law and Policy Planning.
SYSTEM DATA1
Jail population studies are an integral part of ILPP's evaluation of criminal justice system
operations. Two types of studies are conducted to determine how criminal justice resources
are currently used and to identify system issues that can be addressed through more effective
and/ or efficient system management. The inmate tracking analysis looks at arrestees
booked and released from jail over a given period (i.e., "who comes into jail") and the
inmate profile analysis provides a snapshot of a jail's population on a given day (i.e., "who
stays in jail").
1.0 Tracking Analysis
\
An inmate tracking analysis follows the flow of detainees and inmates through the jail to
evaluate the efficiency of the flow and to identify points or areas in the criminal justice
system where processing delays lead to jail crowding. The tracking analysis begins with the
premise that jail crO\vding is a consequence of actions throughout the criminal justice system.
Evaluating population flow through the jail from the time of booking until release can
highlight points in the s)'Stem process that impact cro"ding.
ILPP uses a tracking model recommended by the i'-:ational Institute of Corrections (NIC).
Under this model, a sample of released prisoners is randomly drawn and then tracked back to
the point of incarceration. To accomplish this analysis in St. Lucie County, electronic records
on nearly 1,200 inmates released between July 13,200'+ and July 31, 2004 were obtained from
the jail's record management system. A random sample of 359 inmates was then selected and
paper flies on the inmates were pulled. Information in the paper flies was then cross-
referenced with the electronic data to yield a comprehensive and complete data bank.2
Findings from the tracking analysis are outlined belo'"
1 In several cases throughout the review, totals may not add \.'1' to 100 percent. There are two reasons for this
occurrence: rounding error and exclusion of insignificant categories,
2 ILPP also randomly selected 100 cases and cross referenced the jail records ,"vith information at the Clerk of
Courts office to validate the data, The analysis proved, within reason, that information at the jail was consistent
with court records,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
'-'
~
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 2 OF 25
1.1 Demographics
A large majority of the individuals in the tracking sample were male, Caucasian3, and high
school educated. The average age was 34 years old.
Sex
Male
Female
79%
21%
Race
Caucasian/Hispanic
African American
62%
38%
Age
18-23 years old
24-29 years old
30-35 years old
36-41 years old
42-47 years old
48 or oldér
'ì?~/O
21%
17%
16%
12%
13%
Education Level
1_8d! grade
9-11 th grade
12d1 grade
Post High School
10%
35%
-U)%
16%
1.2 Charge Md ~ Related Fad0rs4
\
Nearly all persons in the tracking sample \vere taken into custody by one of the County's
three law enforcement agencies. The St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office accounted for most of
the arrests (63%), either through patrol functions or court services, followed by Fort Pierce
PD (23%) and Port St. Lucie PD (13%). Just over half of the arrests (54%) were for felony
offenses, mosdy third degree felonies, and crimes of drug (23% of the arrests), domestic
violence (12%), and property (10%) predominated, although probation violations (17%) also
weighed heavily.
3 The St, Lucie County Jail does not distinguish Caucasians from Hispanics, The new record management system
will correct this situation.
4 Charge and offense £actors are based on the most serious offense,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
'tc4ltllll1
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 3 OF 25
Arresting Agency
Sheriff- Court & Patrol
Fort Pierce PD
Port St. Lucie PD
Other
63%
23%
13%
2%
Offense Level
Misdemeanor 1
Misdemeanor 2
Misdemeanor 3
Felony 1
Felony 2
Felony 3
35%
13%
o
6%
15%
33%
Offense Types
Drug
Violation of Probation
Domestic Violence
Property
Public order
Violence
Traffic
DUI
Fugitive
Failure to Appear
Violation of Community
Sex
23%
17%
12%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
3%
2%
1%
1%
. Persons in the tracking sample were charged with an average of two offenses.
\ 1.3 Booking and Release Variables
Approximately half of the tracking sample (48%) was booked into the detention facility for
probable cause. The other half largely entered the jail on documents for arrest (29%) and
warrants (20%). Release of inmates, on the other hand, generally occurred when prisoners
posted bond (42%), completed their sentence (23%), or were transferred to the Department
of Corrections (DOC) (14%). Of those released on bond, roughly 60% were charged with a
S Offenses were grouped into categories for the purpose of the analysis, Examples of each category are as fo11o,,"'5: Violent-
assault, homicide, robbery, kidnapping; Sex- rape, se.x abuse of a minor, sexual assault; Property- theft, passing bad checks,
arson, auto theft, criminal damaging; Drug- possession of controlled substance, drug paraphernalia, clandestine lab
operation; Public order- disorderly conduct, prostitution, solicitation, escape, weapons violations; Domestic violence-
domestic violence, child abuse, protective order violation; Traffic- driving under suspension, no driver's license, speed; and
DUI- driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
'w
'~
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 4 OF 25
misdemeanor offense.
misdemeanants.
A similar proportion (60%) of the time served releases was also
Booking Reason
Probable Cause
Document for Arrest
Warrant
Bondsmen off Bond
Bond Revoked
Other
48%
29%
20%
2%
1%
1%
Release Mode
Bonded
Time Served
Transferred to DOC
Credit for Time Served
Transferred Out to Other
Released on Recognizance
Release to Return
Other
42%
23%
14%
8%
6%
3%
2%
2%
. Nine percent of the inmates had a holder (84% for other law enforcement agencies, 10%
immigration, 6% other).
1A Bond
More than a third (36%) of the inmates in the tracking sample were ineligible for bond (e.g.,
they were sentenced to jail or prison) or were denied bond by the courts (e.g" probation
violators, persons with bonds re,oked, failure to appear cases, etc.). Of those assigned bond,
the median amount \vas $2,500 for felony-level charges and $350 for misdemeanor-level
charges. As one would expect, the amount of bond increased with the level of the offense,
Charges of sex, violence, and drugs generally garnered the highest bonds, and few probation
violators (15%) were given the opportunity to post bail. DUI, traffic, and public order
offenses, in contrast, were associated with the lowest bail amounts.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
..,¡
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 5 OF 25
Bond Amounts
No bond
$1- 2,000
$2,001- 5,000
$5,001- 10,000
$10,001- 25,000
$25,001- 50,000
$50,001 or more
36%
28%
19%
6%
7%
3%
1%
Median Bond Amounts by Offense Level
Felony 1 $50,000
Felony 2 $10,000
Felony 3 $2,500
Misdemeanor 1 $500
Misdemeanor 2 $250
Misdemeanor 3 nl a
Median Bond Amounts by Offense Type
Probation Violation No bond
Failure to Appear No bond
Sex $10,000
Violence $5,000
Drug $5,000
Property $2,500
Domestic Violence $1,500
DUl $350
Traffic $250
Public order $250
. The overall median bond amount was $2,500.
\
1.6 PletriaI Detention
In the tracking sample, 244 of the 359 individuals were brought into jail due to probable
cause or warrant arrest, Of these offenders, 62% were released because they a) posted bond,
b) were transferred to another agency, or c) had the charges dropped. Remaining in jail,
therefore, were indiyiduals unable to secure their release while awaiting adjudication. Pretrial
detention greatly affected the ayerage length of stay (ALOS) for the tracking sample as those
released during pretrial stayed an ayerage of five days, while those held remained an average
of 104 days.
A majority of the pretrial detainees (55%) were accused felons, with the balance
misdemeanors. Looking at the nature of the charges revealed many were accused of a
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
....,¡
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 6 OF 25
probation violation (35%), although crunes of drug (22%) violence (18%), and property
(12%) were common also.
1.7 Average ~tI. fA stay (ALOS)
The overall ALOS for the tracking sample was 41 days, but this number is slightly deceiving
as a majority of the indi,-iduals was released in much less time. Indeed, roughly one out of
every three individuals (35%) booked into jail was released within 72 hours, and three out of
every five individuals (60%) were detained 30 days or less. The remaining 40%, however,
were incarcerated for multiple months, and these cases drove the overall ALOS to a very
high figure.6
The level of offense and the type of charges gready effected how long individuals were
incarcerated, Accused and/or com-icted felons, 54% of the sample, were incarcerated nearly
four times longer, on anrage, than individuals adjudicated on misdemeanor charges, It is not
surprising, therefore, that the highest ALOS figures were for categories of crime that contain
felony-laden charges (i.e" property, drug, and violence), while predominantly misdemeanor
categories (e.g., traffic, public order, and DUI) had lower lengths of stay.
Overall ALOS
1-3 days
4- 7 days
8-30 days
31-60 days
61-90 days
91-120 days
121-180 days
181-365 days
365 days or more
35%
6%
19%
14%
7%
7%
5%
5%
2%
:-':ore: Chart continued on
next page.
\
ALOS by Offense Level
Felony
Misdemeanor
71 days
19 days
ALOS by Offense Type
Property
Drug
Violence
Probation Violation
Traffic
70 days
64 days
60 days
59 days
30 days
6 Cases where inmates were detained longer than 450 days were excluded when calculating the ALOS because
they greatly distorted the a,erage,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
...,,¡
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 7 OF 25
Failure to Appear
Domestic violence
Public Order
Sex
DUI
Fugitive
24 days
23 days
20 days
12 days
12 days
9 days
The reason individuals entered and exited the jail also factored into the :\LOS, Persons booked
on document for arrese averaged the longest periods of confinement (58 days), overall, while
those arrested on warrants commonly served more days than indiyiduals arrested for probable
cause (47 days versus 39 days, respectively). As far as release modes, indiyiduals sentenced to
DOC were incarcerated the greatest number of days (121), mostly because they were detained
throughout pretrial. Persons sentenced to jail had the second highest :liDS (12 days), and again
pretrial detention figured into this average.
The elevated ALOS for release on bond (5 days) and ROR (12 days) are particularly striking given
that persons released under these circumstances usually have their jail time measured in hours, not
days. The numbers for these release modes are clearly skewed by those cases that fall outside the
majority. In fact, this is the case as 62% of the persons booked were release on bond within 1 day
and half of the RORs occurred within 48 hours. However, it is also interesting to note that
removing those released on bond qtÚckly (one day or less) from the equation reyealed that it took
an average of 12 days for the remaining "bond-outs" (the other 38% released on bond) to be
released.
ALOS by Booking Reason
Document for Arrest (n=l04)
Bondsmen off Bond (n=6)
\Varrant (n=70)
Probable Cause (n= 174)
Bond Revoked (n=3)
Other (n=2)
58 days
49 days
47 days
38 days
29 days
48 days
\
ALOS by Release Mode
Transferred to DOC (n=57)
Time Served (n=81)
Transferred Out to Other (n= 17)
Credit for Time Served (n= 81)
Release to Return (n=7)
Released on Recognizance (n=12)
Bonded (n= 152)
Other (n= 5)
121 days
72 days
57 days
51 days
49 days
12 days
5 days
25 days
7 "Document for arrest," a category used by the jail, includes persons sentenced to jail or prison, holds for other
agencies, and other instances where a court order requires detainment,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
'-
~
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 8 OF 25
2.0 Profile (Snapshot) Analysis
A profIle, or "snapshot," of the jail population on a gi\Ten day can be used to determine
current housing needs and classification levels for the jail, as well as long term facility
planning. In addition, combined with the previous tracking analysis, it provides a
complementary source of information that allows policy makers to understand their jail
population thoroughly. While the tracking creates a sense of the speed of the flow through
the jail system, the profIle creates a cross section of who is in the jail. Taken together, these
analyses can be powerful tools in planning correctional needs.
The profIle of the St. Lucie County Jail was taken on August 8, 200~, On that day, the
inmate population was 1,146 inmates and a sample of 359 inmates was randomly selected by
ILPP for the analysis. The results are presented below.
2.1 Demographics
Overall, the demographics for the profIle analysis were similar in nature to the data reported
for the tracking analysis: a majority of the individuals was male, Caucasian, and high school
educated; and the average age was 33 years old. Examining the numbers more closely,
however, revealed some slight differences. Specifically, inmates were more likely male (+5%
compared to the tracking analysis), minority (+7%), and younger (+~% under the age of29).
Sex
Male
Female
84%
16%
Race
Caucasian/Hispanic
African American
55%
45%
\
Age
18-23 years old
24-29 years old
30-35 years old
36-41 years old
42-47 years old
48 or older
27%
20%
13%
16%
12%
11%
Education Level
1_8d' grade
9-11 d, grade
12th grade
Post High School
9%
38%
43%
10%
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
'-
.,.¡
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 9 OF 25
2.2 Charge and Offense Related Factors8
Consistent with the tracking data, a vast majority of the inmates in the profile analysis (68%)
,"vere taken into custody by the Sheriff's Office, either through the patrol or court services
divisions. The two municipal police departments accounted for nearly all the remaining
arrests.
Inmates were overwhelming charged or convicted of felony-level offenses (77%), mostly of
the third degree. The percentage of felons in the snapshot (+25%) is a sharp contrast to the
tracking study where just over half were felons, suggesting that misdemeanants move through
the jail and felons stay behind,
Looking at the charges, nearly a quarter of the inmates in the sample were being held on a
probation violation, and many of these inmates were unsentenced (which is consistent with
the tracking finding that probation violators are held generally until after adjudication), Drug,
property, and violence charges were also common offenses among the inmate population,
and together these three categories of crime represented over half the inmates' offenses,
Arresting Agency
Sheriff- Court & Patrol
Fort Pierce
Port St. Lucie
Other
68%
23%
8%
1%
Note: Chart continued on
next page.
Offense Level
Misdemeanor 1
Misdemeanor 2
Misdemeanor 3
Felony 1
Felony 2
Felony 3
21%
2%
<1%
18%
21%
38%
\
Offense Type9
Violation of Probation
Drug
Property
Violence
25%
18%
17%
16%
R Charge and offense factors are based on the most serious offense.
9 Offenses were grouped into categories for the purpose of the analysis, E.xamples of each category are as follows: Violent-
assault, homicide, robbery, kidnapping; Sex- rape, se.'{ abuse of a minor, sexual assault; Property- theft, passing bad checks,
arson, auto theft, criminal damaging; Dmg- possession of controlled substance, drug paraphernalia, clandestine lab
operation; Public order- disorderly conduct, prostitution, solicitation, escape, weapons violations; Domestic violence-
domestic violence, child abuse, protective order violation; Traffic- driving under suspension, no driver's license, speed; and
Dill- driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
.~
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 10 OF 25
Public order
Sex
Traffic
Domestic Violence
DUI
Violation of Community
Failure to Appear
Other
7%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
· Persons booked were charged "..."ith an average of three offenses.
· Of the VOPs, 64% were originally convicted of a felony and 36% were convicted of a
misdemeanor.
2.3 Booking Reason and Cwlent In:nate Status
Inmates in the prof11e sample were essentially booked into jail on one of three categories:
document for arrest (36%), probable cause (32%), or warrant (27%), On the day of the study
(August 8, 2004), 70% of the individuals were held pending court action (e.g., awaiting fus[
appearance, trial, sentencing, etc,), while another 28% were sentenced (either to jail or DOC:.
Looking at the data more closely revealed that 85% of the µnsentenced inmates were accused
felons, whereas sentenced to jail inmates were more often tIÙsdemeanants (52%).
Booking Reason
Document for Arrest (n= 140)
Probable Cause (n= 114)
\Varrant (n= 98)
Bondsmen off Bond (n=)
Bond Revoked
36%
32%
27%
1%
1%
Inmate Status (as of8-9-04)
Pending
Sentenced to Jail
Sentenced to DOC
Other
70%
23%
5%
2%
· Twenty percent of the inmates had a holder (40% for other law enforcement agencies,
27% DOC, 21% probation, 6% immigration, 5% other),
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
\.",J
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 11 OF 25
2A Bonct°
Examining bonds in the profùe sample rewaled that two out of every five unsentenced
inmates (41 % of 250) were not given bond, Those denied bond were overwhelmingly
charged with a felony (85%), and largely probation violators (53%) and persons accused of
violent crimes (20%), The remaining segment of unsentenced inmates was typically required
to post a median. bond of$10,000,
The bond amounts differed substantially based on the offense level and the type of crime,
Accused felons, on average, were required to post bonds seven and half times higher than
misdemeanants, although the difference bet\\~een a first-degree misdemeanor bond and a
third degree felony bond was relatively modest ($2,500 versus $5,000, respectively). It was
with second and first-degree felonies that the bond levels jumped significantly (to $25,000
and $75,000, respectively). Sex crimes '\varranted the uppermost bond amounts ($100,000),
on average, and they doubled the mean bonds for crimes of violence ($50,000) and
quadrupled the amounts for drug and domestic nolence offenses ($25,000). At the low end
of the spectrum was DUI offenses, which averaged bond amounts of $550,
The median bond amount, overall, was four times greater in the profùe analysis compared to
the tracking analysis ($2,500 versus $10,000). Bond amounts in the profùe analysis, in
general, were much higher across the board regardless of offense level or type, yet consistent
with the trends displayed in the tracking analysis (i,e" sex, violence, and drug crimes received
the highest bail amounts, and probation \'Îolation nolators tended to not receive bond),
Bond Amounts
No bond
$1- 2,000
$2,001- 5,000
$5,001- 10,000
$10,001- 25,000
$25,001-50,000
$50,001 or more
-tPo
500
FJ 0
9° 0
1Y 0
7° 0
Note: Chart continued on
next page,
800
\
Median Bond Amounts by Offense Level
Felony $15,000
Misdemeanor $2,000
Median Bond Amounts by Offense Type
Sex $100,000
Violence $50,000
Drug $25,000
10 Pending cases only (n=246). Does not include sentenced, bond revoked, etc.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
'-'
""'"
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 12 OF 25
Domestic Violence
Probation Violation
Failure to Appear
Traffic
Property
Public order
DUI
$25,000
$25,000
$8,000
$7,500
$5,000
$2,500
$550
2.5 Average Length of Stay (ALOS)
The average length of stay for the profile sample was 95 days, 11 As with the tracking sample,
the ALOS was pulled higher by a minority number of inmates detained in excess of three
months, Indeed, 65% of the sample was in jail less than 90 days. Quite striking, however,
was the significant amount of inmates detained one year or longer in the analysis (7%), which
is quite substantial given the nature of jails. (In ILPP's vast experience in performing jail
assessments, it is typical to find 2-3% of the jail population incarcerated for one year or
more)
Congruent with the data presented above on bonds and unsentenced inmates,
accused/ convicted felons had a substantially higher ALaS than misdemeanants, and crimes
of sex, violence, and drug were detained longer than other categories of offenses. The long-
term inmates, those in jail for O\-er a year, matched these characteristics well, also, Eighty
percent were first or second-degree felons and 84% were charged with one of three "big"
index crimes (violence, sex, or drug). Of note, 80% of the persons held one year or longer
were also unsentenced.
\
Overall ALOS
1-3 days
4- 7 days
8-30 days
31-60 days
61-90 days
91-120 days
121-180 days
181-365 days
365 days or more
6%
6%
24%
13%
16%
7%
12%
9%
7%
Note: Chart continued on
next page.
ALOS by Offense Level
Felony
:Misdemeanor
113 days
38 days
11 As with the tracking sample, the extreme cases were removed from the analysis to reduce distortion of the
ALOS.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
\wt
-...I
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 13 OF 25
ALOS by Offense Type
Sex
Violence
Drug
Property
Public Order
Probation Violation
DUI
Failure to Appear
Domestic violence
Traffic
208 days
169 days
101 days
87 days
71 days
59 days
55 days
46 days
28 days
16 days
The data revealed that individuals booked in jail on bond revocations averaged the greatest
ALOS in the sample (137 days), but this fInding was based on very few cases. More reliably
(due to case size), the data showed that probably cause and document for arrest bookings
averaged around 100 days LOS, while warrant arrests \vere incarcerated 80 days. In
instances of probable cause and warrant arrests, a vast majority of the inmates were
incarcerated pending adjudication (83% and 70%, respecti\'ely).
Examining the inmates' statuses on the date of the snapshot indicated that persons
sentenced to DOC averaged the greatest ALaS (104 days), This group of inmates was
comprised of both inmates detained throughout pretrial and defendants jailed after
sentencing. (i.e., out on bond). The ALOS for those detained throughout the adjudication
process was 140 days,
Inmates held pending case resolution also were held for approximately 100 days, As was the
case above, a large proportion of these offenders were accused felons (85% overall; 26%
fIrst-degree felony, 29% second, and 45% third) charged primarily with probation violations
or violence, drug, and property offenses.
Individuals sentenced to jail were mostly misdemeanor offenders (54%; 93% fIrst-degree
misdemeanants), although third degree felons were also common among the sentenced
population (40%). More than a third of the sentenced inmates (36%) were convicted of a
\ probation violation. The ALOS for sentenced misdemeanants and felons was 60 and 126
days, respectively.
ALOS by Booking Reason
Bond Revoked (0=3)
Probable Cause (0=114)
Document for Arrest (0=140)
\V'arrant (0=98)
Bondsmen off Bond (0=3)
137 days
105 days
98 days
80 days
68 days
Note: Chart cootinued on
next page.
ALOS by Inmate Status
Sentenced to DOC (0=19)
Pending (0=216)
104 days
98 days
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
¥
-.""I
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 14 OF 25
Other (n=10)
Sentenced to Jail (n=84)
95 days
86 days
2.6 Profile sœsampIec Q¡',1inaI History & Classification
One hundred twelve individuals were randomly selected from the prof11e sample for a review
of prior criminal record. ILPP uses the criminal history information to perform an inmate
classification analysis that is based on objective measures developed by the National Institute
of Corrections (NIC).
Criminal records for the review were obtained from Florida Criminal Information Center
(FCIC) response reports generated by the St. Lucie County Jail, In analyzing the reports,
only criminal cases with documented or traceable dispositions were considered in collecting
the data. Juvenile offenses were also excluded.
2.7.1 Cñminal History
Seventy-two percent of the inmates in the sub-sample had a criminal record pre-dating the
current offense. Nearly 60% had a prior misdemeanor conviction and 56% had a felony on
their record. Overall, inmates in the sub-sample average 2.7 prior convictions: 1.4
misdemeanors and 1.3 felonies.
Prior probation violations, property, drug, and public order conv1ctlOns were the most
common offenses found in the criminal histories. Slightly more than half of the persons with
a prior probation violation were in jail (on the date of the profùe analysis) for another
probation violation.
Prior Offenses by Type (n=l12)
Prior Probation Violation
Prior Property
Prior Drug
Prior Public Order
Prior Violence
Prior Domestic Violence
Prior DUI
Prior Sex
Prior Other
35%
34%
33%
31%
12%
9%
8%
5%
8%
\
. Sixteen percent of the inmates had served time in a state penal institution,
2.7.2 Classification
The NIC classification system assigns points according to a variety of behavior. This model
incorporates reclassification during an inmate's stay in jail to encourage behavior
modification, but ILPP only uses the criteria and scoring system for the initial classification in
its analysis. The initial evaluation is based on three criteria: 1) severity of the current charge,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
~
-.I
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 15 OF 25
2) serious offense/assault history, and 3) escape history. Inmates who score 7 points or
higher on these factors, which determine the maximflm cflstoqy score, are automatically assigned
to maximum-security housing. For inmates whose score is less than seven, four additional
criteria are considered: institutional disciplinary history, prior felony convictions,
alcohol! drug abuse, and stability factors. Housing assignments are then made on the basis of
this total comprehensive score: five points or less- minimum security; six to ten points- medium
security, and eleven or more points- maximum security. An inmate with five or less points,
but who also has a detainer, should be placed in medium security housing. Thus, the scoring
is conselTative,
The scale to determine severity of offense ranges from zero for low-level offenses to seven
for the most serious. Low-level offenses include most misdemeanors; moderately severe
offenses include most felony property and drug offenses; high severity offenses include
robbery and first-degree assault; and highest severity offenses include murder, rape, and
kidnap.
Based on this classification analysis12, it was determined that roughly half four out of every
five inmates in the St. Lucie County Jail were minimum (53%) or medium security (31%),
with the balance maximum security (16%). (It should be noted, however, that the analysis
did not factor in elements such as medical or mental health needs, gender, gang affiliation,
and other aspects that may cause jail administrators to override the scoring system.)
Inmate Classification (N=112)
:'Iinimum
:'Iedium
~bximum
53%
31%
16%
3.0 FoIlcJvv.up Analyses
The _\LOS found in the St. Lucie County tracking and profùe analyses were some of the
highest tìgures ILPP has ever encountered in 30 years of performing criminal justice system
assessments. Furthermore, the figures double several other Florida counties that ILPP has
\ preformed similar studies in over the past dozen years.
To nlidate the high ALOS numbers, ILPP obtained and analyzed several additional raw data
sets from the jail. Outlined below are the outcomes:
1) _\ second tracking analysis comprised of inmates released during August 2004 (n=
1,1 ï3) revealed that the ALOS was 33 days. This figure is 8 days less than the average
reported for the first tracking analysis.
12 The Sr. Lucie County jail is implementing a classification scoring system similar in nature to the one ILPP
used in its analysis,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
\p
.."
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 16 OF 25
2) A booking tracking sample, as opposed to a release tracking sample, was conducted on
inmates (n= 1,181) brought into the detention facility during July 2003. The ALOS
from this analy-sis was 29 days.
3) A second profile (n=1,128) was performed on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 which
indicted an ALOS of 97 days, This figure is comparable to the ALOS reported above
(95 days), meaning that individuals detained in jail have been held approximately three
months, on ayerage.
There are several possible explanation for the differences found in the ALOS for the tracking
analyses: 1) the sample size of the second tracking analysis and the booking analysis are three
times larger, and probably more representative; 2) both the second tracking analysis and the
booking analysis had a greater number of cases that fell below an ALOS of 180 days,
meaning the first analysis had more individuals that served longer periods of confmement;
and 3) the Courts, as many people have suggested, started processing cases faster during the
month of August 200-+ which translated into a lower daily population and shorter length of
stay, It should also be no red that the follow-up data were obtained using the jail's new record
management system, while the earlier data was retrieved using the old system. This should
not, however, impact the results since both system are based on the same data.
Jail populations are yery ephemeral and non-static, and thus can easily fluctuate from time to
time. Based on the abO\-e findings, it is fair to assume that the ALOS does vary and that, in
general, persons brought into the St. Lucie County Jail spend approximately 31 days (give or
take a few days), The _\LOS from the follow-up analyses were still high, comparatively, with
other regions of the country.
COMPAPJSONS
Table 1, below, compares St. Lucie County to ten Florida counties of similar population size.
As shown, St, Lucie County has the second highest jail population (based on average daily
population) of the comparison counties and the third highest incarceration rate (and one of
the highest incarceration rates in the State, overall).
\
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 17 OF 25
-+62
S78
S9S
2,7
6.6
3.0
Charlotte 151,994
Bay 154,827
Clay 156,011
Okaloosa 181,102
Osceola 210,438
St. Lucie 211,898
Alachua 231,296
Lake 240,716
Leon 255,500
Marion 281,966
r..hnatee 286,884
Average 203,319
, County Population Range of approximately 140,000 to 280,000
.2 Source: Florida County Detention Facilities1 Average Innlate Pop111ation~ Florida DtT'lrt111Cflt of Correcnons1 February 2004
, I ncarceratlon Rare pef 1,000 population
-+15
812
3.2
4.3
5.2
4.0
3.5
4,1
5,6
3.2
3,9
10
916
8-\.6
922
Table 2, in contrast, displays the average daily popularions for twelve counties that have
similar average daily populations. St. Lucie Coutlty, despite being the second smallest county
of the list, has the fourth highest average daily population and second highest incarceration
rate.
Seminole
A.1achua
Manatee
\ Collier
Pasco
St. Lucie
Bay
Leon
Lee
Brevard
V olusia
394,900
231,296
286,884
292,466
375,318
211,898
Jail
(ADP)
90-\.
916
922
2.3
4,0
3,2
3.3
2.7
5.2
969
1,006
10
1,021
1,0-\.5
lA09
1,-+25
1,-165
Average
1 ADP Range of approximately 900 to 1500
1 Source: Florida County Detention Facilities' Average Inmate Population, Florida Dt?'lftment of Corrections, February 2004
'Incarceration Rare pef 1,000 population
495,088
507,810
470,770
334,251
1,1 08
6.6
4,1
2.8
2.8
3.1
3.6
ST. I.UCIE COUNTY CRIMINAl. .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 18 OF 25
Clearly, factors that are more relevant are work to account for the jail crowding other than
the size of the jail or the impending gen¡;ral population growth. The high incarceratíon race,
in partícular, is telling as it suggests a highd¡;gree of or fear at persons accused of crime
and/ or a justice system that lacks plausible jail alternatives.
ILPP has examined the history of crime, arr¡;sts, and jail population in St. Lucie County. The
County is gro"víng rapidly, and it is to be expected that crime and the criminal justíce system
\víll grow \víth it. It is useful to obtain population estimates first and then see how the other
factors are affected by it,
The U.s. Census is generally the most accurat¡; source of population data for the decennial
years in which it is taken, since it relies on an actual count of every person. Table 3 shows
the County population for several age groups as measured by the Census Bureau, The
inhabitants are about 74% non-Hispanic whit¡;, 15% African American, and 8% H.íspanic.
0-9 years 20,536 23,170 12.8%
10-17 years 14,086 20,413 44.9%
18-29 years 22,491 22,015 -2.1 %
30-44 years 31,148 39,083 25.5%
45·64 years 30,376 44,261 45.7%
65+ years 31,534 38.5%
Total 150,171 28.3%
The Census Bureau makes projections of state populations, þut does not project for countíes.
ILPP has developed a procedure for estimating county growth from state projectíons, taking
into account the difference between state and county growth. The procedure is not exact,
\ but it is a useful tool for estimating county growth based on demographic factors. Shown in
the chart below is ILPP's estimate of county population between 1990 and 2025.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 19 OF 25
Estimated Population for St. Lucie County
350,000 .
¡:¡.. 300,000 .
:::I
0
.... 250,000
òJJ
a.J
òJJ
<'! 200,000
:>..
.;::¡
¿ 150,000 .
.9
....
~
:::I 100,000
¡:¡..
0
p..
50,000
0 ,
1990
065+
II 45-64
o 30-44
018-29
II 10-17
o 0·9
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
\
All jurisdictions repon certain crimes to their state clearinghouses and ultimately to the FBI.
The data are used in many \vays to characterize and analyze crime in the region under study.
However, not all crimes are so reported and tabulated. The reported offenses - the so-called
"crime index" consists of serious crimes of victimization as reported to the police or other
law enforcement. They are the violent crimes, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault;
and the property crimes, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Some offenses of those
types are not reported- many rapes, for example- and do not sho\v up in the statistics.
"Victimless" crimes, in particular drug offenses, are not reported13, and minor offenses, even
if reported are not tabulated,
Crime is conventionally reported in two ways: the actual numbers of crimes, and the crime
rates (crimes divided b\" population), to correct for d1e influence of population change,
Figures 2 and 3 show crime and crime rates in St. Lucie County between 1989 and 2003.14
Note that in both cases the violent crimes, which are fewer in number, are shown on the left-
hand scale while propeny crimes appear on the right.
1.\ \Y,J e do not mean to that there are not victims of drug peddlers, but rather that the buyer of drugs, as a
,"villing participant, does not report his purchase to the police, whereas the victim of a robbery does nmke such a
report.
1~ Data on crime and arrests was downloaded from the UCR reports of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 20 OF 25
Figure 2: Crimes Reported
1995
1999
12,000
10,000
'"
'"
'"
:::
~
0
6,000 ~
....
'"
p.
4,000 0
....
p.,
2,000
0
2003
2,000
(f)
v
'"
:::
~
0
i::
'" 1,000
Õ
>
500
0
1989 1991
1993
1997
2001
crhnes
cnmes
Figure 3: Crime Rates
\
1,200
v
~
....
'"
,§ 600
u
i::
Æ 400
0
>
o
8,000
7,000
'"
6,000 ...
<"!
....
5,000 v
,§
....
4,000 u
~
3,000 v
p.
2,000 8
p.,
1,000
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:::.,0.0.,
,
"ç:, ¡;:,' ~I ~')
t'\9~ ~9 rf)\:. fì)J
~~- Víolent rate
rare
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 21 OF 25
Except for a bulge in violent crime around 1997, violent crime has more or less held steady,
and the amount of property crime has fallen. Population rates of crime have fallen for both
classes of offense,
FDLE tabulates total Part I (Index) and II arrests, plus total adult and total juvenile
arrests. In Figure 4, we present the numbers of (adult and juvenile combined) for the
index offenses, The years 1996 and 1997 in 4 are anomalous, as FDLE for those
years only did not include juvenile arrests for Part I and Part II, 15 Arrests for the
serious crimes have risen substantially, However, the arrest rate has changed very little, The
increased number of those arrests is due almost entirely to the increase in population.
Presumably, the same is true for the Part I adult and juvenile arrests considered separately.
Figure 4: Arrests, Index Offenses
1,500
500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
o
o,cg,
"
F\'0 F\" F\'Y F\"J
,{\ {\ {\ {\
CjF\Þ< ¿:/.,'J
" ';:'
¡:)b ~
{\ {\
00,'6 ¡:)o, ,is? _,," _,,'11 _,,"J
...;:' {\ '11'" 17 <tT '11'"
-II1II-- Arrests -4fff-- Arrest rate
\ Figure 5 shows total adult arrests (Part I and Part II combined),16 Here, both the total and
the arrest rate have risen. The growth in arrests is due to more than simply population
growth, Since the Part I arrest rates have remained constant, the increase appears to be
principally due to Part II. Table 4 shows the Part II categories with the largest number of
arrests. All have grown faster than the county population,
Ii Juvenile arrests in the other years averaged about 1/8 of the total (all offense levels).
1<> Here, too, the arrests were tabulated clìfferently in 1996 and 1997. We have attempted to aggregate them in
a way consistent with the other years.
ST. LUCIE CoUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 22 OF 25
Figure 5: Adult Arrests, All Offenses
8,000
4,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
2,000
o
¡§\ ~'" S),
o ~ ,"1
~ "J S)\X S)":> S)\:> ~I\ ~'b s:\'1 _C\'" D' ri:,'Y c::-,,,,"J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~
-Arrests
-=.'%>..-4f«$:W!!> A.rrcst rate
1989
2003
143,214
21
1
1,969
569
569
1,061
4,358
12,862
\
Clearly, something is \\Tong \\7ith the early figures for simple assault: FDLE reports only a
single arrest per year, countywide, from 1989 to 1991, a jump to 3 in 1992, to 130 in 1994,
back to 9 in 1995, and up to 857 in 1996, at which point it became more believable.17 Arrests
for drugs (all types, possession and sale) and DUI climbed sharply, Here also, we encounter
a persistent peculiarity of Florida's art est statistics: the "miscellaneous/other" (unspecified)
category of Part II arrests is about half of the total for every year tabulated. It must be
important, but we do not know what it is.18
17 The spike in 1998 is due to large numbers of arrests for assault, drugs, and miscellaneous, but not DUL
18 ILPP has encountered ",;.us anomaly in every Florida county that it has studied, yet has not received a usable
explanation.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 23 OF 25
It was shown above that crime rates (limited to the index offenses) have gone down in the 14
years under examination, If the (unreported) rates of the crimes resulting in the part II
arrests also have gone down, or at most stayed level, then the increase in the arrest rate must
be due to some factor(s) such as more aggressi';e policing, more complete reporting, or
changes in the offense definitions.19
J ail population and admissions data ate available for the period 1994 2003, They are shown
in Figure 6, Jail population has risen from about 600 to nearly 1,100, The average length of
stay is derived from them, and is presented in 7.20 The ALOS has been moving
upwards, for the most part, since 1999,
t:
<:)
'tj 800
1
~ (¡OO
~
OJ
~ 400
OJ
~
200
0
\
Figure 6: Jail Population and Admissions
1200
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 lOOD 2001 2002 2003
-+--i\dmis510!1S
18,000
1 (¡,OOO
14,000
12,000 ~
0
UJ
UJ
10,000 ~
8,000 1
(¡,OOO -<
4,000
2,000
0
19 Reporting and/ or definitions must be the source of the eno=ous difference in the simple assault figures.
20 Here, the ¡\LOS is simply calculated by taking the average population and div-iding by daily admissions.
It differs from the tracking and proftie samples because it is a more crude calculation. (The tracking and proftie
sample utilize actual dates)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 24 OF 25
Figure 7: Average Length of Stay
25.0
.-.. 20.0
U'J
i
r.fJ 15.0
0
~
00
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000 2001
2002
2003
It would be extremely valuable for planning purposes to know \vhat the population of the jail
will be in future years. However, that information depends on a number of unknown factors,
of which some are under control of the County and some are not. The amount of crime and
new state legislation can be neither pred1ctednor controlled. Juscice system policies such as
those for cite and release, pretrial release, and diversion programs are at the discretion of
various county authoricies, but it is not known who those people \\-ill be ten or twenty years
hence,
ILPP has constructed two simple models to show what could happen under a given set of
assumptions, The first is merely an extrapolation of the growth from 1994 to 2004. The
second is based upon county population growth. The basic assumption is that the grmvth of
the jail population will mirror the gro\v1:h of the county population. Implicit in that
assumption is another: both offenders and justice decision-makers will behave about the
\ same as they do today.
A technical note: criminal aCtlVlty and arrests are strongly age-dependent, with the peak
coming in the age range of 18 to 20. During the next decades, much of the County's growth
will come among the elderly, who do not go to jail as a rule, Therefore, ILPP's model
weights the various age groups by their probability of being arrested before making the final
calculation,
In the long term, jail population should grow at about the same rate as county (or area)
population, Of course it may fluctuate from year to year, but for it to grow at a different rate
in the long run implies that there are continual changes in arrest or release policy, Suppose,
for example, that some diversion programs are e.liminated. Jail population will immediately
rise, say by 100 inmates, but then the change will have no further effect. The number of
inmates will again grow at about the same rate as the population. Only another system
change will cause another rapid increase.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL .JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING
PAGE 25 OF 25
Figure 8 shows the two jail growth scenarios, labeled "trend" and "population,"
Figure 8: Jail Population
1,500
o
2,000
~ 1,000
~
<j)
:>
-< 500
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
-iJl--Trend ...........Populatìon
They are meant to show no more than a plausible range, not to be definitive, Other models
would produce different results, County officials should consider what set of assumptions is
most reasonable,
\
ST. LUCIE COUNTY CRIMINAL ,JUSTICE S
;~
-
'-'
"'"
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
DATE:
Board of County com~sio
Douglas M. Anderson~nty Administrator
July 2, 2004
.MORANDUM
04-137
TO:
FROM:
RE:
7/2/04 Citizens Budget Development Committee
The Citizens Budget Development Committee made the following recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners:
1) Move forward with the construction of 2 low-tech, 50-person each steel
buildings with air conditioning and insulation together with expansion of the
toilet and shower facilities. Also·, retrofit the existing dormitory to house
medium security inmates. The total cost approved $560,000.
(Approved 9-1 )
Note: County staff is getting additional quotations for the low-tech facilities. The annual
operating cost excluding electricity was projected at $1,222,000 by the Sheriffs
Office. I have requested Toby Long to reduce this number by using existing staff to
run this facility for the first year of operation. He is preparing a revised budget.
2) Proceed with the bid process for an electronic monitoring GPS system for
release of inmates.
(Approved 10-0)
Note: The Sheriffs Office working with a contractor of this equipment identified 100
inmates that could be released under this system.
3) Reimburse the Sheriffs Office Budget $1,492,500 for 2003/2004 cost
overruns/projected shortfall from the following funds:
$500,000 - Sheriff salary reserve fund
$510,000 _ Law Enforcement Impact Fees - To be collected July-
September 2004
$482,500 _ Designated from the $8,400,000 - Emergency County
Reserves
$1,492,500
(Approved 10-0)
'-"
'-"
Note: The $482,500 should be partially reimbursed through penalties assessed against
the jail security system contractor. This number includes projections for July -
September 2004. Toby Long said he would request reimbursement as needed and
the Sheriff's Office may not need the full amount ($482,500). The emergency
reserves could be replenished over 3 months, January-March 2005 through Law
Enforcement Impact Fees or as recommended by the Citizens' Budget
Development Committee from the estimated $9,000,000 being generated by the
unbudgeted revenues being received from the increased property values.
Finally, we are waiting for the revised operating budget for the new jail pods. I have
requested a 5-year projection.
Please find attached 2 documents distributed by the Sheriffs Office at the Citizens' Budget
Development Committee meeting (attachments 1 & 2), and attachment 3 distributed by
Roger Shinn of County Staff.
DMAljc-04-137
Attachments
c: Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Ken Mascara, Sheriff
Garry Wilson, Chief Deputy
Pat Tighe, Major - Director of Detention
Toby Long, Finance Director, Sheriffs Office
Public Safety Coordinating Council
i '-'
. 7 7, I¿, {},,¡-;,W-6 6u~H ,(ø 1
¿ '/~ C., 6cc-
omparison of Alachua County Jail to St. Lucie County Jail .1?~ yv1
Alachua
St. Lucie
Jail population 942
1250
Staffing
Sworn 03-04 207
154
Budget 19,415,688.00
15,243,373.00
Cost Per Inmate
03-04 Current population 59.24
r:0
Inmate to Sworn Staff Ratio 4.55: 1
8.06:1
Annual Arrests 14,950
16,628
Circuit Judiciary
4 Circuit Court Judges
3 Circuit Court Judges
County Judiciary
5 County Court Judges
3 County Court Judges
,
"'C
~
-
o
....,
.þ.
'-"
G):J~^»~»~»
0) c!:o) Õ:(i! o~ c: ~
33:J:Joõ...,a.~
2:õ:!!!..O):J""o)cþ~
S' ê: ê ~. ~ & ..., :;u
CD 0 CD:J ::r CÞ S.
:J ;:?; CO Õ· a. CÞ
CÞ» -» ïJ
""0- CÞø CÞ
a. -iø ...,
c: ::r 0) ......
o CÞc: 0
g ~~ 0
:J à
o
o
C')
;:;:
Ñ'
CÞ
:J
ø
:;u
""(,oJco""Q)Q)Q)",,co~
"
..
en
x·
C1
o
c:
:J
C!:
CÞ
ø
~
;::¡:
::r
-
::r
CÞ
ø
0)
3
CÞ
0)
...,
ã3
ø
-
o
o
c:
:J
-
-.
::J
-
::r
CD
CÞ
o S'
::J a-
n _
::::!. ::r
3 D)
CD -
~
en D)
&tS-
-CÞ
¡- --
cr.::J
n _
en ::r
~CD
Q ct
N"'C
0_
°0
w
. S·
-
::r
CD
2:
õ
~.
::J
ee
n
D)
S-
ee
o
~
¡.
en
o
""'"
D)
~
~
CD
CÞ
lit
C"
D)
CÞ
CD
CL
......,
en
-
r
c
n
¡-
o
o
C
::J
~
"TIC/)
~o
rn~
()
fI)
"TI
~
ä:
D>
C
( )
"C
D>
~
3
( )
a
o
-
r
II>
~
m
::>
õ'
S
3
( )
~
N
o
o
¢
...... ......
~w
"'.Þ.à
co I\)
~m
if
-
::r
CD
o
::J
~
n
o
c
::J
~
...... ......
m~
ènë:.n
I\) co
(X) 0
en»
=-õ)
,0
t: ::r
o c:
œ' 0)
I\)
o
o
w
C')
o
c:
:J
~
~-i
(b 0
~íii'
ø
"0»
-..Im~~
Cnw...... m
~OO_
-..I;--IP:;U
Nco8s.
oCÞ
õ
o
3
"C
c:
~
"C
a
co
m
~
-I
~
iii"
::::r
D>
(þ
(þ
( )
.( )
"TI
:.
......
ë:.n01
~~
com
ï
............0)
Ï\.> ...... a
~~~
'<
~»-i
(ba.o
ø£íii'
(j).....-
I\)
......»2-i
~ < 0
CÞCÞ_
ø:JO)
éñÆ'-
...... C.11
wm
~ .þ..
~
~""a
(1)
...,
C.11 C.11
I\) 01
o "
æ:eno
:J CÞ 9.
ØXO-
CÞ -
ø CÞ
:;u
............0
............0-
......~g
-<
»
»co
ø~
ø 0)
Q) <
c: 0)
--
-CÞ
a.
tD
~~E¡
I\) 01 co
WCOÕ)
-<
w......
-..I I\)
01 I\)
-i~~
::T::ro
(1) -.-
;:tQ.Q
CÞ
I\) I\)
(X) (,oJ
(oëc
C')~
CÞC')
Q) 0)
(b ø
a.CÞ
ø
ïJ
OJ
;:¡
»
...,
...,
CÞ
(J
Cñ
c-
'<
C1
o
c:
:J
-?
I\)
o
o
(,oJ
........ "wi
-n (f en > "'C
r. 0 ~ ñr DJ
C ï 0 ;:¡
-n ~ c: :T (")
C 0 c: 0 >
õ fI:I ëÞ- 0) c:
!T1 ..,
-n :J ñ>
g CJ
-
ë: (f)
II) CT
C '<
CD (")
'C s:
II) 0
;¡, 0) c:
3 :J :J
CD CJ -?
~ (,,) ->. ñr
0 c: I\J
- 0
õ :T 0
II) ro-
:IE (,J
m ..,
::>
õ' ~^
S c.. --
3 (,,) .þ. c:c..
CD 01 o :J
~ _OJ
--0
0_
Ñ :J
0
$ >
...... ..,
<.0 CJ
0> 0
:J
...... ...... > ~
CJ
Cow CJ 3
0> "-J 0)-0
<.0 -J c: -
;:;:CD
Z
"-J "-J 0) 0
Ï\>o 0 ..,
c:
.þ. 0 OCC
"-J .þ. ~(fJ
o -
(f)
"d
~ CD
..,
N co 0 CT
0 CD
...,
~
m
3
CT
'0 CD
->. ¡:j
0 0 "-J
3 CD
'C 3
c:
~ CD
:J
'C -
a
to
ii! ï1
~ ...... ...... ..,
...... -J 0)
-J 0> c:
..... a.
!!!.
ji) (")
:::r
II) 0
II> ï1
II> 0 c:
CD ...... .þ. .., :J
!D (,,) co r0-
O> CD ::¡..
CD
ë::
CDm
- x
0) _
(,,).þ. o 0
;11:';:¡
3 -'
OJ g
= --
~
-ncn
CO
rc
m:u
o
fI:1
-n
Q
ä:
\\I
~
'0
\\I
~
3
CD
a.
o
-
r
\II
~
m
:>
Õ"
S
3
CD
F-
t3
o
$
'"d
IJ
G
W
o
....,
~
....,
'0
o
3
'0
c:
~
'0
a
(Q
;
~
~
iÞ
::r
\\I
(þ
(þ
CD
SD
-n
r.
cn::Þ
~iiï
,0
õª"a
('þ-Q) g
::J
w~
~~
~~ß'
x
->.
- m 0
~~c
~
5'
-
~r
ä:
Q)
-
õ'
::J
(")
oìJ
3 a
3 CII
CD Q:
.., ...
o C
-. ...
Q) -.
~g
CD --
a.
o Ï\
mw~cnQz
O1~::JCDOO
g¡x5'=i'
CII CD
"'\JOJ
"'\J0c
..,UI'<
w~o!'l;Õ
0>~~$t2~
~ º-~.
CD <
::J ~
->. ~
coo
w,¡:,.
<0°
~ Q) m
a.3ct
Q)Q)c
=cc 0
CIICDQ:
3-g
--
CD 0
G)
Q)
3
!2:
5'
~m
c.n~
<
-- :E
º-CD
~Q)
-'"0
o 0
~ ::J
<c
~ õ·.a
co- _C
oë3ê:Q
~o,
::J Q)
UI :E
~,?1:¡:
~~ëij'
<O.......~
"'\J
Q)
;::¡
»
..,
ro
CII
(ij
~
(")
o
C
::J
~
N
o
o
w
:§
Alachua
St Lucie
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
¥
% of Cases Cleared
1999 2000 2001
16.26 16.4 18
27.49 24.9 23.4
'''wi
2002
18.6
25.8
2003
23.9
28.9
Percentage of Cases Cleared
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
I-+- Alachua
___ St Lucie
-;p";~,~v¿~ ./J~
7/Z {!,.n:z£-v3 .4,
"""
¿?6~¿ ~_di-t:
..
'.
MEMORAJ.'\rnIDI
¡tJ,A/.~ Jú'1
1 , ~ct-
t·1Þ~
TO:
The Citizens' Budget Committee
FROM: Toby Long, Director of Finance
DATE: July 2, 2004
SUBJECT: Jail overcrowding costs
The costs listed on the following pages are costs incurred or that must be incurred prior to
September 30, 2004. These costs are amounts in excess of the budgeted amounts included in the
Sheriffs budget submitted on May IJ 2003 and the amended budget submitted June 23, 2003.
The amended budget was submitted after the County requested that the original budget be
reduced. We complied with this request, which in retrospect was a mistake.
I am a Certified Public Accountant, which means in the eyes of the law I am an expert in
accounting issues. Budgets by definition are projections of future events, as such, they are subject
to change. In this case events, namely the population at the jail, changed dramatically. When the
budget was prepared the jail population was around 1020- today it is 1250. That is a 23%
increase in one year. Had we requested a budget to meet this type of increase the Commissioners
would have laughed us out of the budget hearings. The Sherif:fs Office never thought the
increase would be this large this fast and neither did the Commissioners. In addition to this, at the
time of the budget submission it appeared that the new jail pods would be open by the summer of
2004 or the fall of 2004 at the latest. We were told at the time of completion we could submit a
supplemental budget for the new pod costs. As the Sheriff has stated before we have the inmates
and all of the associated costs, we just do not have the new bed space.
You \vere given a copy of the Sheriffs request for $527,477.98 for new deputies to help mitigate
the alarming inmate to deputy ratio and to staff one of the new jail pods. The request also
included-S484,154 for deputies to provide security for the County's contract with Nonnent
Security to'replace the outdated security system in the jail. Section 13.0 of that contract clearly
states that "at its expense the Contractor shall take all necessary precautions including the
furnishing of guards...". There has apparently been some confusion as to what the security details
do when a vendor is working the jail. In addition to the normal security functions, ie., protection
from inmates, looking for contraband, making sure tools are accounted for, etc., there are
additional duties required when the vendor turns off the security system. Once the vendor turns
off the existing security system to install the new system the jail reverts to a manual system. This
""
'--'
v
"
requires additional deputies situated at doors with keys to guard and control access. The vendor
in this case has repeatedly shut down the old system on a weekend or before a holiday and left
the job. The jail is stuck with additional overtime while no contractual work is being performed.
The current contract is six months beyond the contractual completion date and it is still not
complete. As you will notice from the attached contract the Sheriff is not a party to the security
contract, but has been forced to incur unbudgeted costs for which he has not been reimbursed.
One final note about purchasing supplies for inmates: When purchasing things like bedding and
uniforms we must purchase more that one item per inmate. Sheets, for instance, require that the
inmate have more than one set to use while other sets are being laundered. Likewise we must
purchase for the maximum of number not the monthly average number. If the monthly inmate
population is 1245, but during 10 days we have 1270 inmates, we must have supplies, bedding,
clothing, etc. for 1270.
~
The following are the amounts requested by the Sheriff
New Deputies
Salary and Benefits
Training costs
Psych exam/polygraph
Bond and Liability Insurance
Equipment
Security for County Construction Contract
Jail utilities-water & sewer
Inmate Medical costs
Inmate Food
Clothing and Bedding
Janitorial Supplies
Handcuffs, shades. security items
Food Trays/delivery carts
Natural gas
avertime
Budgeted Overtime and Benefits
avertime incurred though 5/31/04
Projected overtime/benefits
Budgeted
County Contracts
Overtime due to overcrowding
Total
Anticipated amount need
by year end
<980~
789,222
i 1.300,422
I
I (523,980)
j
(290,978)
\
'.
\'"
'...,
(
\
'...I
./) 0/
,--/---
!
,
../
424.787.98
30.800.00
6,890,00
26.000,00
39,000.00
527,477.98
95.000.00 At the time the budget was being prepared
amounts were running aroung 20,000 per month or
240,000 per year 03-04 budget was 275,000, Amounts
are currenUy running over 30,000 per month
52,734.25 This increase is based on the per diem rate charged
by the provider ($1.85) per day per inmate over a cap of
1050 inmates
77.733.14 This increase is based on the standard meal rate of
$.909 per meal
116.95ô.10 May be paid from Impact Fees
41,393,00 'This is the amount over budget due to overcrowding
26.776.00 This is may be paid from impact fees
18,137,00 This may be paid from impact fees
3.533.00 For dryers
485,4õ4.00
1,929,408.47
{)o
{OPfl ~ /'
~r f:TÎ;v u J
. rUPf1' ~ ¿J V, Ð
\ r ß¡
\. 4
-~/Q:-~~/~
0/~
\
1,492.5<.."0.00
..-J
¡rf -
fI/Ö
""
'-II
Budget Request for New Deputies
Salaries and Benefits
424,787.98
Cost of Academy
30,800.00
Psychological exam/polygraph
6,890.00
Bond and Liability Insurance
26,000.00
488,477.98
To be paid from impact fees
Equipment for new deputies
39,000.00
Total
527,4 77.98
"-'
-....I
NEW JAIL EMPLOYEES
NAME DATE OF MONTHLY MONTHS TOTAL
HIRE SALARY /BEN EFITS
UNCERTIFIED 03-01-04 3,720.83 7 26,045.81
CERTIFIED 03-29-04 4,046.04 6 24,276,24
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,086.47 6 24,518.82
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,256.90 6 25,541.40
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,256.90 6 25,541.40
UNCERT1FIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 05-03-04 3,720.83 5 18,604.15
UNCERTIFIED 05-03-04 3,720.83 5 18,604.15
UNCERTIFIED 05-10-04 3,720.83 4.7 17,487.90
CERTIFIED 06-07-04 4,086.47 4 16,345.88
UNCERTIFIED 06-07 -04 3,720.83 4 14,883.32
UNCERTIFIED 07-01-04 3,720.83 3 11,162.49
4 CERTIFIED 07-01-04 4,256.90 4 3 51,082.80
8 UNCERTIFIED 07 -01-04 3,720.83 8 3 89,299.92
424,787.98
"'"
....."
OPERATING COSTS
EACH
INMATE UNIFORMS 13.95 560.00 7,812.00
BLANKETS 9.95 560.00 5,572.00
SHEETS 3.73 560.00 2,088.80
PILLOW CASES 1.04 560.00 582.40
MATTRESS COVERS 6.75 560.00 3,780.00
WASH CLOTHS 0.25 1,120.00 280,00
TOWELS 1.38 1,120.00 1,545.60
PILLOWS 7.88 560.00 4,412.80
MATTRESSES 58.85 450.00 26,482.50
BOATS 222.00 280.00 62,160.00
SHOES 2.00' 1,120.00 2,240.00
11ô,956.10
~
.,...,
MEDICAl AND FOOD COSTS
Medical Food
DATE POPULATION OVER RATE TOTAL
November Rate Total
11 1124 3 1.85 5.55 2,727 8,18
13 1128 7 1,85 12.95 2.727 19.09
14 1133 12 1.85 22.20 2.727 32.72
15 1123 2 1.85 3,70 2,727 5.45
16 1138 17 1,85 31,45 2.727 46.36
17 1138 17 1,85 31.45 2,727 46.36
18 1138 15 1.85 27,75 2,727 40.91
135,05 199,07
February
21 1124 3 1,85 5.55 2,727 8.18
22 1125 4 1,85 7.40 2,727 10,91
23 1123 2 1,85 3,70 2,727 5.45
26 1125 4 1.85 7.40 2.727 10.91
29 1125 4 1,85 7.40 2.727 10.91
31.45 46,36
March
1 1133 12 1,85 22.20 2,727 32,72
2 1136 15 1,85 27,75 2,727 40.91
5 1126 5 1,85 925 2.727 13.64
6 1139 18 1,85 33.30 2.727 49.09
7 1149 28 1.85 51.80 2.727 76,36
8 1149 28 1,85 51,80 2,727 76.38
9 1146 25 1,85 46,25 2,727 68,18
10 1138 17 1.85 31.45 2,727 46.38
11 1140 19 1,85 35.15 2.727 51.81
12 1136 15 1,85 27,75 2,727 40,91
13 1147 26 1,85 48,10 2,727 70.90
14 1159 . 38 '1.85 70,30 2,727 103.63
15 1163 42 1,85 77.70 2.727 114.53
16 1162 41 1,85 75.85 2,727 111.81
17 1154 33 1.85 61,05 2,727 89,99
18 1168 47 1,85 86,95 2.727 128,17
19 1161 40 1,85 74.00 2,727 109.08
20 1155 34 1,85 62.90 2,727 92,72
21 1162 41 1.85 75.85 2,727 111,81
22 1163 42 1.85 77,70 2,727 114.53
23 1158 37 1,85 68.45 2,727 100.90
24 1150 29 1,85 53,65 2.727 79.08
25 1153 32 1,85 59.20 2,727 87,26
26 1144 23 1,85 42.55 2,727 62.72
27 1142 21 1.85 38.85 2.727 57,27
28 1149 28 1.85 51.80 2,727 76.36
29 1162 41 1.85 75.85 2,727 111.81
30 1170 49 1,85 90.65 2,727 133.62
31 1164 43 1.85 79.55 2,727 117.25
1.607,65 2,369.76
April
1 1171 50 1,85 92.50 2.727 136.35
2 1174 53 1,85 98,05 2,727 144,53
3 1169 48 1.85 88.80 2,727 130,90
4 1171 50 1.85 92.50 2,727 136.35
5 1176 55 1.85 101.75 2,727 149.99
6 1175 54 1,85 99.90 2.727 147,26
7 1171 50 1,85 92,50 2,727 136.35
8 1164 43 1,85 79.55 2.727 117,26
9 1149 28 1,85 51,80 2.727 76.36
10 1157 36 1.85 6ô.60 2.727 98.17
11 1164 43 1.85 79,55 2,727 117.26
12 1165 44 1,85 81.40 2,727 119.99
13 1170 49 1,85 90.65 2,727 133.62
14 1142 21 1,85 38,85 2,727 57.27
15 1138 15 1.85 27.75 2,727 40,91
16 1131 10 1,85 18,50 2,727 27,27
17 1128 7 1,85 12.95 2,727 19,09
18 1141 20 1.85 37,00 2,727 54,54
19 1145 24 1,85 44.40 2,727 65,45
20 1144 23 1.85 42.55 2,727 62,72
21 1143 22 1,85 40.70 2.727 59,99
22 1150 29 1.85 53.65 2,727 79.Oð
23 1164 43 1.85 79.55 2,727 117 .26
'-"
''wi'
24 1154 33 1.85 61,05 2.727 89,99
25 1170 49 1.85 90,65 2.727 133,62
26 1180 59 1.85 109.15 2,727 160,89
27 1176 55 1,85 101.75 2,727 149.99
28 1165 44 1.85 81.40 2,727 119,99
29 1170 49 1.85 90,65 2,727 133,62
30 1170 49 1.85 90,65 2,727 133.62
2.136.75 3,149.69
May
1 1157 36 1,85 66.60 2,727 98,17
2 1160 39 1.85 72.15 2,727 106,35
3 1162 41 1.85 75,85 2,727 111.81
4 1158 37 1.85 68.45 2,727 100.90
5 1150 29 1,85 53,65 2.727 79.0&
6 1158 37 1.85 68.45 2,727 100.90
7 1153 32 1,85 59,20 2.727 &7,26
8 1179 58 1.85 107,30 2.727 158.17
9 1188 67 1.85 123,95 2,727 182.71
10 1181 60 1.85 111,00 2.727 163.62
11 1183 62 1.85 114,70 2,727 169.07
12 1167 46 1.85 85,10 2,727 125.44
13 1179 58 1,85 107,30 2,727 158,17
14 1185 64 1,85 118,40 2,727 174.53
15 1189 68 1,85 125,80 2.727 185,44
16 1195 74 1,85 136,90 2,727 201,80
17 1194 73 1.85 135,05 2,727 199,07
18 1188 67 1.85 123.95 2,727 182.71
19 1185 64 1.85 118,40 2.727 174.53
20 1186 65 1.85 120,25 2,727 177,26
21 1163 42 1.85 77.70 2,727 114.53
22 1166 45 1.85 83.25 2,727 122.72
23 1180 59 1.85 109,15 2,727 160,89
24 1175 54 1.85 99,90 2,727 147,26
25 1181 60 1.85 111.00 2.727 163.62
26 1188 67 1,85 123.95 2.727 1&2,71
27 1196 75 1,85 133,75 2,727 204.53
2& 1188 67 1.85 123,95 2.727 1&2.71
29 1192 71 1.&5 131,35 2,727 193.62
30 1202 &1 1,&5 149,85 2,727 220.&9
31 1220 99 1.&5 183,15 3,324.45 2,727 269.97
3,324,45 4,900.42
June
1 1228 107 1.85 197.95 2,727 291.79
2 1217 96 1.85 177,60 2.727 261.79
3 1226 105 1.&5 194,25 2,727 286.34
4 1224 103 1,85 190.55 2,727 2&0,&&
5 1229 10& 1.85 199,&0 2,727 294.52
6 1243 122 1,85 225.70 2.727 332.69
7 1243 122 1.85 225,70 2.727 332,69
& 1237 116 1.85 214,60 2,727 316,33
9 1242 121 1.85 223.85 2,727 329.97
10 1250 129 1.85 233.65 2,727 351.7&
11 1249 12& 1.85 236,&0 2,727 349,06
12 1234 113 1.85 209,05 2,727 30&.15
13 1260 139 1.&5 257.15 2.727 379.05
14 1241 120 1.85 222.00 2,727 327.24
15 1243 122 1.85 225.70 2,727 332,69
16 1241 120 1.85 222,00 2,727 327,24
17 122& 107 1.85 197.95 2,727 291.79
18 1219 98 1,85 181.30 2,727 267,25
19 1237 116 1,85 214,60 2,727 316,33
20 1235 114 1.85 210.90 2.727 310.88
21 1230 109 1.85 201.65 2,727 297,24
22-30 1250 1161 1,85 2.147,85 2.727 3,166.05
6.615.60 9,751.75
July
1-31 1300 5549 1.85 10,265,65 2.727 15,132,12
August
1-31 1350 7099 1.85 13.133,15 2,727 19,358.97
September
1-30 1400 8370 1.85 15,464.50 2.727 22,&24.99
52.734,25 77 ,733.14
Construction security costs
barren tine
byme
cheslock
curtis
dowd
haeser
hicks
igleasias
joyner
kirchner
mazanowski
morley
nixon
oxley
padilla
paraco
surovec
tumer
vrana
wheeler
white
buchko
alien
briglia
cruce
daniel
johnsen
malteson
mckinzie
jennings
joslin
hubbard
means
newton
richardson
sokolowski
baker
j, byme
dibiase
moore
pearson
rouleau
siegert
wendt
basilio
burkleo
coull
green
henry
jenkins
jones
knight
lane
palfrey
terry
supervision
overtime
full time
supervision.
full time
projected 01
'-"
~
10-12 1
2,316.55 1,260,00
6,690,60 2,051.25
3,62256 1.186,60
2,511.15 1,099.35
3,044.66 142.60
939,08
1.614.15 645.65
988.50 65,90
219,20 122,15
338,40
2,034.93 1,383,01
219,96
2.196,61 1.220,10
14242
2.485,50
3.601,61
708.43 1.280.08
911.15 1,305.92
3.005.01 129,54
2.946.52 1,063.54
1.900,42
1,122.11
1,210.00
1,320.60
505.81
{,hr~ /' \?70 \0\ Ir )
DÚ 0 C\.( çltJ Y
{(I~ ;/
~
2
1.515.68
1,698,36
1.441.91
1,296.56
1,649,10
3
4
1,539,85
2,584,75
1.116.80
911.20
1.811.90
1,581.95
2,932.90
698.00
917,20
540,19
349.00
698,00
1,012,92 1,149,30 478,88 306.48
814,09 1,220.70 461.94
1.238.95 418,80
626.05 280.08
1,323.91 431,88
642.10
1,441,91 1,465.80 69.80 349.00
2,191.18
659.02 988.50 831.99
1.151.25
1.329.51
1,296.56 1,296,95 1,314,10
995.42
401,04 996.91 610,35 174.33
539.96 1,169,68 665,42 449.88
431,21
320.51 911,53 977,53 1,105.13
161.80 1,191,35
119,80 269.93
1,411.41 383,10 861.98
1,330.00
1,329.50 190.80
418.80 1,311,30
1.222.18
395.40
395,14 1.230,65
1,304.65 406.08
124,90 626,05
1,395.40 1.131,78
195.48 1,218.24
495,00
389,16
452,64
190,80
1,256.64
1.191,70
1,262.62
440.51
1.169,20
389.16
383,90
5to!21
6,152,08
17,841,76
9.659,82
6,862.06
5.436.96
939,08
3.908.19
1,054.40
401.35
338,40
6,425.52
219,96
6,520.10
142,42
4.143,25
3,601,61
2,894.64
3,979.52
4,377,25
7.342,51
4,091,60
2,479,51
1,151.25
1.329,51
3,907.61
995.42
3,910,14
4,094,94
431,21
4,101,96
505.87
2,565,15
989,73
2,662.55
1,330,00
2,120,30
1.190.10
1,222.78
395.40
1.625.79
1.710,73
1.350.95
2.533,18
2.013,72
495,00
389,16
452.64
790,80
1,256.64
1.191,70
1,262.62
440.51
1.169,20
389,16
383.90
150,978.33
83.319,00
234.297.33
33.561,78
267,859,11
59,514.00
140,000.00
16,780,89
484.154,00
"
,
?;),5"".4¡".a:o 4 r \wi' .f) ~
í~QY' \ 7/2-- c'r,ú;-J .6" -.?¿;.~. fl/1/Uv,,/
! . ¿__--."ø r ~c¿
Ô INTRODUCTION TO: REDUCED CUSTODY HOUSING FOR e 1::J,----Y"7
MINIMUM SECURITY INMATE/MAXIMUM SECURITY INMATES
Staff has been requested to look into adding low tech and low cost medium and
maximum security housing at Rock Road Jail. The following recommendations are
based on that request:
· To retrofit open dorm A-I to medium security housing will require relocation of
eighty-seven (87) minimum-security inmates. In order to do this we will first
have to create a low cost reduced custody housing for those inmates. Staff has
investigated several options; we have attached these for your review. We have
the space to construct two 40 x 100 buildings in the location of the old "tent city"
which could house up to one hundred inmates.
· Total construction costs that are reflected in options #1 - #5 already include the
price of $40,000.00 for the chain link fencing.
· When evaluating building cost, please keep in mind: these cost are to house only
fifty (50) inmates, actual need to retrofit Donn A-I would be for one-hundred
(100) inmates.
· This is considered to be a long-tenn solution for reduced custody housing and
recommend that the buildings be air-conditioned.
By providing this as a long-term solution, it could extend the number of federal
inmates that could be housed at the jail and extend the life of the housing program. Staff
recommends Option #1 to be the most cost effective and of best quality.
~
"wi"
REDUCED CUSTODY HOUSING FOR MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES
Cost is based on the need for a 40 x 100 or 4000 sq. ft. structure to house fifty (50)
inmates in a dorm style environment. This is a long-term solution that will enable us to
extend the Federal Inmate Program. The cost would run approximately:
**OPTION #1-MET AL BUILDING (insulated) TOT AL COST:
40' X 100' building-Includes installation by contractor. $92,500.00
(Requires 90 to 120 days for delivery and erection and an additional
30 days for fire and security)
The following elements are needed to meet all construction. building and fire codes:
Footers and Slabs $21,000.00
Electrical $35,000.00
Fire Alarm System $ 6,000.00
Sprinkler System $10,000.00
Security $10,000.00
Exhaust Fans $ 1.800.00
TOTAL: $83,800.00
Cost to retrofit Dorm A-I to meet medium security inmate requirements with low-techllow
cost solution:
Chain Link Fence TOTAL: $40,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER BLDG. (without AlC):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER BLDG. (with AlC)
(DEDUCTED EXHAUST FA.~S $1,800.00 AND ADDED AlC $35,000.00):
$216,300.00
$249,500.00
~ Z,(/i~D v
5~J &;q
PLEASE NOTE: Permittin2 (reQuired) and additional occupancy will add to the
total cost.
Florida Jail Standards=one shower per 16 inmates and one toilet per eight inmates.
(Additional Restrooms and Shower Facilities: $100,000.00)
(Air Conditioning-per building add: $35,000.00)
r/c,&tÞ'VC>
~
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
· Wind Load
· Drawings to include electrical, mechanical and life safety
· Estimated electrical load draw per building
· Drawing to show electrical load feed
· Show emergency lighting exit signs and smoke detectors
5& {)t òCJ U
~ (YJ L--
I
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE 6
Acceptable distance between buildings (egress must meet code).
Building'must meet fire codes and must be sprinkled.
GROUP 1 UNRESTRAINED: *Must have freedom of movement.
*Must meet occupancy load requirements.
EMERGENCY LIGHTING
EXIT SIGNS
**Ootion #1 is our recommendation: most cost effective and best Qualitv.
'-'
...."
REDUCED CUSTODY HOUSING FOR MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES
Cost is based on the need for a 40 x 100 or 4000 sq. ft. structure to house fifty (50)
inmates in a dorm style environment. This is a long-term solution that will enable us to
extend the Federal Inmate Program. The cost would run approximately:
OPTION #2-SPRUNG INSTÁi~T STRUCTURES
Aluminum frame with vinyl cover:
40' x 100' Non-Insulated Structure
(Requires 25 to 30 days for delivery and set up and an additional 30 days for fire
and security systems.)
Shipping
Technical Consultant
TOTAL COST:
$58,000.00
$2,490.00
$ 2.700.00
TOTAL BASE COST: $63,190.00
(Insulated Structure) TOTAL BASE COST: $97,330.00
The {ollowim! elements are needed to meet all construction. buildinl! and fire codes:
Footers and Slabs $21,000.00
Electrical $35,000.00
Fire Alann System $ 6,000.00
Sprinkler System $10,000.00
Security $10,000.00
Exhaust Fans $ 1.800.00
TOTAL: $83,800.00
Cost to retrofit Dorm A-l to meet medium security inmate requirements with low-tech/low
cost solution:
Chain Link Fence TOTAL: $40,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER INSULATED BLDG. (without AlC):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER INSULATED BLDG. (with AlC)
(DEDUCTED EXHAUST FANS Sl,800.00 AND ADDED AlC $35,000.00): $254,330.00
(Total base cost includes inmate labor for installation-if labor and equipment is provided
by contractor add an additional $20,000.00.)
(Additional requirements for this structure: scaffolding and cherry picker)
$221,130.00
PLEASE NOTE: Permittin2 (reQuired) and additional occupancy will add to the total cost.
Florida Jail Standards=one shower per 16 inmates and one toilet per 8 inmates.
(* Additional Restroom and Shower Facilities $100,000.00)
(* Air Conditioning-per building add: $35,000.00)
PERl'\'IIT REQUIREMENTS:
· Wind Load
· Drawings to include electrical, mechanical and life safety
· Estimated electrical load draw per building
· Drawing to show electrical load feed
· Show emergency lighting exit signs and smoke detectors
TYPE OF CO~STRUCTlON TYPE 6
Acceptable distance between buildings (egress must meet code).
Building must meet fire codes and must be sprinkled.
GROUP 1 ITh'RESTRAINED: Must have freedom of movement & meet occupancy load requirements.
EMERGENCY LIGHTING AND EXIT SIGNS
,..,
.."",
REDUCED CUSTODY HOUSING FOR MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES
Cost is based on the need for a 40 x 100 or 4000 sq. ft. structure to house fifty (50) inmates in a dorm style
environment. This is a long-term solution that will enable us to extend the Federal Inmate Program. The
cost would run approximately:
OPTION #3-BIG TOP STRUCTURE
Steel frame and vinyl fabric cover structure:
40' wide x 80' long x 18' center height x 12' walls
(Requires 28 to 30 days for delivery, six-day installation and an additional 30 days
for fire and security systems.)
Shipping $ 750.00
Optional technical assistance $ 4,000.00
Engineered drawing & calculations to meet 130 wind loads $ 600.00
TOTAL BASE COST: $47,350.00
The followinf! elements are needed to meet all construction. buildinf! and fire codes:
Footers and Slabs 521,000.00
Electrical 535,000.00
Fire Alann System 56,000.00
Sprinkler System 510,000.00
Security 510,000.00
Exhaust Fans 5 1.800.00
TOTAL: 583,800.00
Cost to retrofit Dorm A-I to meet medium security inmate requirements with low-tech/low
cost solution:
Chain Link Fence TOTAL:
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER BLDG. (without Ale):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER BLDG. (with Ale)
(DEDUCTED EXHAUST FANS $1,800.00 AND ADDED AlC $35,000.00): $204,350.00
(Total cost includes inmate labor for installation-iflabor and equipment is provided by
contractor add an additional $20,000.00.)
(Optional Mesh Vinyl Screen 100 x 8 side panels to allow for air flow $3,300.00)
TOTAL COST:
$42,000.00
540,000.00
$171,150.00
PLEASE NOTE: Permittin2: (reQuired) and additional occupancy will add to the total cost. .
Florida Jail Standards=one shower per 16 inmates and one toilet per 8 inmates.
(Additional Restroom and Shower Facilities $100,000.00)
Air Conditioning-per building add: $35,000.00)
PERMIT REOUIREMENTS:
· Wind Load
· Drawings to include electrical, mechanical and life safety
· Estimated electrical load draw per building
· Drawing to show electrical load feed
· Show emergency lighting exit signs and smoke detectors
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIO~ TYPE 6
Acceptable distance between buildings (egress must meet code).
Building must meet fire codes and must be sprinkled.
GROUP 1 UNRESTRAINED: Must have freedom of movement & meet occupancy load requirements.
EMERGENCY LIGHTING A-''"D EXIT SIGNS
~
....",
REDUCED CUSTODY HOUSING FOR MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES
Cost is based on the need for a 40 x 100 or 4000 sq. ft. structure to house fifty (50)
inmates in a dorm style environment. This is a long-tenn solution that will enable us to
extend the Federal Inmate Program. The cost would run approximately:
--------
OPTION #4-STEEL BUILDING/QUASI-HUT STYLE TOTAL COST:
American Steel Span Structure: $25,000.00 (1 Bldg.)
40' length x 100' height x 16'- Includes freight $22,250.00 (2 Bldgs.)
(Requires 30 days for delivery / 7 days for set-up and an additional30 days for fire
and security)
Technical Consultant $4.000.00
TOT AL BASE COST (w/1 Bldg.): $29,000.00
The ollowinu elements are needed to meet all construction. buildin and Ire codes:
Footers and Slabs $21,000.00
Electrical $35,000.00
Fire Alarm System $ 6,000.00
Sprinkler System $10,000.00
Security $10,000.00
Exhaust Fans $ 1.800.00
TOTAL: $83,800.00
Cost to retrofit Dorm A-I to meet medium security inmate requirements with low-tech/low
cost solution:
Chain Link Fence TOTAL: $40,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER ONE BLDG. (without Ale): $152,800.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER ONE BLDG. (with Ale)
(DEDUCTED EXHAUST FANS $1,800.00 AND ADDED AlC $35,000.00): $186,000.00
(Total base cost includes inmate labor for installation-iflabor and equipment is provided
by contractor add an additional $20,000.00.)
PLEASE NOTE: Permittin2: (required) and additional occupancy will add to the
total cost.
Florida Jail Standards=one shower per 16 inmates and one toilet per 8 inmates.
(Additional Restroom and Shower Facilities $100,000.00)
(Air Conditioning-per building add: $35,000.00)
PER'UT REQUIREMENTS:
· Wind Load
· Drawings to include electrical, mechanical and life safety
· Estimated electrical load draw per building
· Drawing to show electrical load feed
· Show emergency lighting exit signs and smoke detectors
TYPE OF CO~STRUCTION TYPE 6
Acceptable distance between buildings (egress must meet code).
Building must meet fire codes and must be sprinkled.
GROUP 1 ~'RESTR.uNED: Must have freedom of movement & meet occupancy load requirements.
E)IERGENCY LIGHTING
EXIT SIGNS
-.,
.."
REDUCED CUSTODY HOUSING FOR MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES
Cost is based on the need for a 40 x 100 or 4000 sq. ft. structure to house fifty (50)
inmates in a dorm style environment. This is a long-term solution that will enable us to
extend the Federal Inmate Program. The cost would run approximately:
OPTION # 5-GENERAL MARINE LEASING
Steel building is temporary and completely portable with
purchase or lease option. Modified drawing available for
actual needs, pricing will include:
. 64 Bed Facility
. 32 Bed Facility
(Delivered and installed within one week)
Items available with buildings and are optional:
· AlC
· Fire System
· Toilet Facilities
The ollowin elements are needed to meet all construction buildin and
Footers and Slabs $21,000.00
Electrical $35,000.00
Fire Alarm System $ 6,000.00
Sprinkler System $10,000.00
Security $10,000.00
Exhaust Fans $ 1.800.00
TOTAL: $8~80~00
Cost to retrofit Dorm A-I to meet medium security inmate requirements with low-techllow
cost solution:
Chain Link Fence TOTAL: $40,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER ONE BLDG. (without AlC):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER ONE BLDG. (with Ale)
(DEDUCTED EXHAUST FANS $1,800.00 AND ADDED AlC $35,000.00):
TOTAL COST:
S (PENDING)
$ (pENDING)
$ (pENDING)
PLEASE NOTE: Permittim! (reQuired) and additional occupancy will add to the
total cost.
Florida Jail Standards=one shower per 16 inmates and one toilet per 8 inmates.
(Additional Restroom and Shower Facilities $100,000.00)
(Air Conditioning-per building add: $35,000.00)
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
· Wind Load
· Drawings to include electrical, mechanical and life safety
· Estimated electrical load draw per building
· Drawing to show electrical load feed
· Show emergency lighting exit signs and smoke detectors
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE 6
Acceptable distance between buildings (egress must meet code).
Building must meet fire codes and must be sprinkled.
GROUP 1 UNRESTRAINED: Must have freedom of movement & meet occupancy load requirements.
EMERGENCY LIGHTING
EXIT SIGNS
'-
....,
fl~/l~ {r-/
? {D ~ 6lL-
í2 f'1; c.J
Comparison of Alachua County Jail costs to St. Lucie County
Alachua
St. Lucie
~J ~
p/'.-./
Jail population
Current
Sworn 04-05
Civilian 04-05
942.00 1,250.00
898.00 1,210.00
933.00 1,400.00
207.00 154.00
87.00 24.75
219.00 206.00
87.00 24.75
19,415,688.00 15,243,373.00
20,004,104.00 21,012,265.00
Projected average 03-04
Projected average 04-05
Staffing:
Sworn 03-04
Civilian 03-04
Budget:
03-04
04-05
Averages:
Cost per inmate
03-04-current population
04-05
Sworn staff to inmate ratio
03-04
04-05
59.24 33.41
58.74 47.57
3.2:1 6.9:1
3.05:1 6.07:1
4.55:1 8.06:1 .
4.26:1 6.80:1
Total staff to inmate ratio
03-04
04-05
~
'-'
'w1I
o
--
r+
--
N
CD
::s
(þ
OJ
c
c.
CC
CD
r+
::0
CD
<
--
~
o
o
3
3
.
~~~
~~ c-~
~ ~
5
-.
: I
CD
CD
-I
':::J"
CD
3
CD
0.
õr
::J
ãJ
I»(Õ
go
<':::J"
CD I»
oca
o CD
co.
=:)
d':õ'
CD ...,
CJ)-tt
_. CD
CJ)o.
-EßCD
0)""
we!.
, "0
......,
~ ø'
o
::J
CD
...,
CJ)
-
a
3
'-'
''wI
~~~~
WI\J~O~~~~?'~~!'>~
. . . .
orO»OCJ:r:-u-u:r:rm-u
c: CD (f) = .., .., == -. Q) -' Q) (f) Q)
< CD 0 Q) Q) ~ Cñ~ (f)<g.""o 3-
Q) CDO::J<c-_O_CDQ)
- º- gccCD ~ 0 õ) 0 Q) () 3 t:D
'C:: Q) 1\'\ a. .., (f) ::J 0 c- CD
1\'\ W# 0 a. C -.
W#o c: (f) Q) Q)
cc ::J 0
~ ::r ~::r
o
::J
~.
-
-
CD
"-"
-
':::J"
CD
C11C11o,)C11......COO')......O')~CJ1~(X)
~I\JW......COOC11COWCJ1(X)(X)1\J
............ .
OI\JC11I\JOO~~~0CJ1C110
OI\J~woo(X)oO')o(X)oo
""è:::>~
~ '\" -~-:
<::::
~
<:::;..
~
"
---G
v
---
~
-$
c:;..
4G-
,/
0'
<-
~
--
""-
~
~
r-
o
(")
a
-"
o
::J
\i
-n
(1)
0-
CD
...,
Q)
-
-c
...,
-"
CJ)
o
:]
CD
...,
-c
CD
...,
I
o
-.
CD
3
~c
~
...
-
~
-.:::::~
-...f
~
"":I
~
t"'"
. , .... . . . ~. ... >
. . . . . . . " .
...........................~.........
<~>
00
. , . . -
[J]ã
~
~
01
o
-U
CD
.....,
en
o
:::J
s:
-.
:::J
-.
3
c
3
(J)
CD
o
c
.....,
--
,........
'<
C
:::J
-.
,........
'C'
~
~
\...:T'
o
~
~
... to.~ .~z.o"I...
'.' ..... '< -:-:-: .',"'"
'-: :-:-: :-:-
~
r-
~
---"
~
~
-~
~
o
I\J
01
-0
CD
s:ëil
Q) 0
(j):J
:::¡:¡s:
CD =r
3 --
OJ 3
-c::
CD 3
(J)
CD
o
c::
....,
--
f""+
'<
C
:J
-.
f""+
en
""
....,¡
0 m ~C/) ~ ï1 ~o
tn c: ....... 0
-a ~ m CD 8:"'C
CD ,.. C- O :rCD
-. $;~
Ã1 3 -. C. !P-,
o -. 0
3 :J º-m 01
,.. SU CII(C m - .......
S1 -.
-. ,.. IU ~. 0 0
= CD ~
Q, ~CII :J
CQ a. ( ) >
..c £tCJ) OJ
c: ( )
» -S" IU
~ ~
3 :i" CD
= ( ) cc ~
::::s ~ CII C.
~ c:
C '0 C
"2..
SU (Ð' 3C m
- ,!!!..
-. -
~ 0
-.
3 -c
c CD
....
3 m
...
en -.
~
CD cc
n OJ
tfl C
--10. .... C
--10. --10. -.
--10. 0 01 I\.) ~8'
0 I\.) --10. 0
- - - CD
--10. CD --10. -.J c:
(» w 0 I\.) ...
01 0 0 01 ~
. . . .
0 0 0 0 -.
0 0 0 0 ...
"
~ eft
, cd?
V'<:)
..:::>
~
-c::::::;J
<"'"C)
c5<
w
...,
-c ".......,- 0 C- O
c....::S c::
CD 53 c c::
.... .... < ...,
n CDs» .... CD ...,
CD 9CD CD :J CD
::s -. :J
::s -
.. CD r+
r+ N-g
D) 80 -I :I: 0
cc 0 CD
CD ~-a At 0 en
C c:: -. en
0 - - en cc
IIIIIIft s» -. :J 0 .....
... m :J CD .
C -. cc
0 CD a. c:: r-
CD ::s c.. ., c::
tn 0
0 ca n
-. 0 Q)
cc
S» "'C -.
::s 0 ::J CD
c -a Q) .....0
0 ::s s» 0
n -.
D) ... ~ 00
-a -.
~ m c::
D)
n m ::J
-. .....
~ n
-.
..... c...
m
-.
-
~
(II
Ø)
~
o
~
~
CD
CD
---a
en
co
~
N
~
01
(J')
m
m
c
en
~
-9-% '-
~~~
~
co
0
.7t9.
~'"
....J..
~ 0
~ð' -<
~ CD
~.> ß)
.7t9. -,
~<9 »
.7t9. <
~8 CD
-,
~Q ß)
t)() CC
CD
~()() 0
7'
~a I\J ß)
0
0 --
~ -
01 '<
-
~Q -0
t)\ÿ
0
~a 'U
t).,. C
-
~Q ß)
t)", 1"'+
--
0
:J
-<
CD
I»
.....
~
~~
A- ~~
6<t. I\.)
-i ~~ 0
:::T '\ 0
CD
m ~~ ..þ.
c. ~ I
5' "1. -c I\J
CD ~q 0 0
::J 'U 0
c.
(') ~ Co: (J1
ID fþ -
..... Q)
CD š:
(IJ ~
..... ......
:::T ~ -.
(f) 0 0
..... :J :J
0 ~
.....
ID "1. ~ ......
::J () :::r
c: ~ -
3 ~ ~" 0 '<
cr
(f) ~ If ~3 »
-, 6~Ó
Q. a ~..... 'U <
:r Q) CD
3 t'tóó
ID ..., ...,
..... ~ ~..... -. Q)
CD en
cr ~ 0 CC
c: ~ó CD
::J <.)Eb ~..... :J
^
(IJ
"'-J 6~ CJ
(]'I ~e Q)
0> ~
-.
-
'<
~ 0
')~
¡t::. ~~
Ð~
~~
~
.....~
~
4f.
~q
4,~
~
~
~
~
"1~
ð'... ~"
~ '"
Ð~
~~
O~
~
'1ó ~""
~Ð
~6
ð6b ~""
Ð~
~e
.....
w
......UI
QUlO
000
1\)1\)
00
00
UI",
i'J
o
o
~
I
i'J
o
o
01
s:
-00
a a
o-::r
m -
,.......'<
0- »
:J <
~ < ~
g, -- Q)
Oce
mCD
,.......
-- 0
g m
--
-
'<
-0
o
-c
c:
-
Q)
,.......
--
o
:J
Daily Population Count
....¡
o
o
(XI
o
o
( ;)
o
o
o
o
o
.....
.....
o
o
N
o
o
.....
v.¡
o
o
.þ.
o
o
..... gJ
~ 0
.....
ì')
o
o
N
..... 0
N
-
..... Q)
ì')
0
0 --
W -
l
-
:J
N I I 3
c ::;: Q)
ì') r-
SÞ _.:J
.... 0 :J3 ,........
CI) 0 ma
.þ. -'(1) CD
"::::ìJ
:Jo
3" -0
ac
(1)![
ìJ-' 0
00
,,:J
C
~ ![
(;- C
ì') 2.-
0 -
0 Q)
01
,........
-.
0
:J
.....
N
-
.....
ì')
0
0
(XI
N
(')
(')
...
N
(')
(')
01
o
<
CD
-,
o
-,
o
~
c...
--
:::J
CC
N
C
C
..
N
C
C
c.n
o
<
CD
-,
(1
-,
o
~
a.
--
::J
CC
N
o
o
.þ.
N
o
o
UI
o
<::
-,
C1
-,
o
=E
a.
_II
::::J
CC
N
<:)
<:)
..
N
<:)
<:)
(II
o
<
CD
-,
o
-,
o
~
a.
--
:J
CC
N
o
o
...
N
o
o
en
o
<
CD
...,
C1
...,
o
:E
c..
--
:::J
CC
~
'-tI
z Z ()
CD CD t:
~ CD CD ~ ...,
-I c: c: ...,
-. -. () CD
0 - -
C- o.. ::J
,..... -. -. 0 ,....
Q) ::J ::J
- cc cc ::J -I
OJ ~ ;t: en 0 Z
CD ,....
N ...J. ..., ,.... (þ
a. t: Q) ~
() 0 0 Sl (J)
Q) CD CD -. OJ 0 ....
en en 0 CD -
"U -. -. 0 r-
Q) cc cc ::J a.
(') ::J ::J () ~ c
-. CD CD tn n
,.....
'< C- o.. Q) .... --
() () 'U ~ CD
C
Q) Q) Q) n 0
"U '"C 0 ~o
Q) Q) -.
,....
(') (') '< 0 c
-. -. ~ ~
r-+ ,.....
'< '< 0....
m c...
m Q)
-.
n -
-.
....
~ +
W W N ~
.¡=. N 01 en
.¡=. 0 CJ) co
'- ......,
-I - Z
"2::J
0 §3 CD
r-+ ~
Q) CD 0)
- ....}¡" ,.-+ -;
CD oCD 0
-
N1J ,.-+
CD 00 0)
c. -
0"'C OJ
en -2!c:
- CD
::u 0) c.
,.-+
CD -. ()
0 -I
3 ::J 0)
Q) () "'C 0
0) r-+
-. 0 Q)
:J 0 -
c: -.
-. ~
:J ::J CD
(C ,.-+ CD
õ' c.
en
-, ::u
::u
CD
CD 3
:J
r-+ Q)
-.
:J
-.
:J
~
~
c.n
I
..JI.
..JI.
co
co
..JI.
W
.þ.
.þ.
~ .....,
-c ....-... - --I
CD c...:] 0
.... §3 r-+
n 0)
COO) -
CD ~r-+ OJ
::J oCD
- CD
... N"1J C-
m 00
cc g.c ()
CD "-"C: 0)
- '"C
0 0)
r-+ 0)
.... -. 0
0
-.
C :] ~ --i
CD () ~ 0
tn 0 r-+
-- c: c: Q)
cc cc -
:]
::J r-+ c: OJ
en CD
0 r-+
'-"" a.
m en
-c "
m
n c:
-- ::J
... a.
'< CD
a.
~
~
~
~
o
....l.
....l.
CD
CD
....l.
o
N
~
en ... ,..., z ."
0 0 0 -
s:: - 0
""I - C'D en
en 0 ::s o - ~ -. c... .. ..,
o~ ::s 3 o ::s s:: -. -.
.. c...m gnn3tn-l C- O 0
tn~-m-':r S» :J
c:c: s::- s:: s:: _ -. C'D
ënën ::s cp fj"Oo.mg: c::
C'D- tnC'D en
. . C/o) 9
ee o,"-o.cr_o. ..,
otn ~':r::rC'Daa
C'D C'D w _ n
"0"0 cô!& m ao~ -·m
-. 3 tn
m m Cñ 0. ::s = e: CD
:;::¡.:;::¡. cø¡ w o-o.nC'D
3 3 !þ_ tn::s':rmtn.... 0-
C'D C'D õ· C'DoC'D~cr""l
aa ::s C'D-nm'<o 0
2.2. tn » ':r C'D -. - 3
~ "0 0 ::s CQ ':r_ 0
"0 - tn ::s C'D ':r
c...c... C'Do.fj3c:C'D
s:: s:: ¡ Z "
tn tn ::s"O~gën-
-- n 0. C'D . cø s::
nl t) m -'ëi1 C'D - cø 0
C'D C'D ñ :'o¡ê~cø 3
w w
NOJ s:: . ::s "0 ~ ::s 0 C" ....
Os:: i» tn':rmtnC'D
0""1 S' m '< - s:: ; CD 0
-C'D 0. =tn~tnc -I ..,
::-m ~ ñ' 3 OJ tn
"Os:: cr 0 0 ..,
"P2. '< -!!.o~o Dr ....
':r~""IC'D"" --
-c... 0. C'D C'Dmc... W - 3
wlitro s:: <' '<tn_s::m . - :J
Ntn e; m C'D ':r. = W en 3
00= ¡ "2 m -I tn ..-.. --
. n ::s iJ ::s ':r n Dr S» "1:J ~
-IC'D CQ õ' .....C'DO
- 3S'N_::S =R CD I»
men ':r D)
cr- C'D _':rcøo. tn CCI
øp! ::s mC'Docø5 (1) -
m tn s:: ~3Ccø_ ~
0.= 3 n"O(iJn!. (Ø C-
m n O-C'D CD
"Otn cr ¡~!;õ' .., C) C
_w C'D
C'Do ""I ca o.c:. m ""-"'
o.m 0 C'D tn ':r tn
cr= .... 0. ':r ~ -. C'D 3
'< fn n o C'D ::s ...
en~ 0 -. ë: ""I n c: --
::s ::s _. C'D ë. n
00 ::!I n::Stno.en
::s OCQ- .
c:..... c....!L!.e 0 CD
~kr C'D
0. :;::¡. m C'D
. n C'D m "0 0
m:;::: _. =Q.=m en
OJ.!'» ::s ." -. :;::¡. ..,
3 o =~ Õ 3 ã1
o~ m ""I C'D n ...
Oeo - m l' 3 !!. g (') * D)
C'D
"I tn 8:tnc~- ..... (')
~z cr s::::s 0 -. ...
-. n -. II ~ 0
'< =':rno..... --
!&c... - o -. . :J tn
::s m "0 3 en
.0 ':r m tn m _.c... S»
- C'D - -::sc - ...
00 ::s -. 0. 0 ¡. tn 0 --
en c ::S2""1-= n
en 3 õ'=nC'Dn
C/o) 3~g¡JD =R tn
C/o) cr
C'D -::so.œ -.
- (')
~ ""I m m ~ _. c
0 = ::s m ""I CD N
m .... o~ =CD ü1
tn C'D ::s tn ~ tn m 0
2: 3 m - s::
::s g &"2. ¡ 0
CQ "0 0
- ~ _ 0-....
0 C'D ':r "0 '< ':r N
¡J C'D C'D 0 C'D C'D
_C'D-
tn -·tn 0.
n.
C'D
z
c
3
C"
CD
~
2.
5'
3
a
CD
(n
~
-
m
3
"C
Õ
'<
CD
CD
(n
~
N
z
c
3
C"
CD
~
2.
-
::J
3
~
(n
~
-
m
3
"C
Õ
1
CD
(n
c.n
:...a
...
z
c
3
C'
CD
...
o
....
~
<Ð
..,
m
cc
<Ð
o
~.
-<
5'
3
m
-
<Ð
"'0
o
"'0
c
m
-
õ'
::]
-
:::J
3
S»
-
CD
(n
"C
CD
...
o
o
¡
~
o
::J
!!.
~
(")
CD
...
...
~
z
c
3
C'
CD
...
a
5'
3
!
(n
""0
CD
...
o
o
¡
(")
ct
o
::J
I»
-
~
(")
CD
...
c.n
èø
cø
c.n
~
zz
c c
3 3
g[
.., ..,
o 0
- -
aa
~: ~
w' 3;
::] <Ð
en a.
-en
~m
~
<D
(,ù
o
......1\)
m~
5'
3
m
-
<Ð
"'0
o
"'0
c
m
-
õ'
::]
a
o
c
::]
-
zz
c c
3 3
CTCT
<Ð <Ð
.., ..,
g,g,
aa
:ct <Ð
=;::1.
w' 3;
::] <Ð
en a.
-en
m _
~~
~
~
<D
<D
I\)
~o
<DO
:Þ
¡¡-
n
~
c
S»
(')
o
C
::::I
.....
en
~
CD
....
~
en
o
:R
n
CD
en
f'Þ'
ï
C
n
ë·
(')
o
C
::::I
en
~
CD
:I.
::g
en
o
:R
n
CD
..-..
c...
C
::]
<Ð
~
_0
I\)
o
o
0'1
--
z
c
3
C'
CD
~
2.
-
::J
3
a
CD
(n
~
-
m
3
"C
Õ
'<
CD
m
...
Co
z
c
3
C"
CD
~
o
....
-
::J
3
AI
-
CD
(n
~
-
m
3
"C
Õ
'<
CD
CD
(n
~
.....
z
c
ã-
CD
~
2.
5'
3
a
CD
(n
"C
CD
~
o
o
¡
~
õ'
::J
!!.
~
<Ð
..,
m
cc
<Ð
o
~,
-<
::]
3
m
-
<Ð
"'0
o
"'0
c
m
-
õ'
::]
~
n
CD
~
c.n
Co
z
c
3
C'
CD
~
o
....
5'
3
AI
-
CD
(n
""0
CD
~
o
o
¡
n
-
õ'
::J
AI
-
~
n
CD
~
...
u.
'-'"
zz
c c
3 3
CT CT
<Ð <Ð
.., ..,
g,g,
a("')
~: ~
w' 3;
::] <Ð
en a.
-en
~~
m
o
o
I\)~
1\)8
~
<Ð
i»
cc
<Ð
o
~.
-<
::]
3
m
-
<Ð
"'0
o
"'0
c
m
-
õ'
::]
zz
c c
3 3
CT CT
<Ð <Ð
.., ..,
o 0
- -
aa
~: ~
w' 3i
::] <Ð
en a.
-en
m _
~ m
~
m
o
~
~
(,ù(,ù
(,ùl\)
-
::::I
Q.
¡r
::::I
:xl
;r
CD
....
(')
o
C
::::I
z
c
s:
OJ
m
::u
o
-n
en
~
CD
....
=ä
en
o
:R
n
CD
-
3!:
S»
a
::::I
(')
o
C
::::I
.....
z
s:
»
-i
m
en
-c
m
::u
m
s:
-c
r
o
-<
m
m
en
~
CD
....
~
en
o
:R
n
CD
'--'
.........
'"tJ
OJ
<C
CD
(¡,)
- <
::T CD
~~
.. -
..
<
CD
~
~r
"tJ
o
;:+
0)
:J
~
:J
CD
N
.þ.
I
N
<0
S20
"tJ
OJ
<C
CD
.þ.
-.
:::J
CD
~
I
N
--
~
~
~~
<::::::-. ()
-=:::::::::, .~
"\
.~~ -
__ ô 0
~~~
_ ~ c
~ '\ "
G2
""
::T
0)
<
CD
-
o
en
"0
CD
:J
a.
» 3
:J 0
a. :J
- CD
0) ::T '<
CD 0
(J) :J
::T"tJ
CD ...,
::::::!.O
=t(C
en õJ
::T 3
g en
c:: 0)
:J :J
o a.
-
-
::T
CD
C"
0)
(C
-
::T 0
_. -h
:J 0
'" ...,
~ ~
a a.
-.
~ t5
en "tJ
::T CD
000
c: "tJ ...,
c:: CD C"
0) :J ~
= ~ ::T
ã);::¡:
0) ::T
< 0
CD c:
-
-
::T
(j)"
"tJ
ëD
en
CD
:J
-
0)
r+
õ·
:J
~
;::::¡.:
::T
C" a.
CD CD
CD ëä
;:Þ 0
::T"tJ
o -.
_ :J
a.(C
-.
:J -
(C ::T
CD
ëD
3
CD
a.
'<
.
-t
::T
(i)"
(if
-.
:J
=:'
Q)
en
-
...,
c:
Sl
c:
ëD
o
...,
."
:J Z - ,..,
000 \oJ
= ~ ::T :""
CD - 0) ^
0),< < 0)
<oCD3-
CD c: C"
~(C CD 0)
CD c: 0.5
en ~ ~ ~
::T 0 ..., =
~. ~ 3
=t 0) ~
-< ::T ..., ::T ~
o 0 (C 0) 0
c: a. c: :J c:
CD -. CD (j)" c::
;::::¡.: t5 0) 3 en
::T C",ft-
CD -0 ,,, 0)
..., ::T c: - ;:+
CD _ 0
C" ~ 0 ~
~ ff ~ g:
---I ::T ..., -
-, _::T
::T 0 ::T CD
(jf :J CD en
en CD _.
_- O)::T
c: C" -. CD
a.s.a.~
_ CD
a. ::T 3 (jf
o CD 0) CD
m "tJ :J ;::::¡.:
VI 0 a. ::T
:J -. CD
o :J 0 ...,
_ - :J
3 ëir CD <g
CD - 0 -.
::T ..., :J
0) 0) (C
:J - ~ -
_ '< CD 0
ffio o:J
c: _ CD
CD 0 ::T CD
:J 0) CD a.
a. :J :""
;s:S!l
-- .
:Ir-
e e
....n
CD --
tn CD
::rO
o 0
3 e
:I
....
....
::r
CDO
-0...
i: c; 3-
D» tn --
ë1 CD :J
::ra!!.
ND»C-
Ntte
o tn
N:ltt
Cern
C CD
UlCUJ
:'II tn
:ÞCD
¡-3
:I
,,~
s» tn
-CD
3 tn
s» tn
:I 3
o CD
::R:I
....
C"
CD
a.
en
~
~
'-'
'wII
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-111
FROM:
DATE:
June 15, 2004
RE:
Resolution 04-174/ Opposing Proposed Increase of Homestead Exemption
Attached is Resolution 04-174, Opposing a Proposed Constitutional Initiative Petition to
Increase the Homestead Exemption by $25,000.
Also attached are informational memorandums dated May 19th and June 8th, discussing the
proposed exemption and the affect that it could have on 81. Lucie County. The estimated
increase in the countywide millage rate to offset approximately 3,184 properties coming off
the tax rolls would range from 1.0265 to 1.0913.
For these reasons and others, staff recommends the adoption of Resolution 04-174,
Opposing a Proposed Constitutional Initiative Petition to Increase the Homestead
Exemption by $25,000.
DMAlab 04-111
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Jeff Furst, Property Appraiser
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Attachments
'-'
.....,
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-101
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson,
DATE:
June 8, 2004
RE:
Proposed Doubling of the Homestead Exemption
Attached is additional information regarding the proposed doubling of the homestead
exemption to $50,000 per year. Included in this information is the estimated decrease in
municipal tax revenues for Port St. Lucie, Fort Pierce, and St. Lucie Village.
I have also included a report prepared by County staff on the amount allocated in FY-04 to
the Sheriff's budget from the General Fund and the Fine and Forfeiture Fund. As you can
see, this amount is $39,883,971 or 33.59% of the total budget of those two funds. This
equates to 3.7008 mils. The total County millage rate for the General Fund and the Fine
and Forfeiture Fund is 7.5794.
Another report that is attached shows that approximately 7.1 % of St. Lucie County housing
stock is in the value range of $25,000-50,000 the average range as $41,213. With the
second homestead exemption, 3,184 properties would come off the tax rolls.
We also received another report indicating the estimated decrease in revenues for each
City in the County and the offsetting estimated millage increases.
DMAlab 04-101
c: Board of County Commissioners
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Jeff Furst, Property Appraiser
Attachments
',-<
....,
"I think there are a lot of costs there that they are not aware of or are not looking at right now," Weekley
said. "By them incorporating, they would have to come up with their own comprehensive plan as well as
a land-use plan."
South Stock Island has an "extremely small tax base" and property values are still relatively low,
according to Weekley. The island doesn't have the benefit of Key West's tourism trade, he said.
"We have the sales tax, which is a quite a substantial part of the city's budget," Weekley said.
The city of Key West was considering an annexation study, but the city commission tabled the project
indefinitely May 11 because bid costs came back higher than expected. The study could eventually be
bid out to a private company or be completed by city planning staff, City Planner Ty Symroski said.
The request to bidders, now on the backburner, outlines goals of annexation:
> Protect Stock Island's maritime industry, working community and affordable housing;
> Avoid additional taxes for Stock Island, Key Haven, Key West and the unincorporated areas of Monroe
County;
> Improve community services to residents of Stock Island, Key Haven and Key West through greater
efficiency;
> Provide residents of Stock Island, Key Haven and Key West a bigger say in the issues affecting them.
Once complete, the city commission would decide whether to follow through with an annexation attempt.
The issue would be put to a vote by Key West, south Stock Island and Key Haven residents. Unlike
incorporation, the Legislature's blessing would not be needed, Weekley said.
~ v
Floridians can't afford to fall for this homestead initiative scam
By MARTIN DYCKMAN, Times Columnist, 5/30
TALLAHASSEE - Watch out for flying pigs, and for summer snowstorms here in Florida.
No kidding. Gov. Jeb Bush has finally met a tax cut that he doesn't like.
Since his election almost six years ago, Bush has embraced a steady progression of tax cuts that have
saved taxpayers, as he said pridefully the other day, a cumulative $1 O.7-billion. Most of that has been
for wealthy stockholders and businesses, though there have been several sales-tax holidays for the
common folk.
Now that some people are promoting a tax cut for homeowners, however, Bush thinks Florida can't
afford it.
',e's concerned over a petition campaign to double the $25,000 homestead exemption. The state's
,1umbers-crunchers say that would cost the schools, the counties and the cities some $2-billion a year.
12
'-'
''WI
The governor is right. Florida can't afford it.
Neither can the homeowners. They're being scammed by a wealthy couple who are trying to buy a U.S.
Senate seat for the wife.
But to some people, perhaps many, the governor's positions will appear - to put it as politely as possible
- a bit inconsistent.
This tax cut, you see, inevitably would mean increasing taxes on the business community. Joe and Jane
Lunchbucket, on the other hand, might actually get a break.
Trouble is, Joe and Jane Lunchbucket could also get badly hurt. Especially if they rent the place where
they live.
Here's how. Most of the cities, school boards and counties levy their taxes well short of the maximum
rate, $10 for each $1,000 in assessed value, that the Constitution allows. So to avoid having to fire their
teachers, police officers, firefighters and what have you, they would raise their tax rates.
The school boards would have no choice. The Constitution, as amended by another initiative two years
ago, requires them to reduce class sizes. That means more teachers, not fewer. Is there $782-million
worth of fat in Florida's school budgets? Anybody with good sense knows better.
Depending on the assessed value of your house, the higher rates could cost you more money than
you'd save from the higher exemptions. So could higher lIuser feesll for water, sewers and garbage. God
help you _ the Public Service Commission couldn't - if your city is in the electric or gas business.
So the sponsors' claim that lIevery Florida homeowner will save $500 per year in Florida property taxes!"
is untrue. It would be true only if every home were already assessed at $50,000 or more, if every home
were taxed at the statewide average rate of 20 mills, and if it could be guaranteed that every taxing
authority would swallow the loss without raising its tax rates.
Jeffrey and Karen Saull are the millionaire couple behind the campaign. One doesn't presumably
accrete such wealth as they have without being terribly smart or incredibly lucky. If they are that smart,
then they have to know that what they are promising homeowners is untrue. That would make them
calculating liars. If they don't know, then they are colossal fools. Neither liars nor fools deserve to be
followed when they are trying to lead Florida over a cliff.
Another whopper is the name of their organization, "Families for Lower Property Taxes." According to
reports they filed with the secretary of statè, the entire $1,175,055 contributed to the campaign to March
31 came from just four people. Three of them accounted for a total of $55. The other $1,175,000 was
attributed to Karen Saull, who by no coincidence is one of the eight declared and duly qualified
candidates in the no-runoff Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.
She may not win, and probably won't, but there is a greater chance that enough people to put it into
effect will thoughtlessly sign and vote for the homestead initiative.
Higher property tax rates, needless to say, would be a double whammy for businesses, which don't get
homestead exemption. Those businesses include every rented house, apartment and mobile home
space in Florida. When taxes go up, so do rents.
That has always been one of the fundamental flaws in homestead exemption. It rewards people who
own their homes at the expense ,of people who have to rent. Nothing can be done about that in the
13
'-'
.....,
foreseeable future, but people of conscience should want to withhold their signatures and their votes
from anything that would make the imbalance even worse.
There are 14 counties, all small, already taxing at the maximum 10 mill rate and seven more that are at
nine mills or higher. They couldn't raise their rates to recover the loss and would have to beg the
Legislature for help. So would several school districts, including Hernando, that are close to the lid.
Overall, $2-billion might not strike some people as a lot of money, but it's more than 10 cents out of
every property tax dollar that Florida's local governments collect.
It is nice to be on the governor's side for once. Please, please, please don't sign that diabolical petition.
Off-duty officers are on the job
Gambling incident won't change policy
By Tony Bridges, DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER, 5/24
When it comes to money matters, an off-duty job is a cop's best friend.
Get permission from the chain of command, spend a few shifts a week directing traffic or just standing
around, and some officers can nearly double their annual salary.
That's why police and sheriffs deputies in Tallahassee work thousands of hours every year providing
private security for everything from garage sales to Christmas parties to grocery stores.
And, while it can occasionally cause problems - as happened earlier this year in a gambling investigation
',_ cops view their moonlighting as a common law-enforcement practice that meets a public need and
makes for safer residents.
"Most people that have a job can get a second one," said Sgt. Tony Drzewiecki, who supervises off-duty
work for the Leon County Sheriffs Office. "This is just the most compatible work for a deputy sheriff to
earn extra money while still providing a valuable service to the community."
To work, they have to get clearance from the bosses first.
Both the Sheriffs Office and the Tallahassee Police Department have systems for approving jobs. The
way it works is this:
A person or a business that wants to hire security calls either the department or a particular cop. The
officer who wants to take the job fills out a form listing the employer, type of work and address.
At the Sheriffs Office, that form goes to a civilian clerk, then to Drzewiecki. At the Police Department,
the form goes to the officer's supervisors, then to Lt. Mark Harvey in Internal Affairs.
The Sheriffs Office has a policy against working at bars or at events involving heavy drinking. The
Police Department doesn't provide personal protection and only rarely allows officers to guard parties at
private residences.
Once the job is approved, the cops go to work, up to 25 hours a week.
14
'-
.."",
"W,} do it publicly," Willi said of negotiating his raise, "And with it comes pains, and that's a necessary
part of the process."
It sounds good, but this low-tax initiative is a scam
By Bill Cotterell, CAPITAL CURMUDGEON, Tallahassee Democrat, 6/3 P1" / (Vi
There's a good master's thesis or doctoral dissertation to be done, if it's not too easy and obvious, on
the theory that societies begin to decline when citizens figure out how to vote themselves all sorts of
goodies and send the bill to their grandchildren.
Future historians may mark the 2004 legislative session as the last, best, failed hope of getting a handle
on this all-too-human tendency to buy now, pay never. For several bad reasons, efforts to rein in
Florida's public initiative process failed and we've got some very serious petition campaigns racing
toward the November ballot.
There's even one initiative gathering momentum to undo a previous petition amendment. That's the
campaign, backed by Gov. Jeb Bush and led by Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, to repeal the
2000 high-speed rail initiative amendment before it makes a train wreck of the state budget.
But probably the petition campaign with the most far-reaching impact - which has had very little
examination until quite recently - is the proposal sponsored by the nice-sounding "Families for Lower
Property Taxes." All it would do is double the $25,000 homestead exemption.
, And, hey, who doesn't want lower property taxes - but why stop there? Let's vote ourselves a 28-inch
'waistline, a full head of hair and lifetime passes to Walt Disney World while we're at it. No need to diet,
exercise or work, just vote.
Schoolchildren need smaller class sizes? Want to build a bullet train from Tampa and Lakeland to
Orlando and Miami? You think it's time we did something about medical malpractice or greedy lawyers?
Well, that's why we have elections - not to select people to do the hard, unglamorous work of inching
toward compromise on those kind of problems, but to pass feel-good initiatives that are sold to us by
people who can buy their way onto the ballot.
Those "families" for lower property taxes, for instance, appear to be four people. One gave $25 to the
campaign, another gave $20, a third gave $10 and the fourth - Karen Saull ofVero Beach - dug around
in her purse until she found $1.175 million for the initiative, as of March 31. Saull, an unknown
Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, is the wife of Jeffrey Saull, an import magnate who believes
city and county governments are awash in cash from rising property values, and wasting much of it.
The petition drive already has more than 200,000 of the 488,722 voter signatures needed to get on the
ballot, if the Florida Supreme Court rules that it meets legal requirements. Once on the ballot, it's almost
sure to pass - if for no other reason that explaining why it's a bad idea takes longer and feels less
satisfying, than saying "lower taxes."
"This is the stupidest thing in the world," said Anthony Cutaia, a Boca Raton real estate man who formed
"Floridians for Responsible Tax Reform" last week to combat the Saulls' amendment. "It shows a
4
.-
'-'
tremendous lack of understanding of the financial consequences. It benefits only the homeowner, at the
expense of the renter, the commercial property owner, even people who own second homes."
Cutaia doesn't believe in the homestead exemption at all, but that's not the issue here,
Florida is not a high-tax state to begin with; that's why people keep retiring down here from states with
income taxes. Even Bush, who boasts of trimming $10.7 billion in taxes in six years, is opposed to the
property-tax plan. (Rule of thumb: When Bush says he opposes a tax cut, listen,)
Saulls' advertising promises a $500 tax cut for every homeowner. But that assumes every home is
assessed at a minimum $50,000 and taxed at 20 mills - which they aren't - and that the schools, cities
and counties will absorb a $2 billion revenue loss, statewide, without hiking other taxes and fees.
Constrained by the "Save Our Homes" amendment that was passed in the early 1990s, limiting
assessment growth to 3 percent a year, a lot of local governments would have to raise millage to make
up lost revenue. But there are 14 small counties already at the 10-mill cap, and seven others are very
close to it. In areas with municipal utilities, they could make up for lost property taxes with soaring
electric bills,
And they could hike taxes on commercial properties, meaning renters would pay more every month:)
Businesses would pass along the cost with a few cents on everything they sell - and hire fewer people -
to offset their property tax tabs.
In fairness, it should be said that local governments wouldn't have to depend entirely on raising taxes.
They could make up some of the loss by laying off firefighters, police officers, teachers and other local
employees. Or they could seek a bailout (fat chance) from the Legislature, which could raise the already
regressive sales tax a penny or two.
Some day, when historians or government scholars analyze what went wrong with Florida, they'll marvel
,at apeople who kept voting themselves new goodies - bullet trains, smaller class sizes - while
'constricting their own ability to pay for them.
FCCMA
MEMBERS-IN-TRANSITION
As of May 20, 2004
Bob Norris
Former Manager
Ponce Inlet
1218 Tracy Drive South
Port Orange, FL 32119
386/ 756-8392- Home
800/221-2447- Office
Henry Dunn
Former Manager
White Springs
P.O. Box 3474
Lake City, FL 32056
386/961-8095
henrvsunshine@msn.com
5
'-
'wi!
SLC Sheriff
FY04 Sheriff FY04 Total Percent of Millage
Budget Budget by Fund Total RatelSheriff
001-2110-599043-200 500,000
001-8191-599043-800 11,086,008
General Fund Sub-total 11,586,008 76,306,888 15.18% 1.0751
107-8191-599042-800 22,150,753
107-8191-599043-800 4,119,925
107-711-599040-700 2,027,285
Fine & Forfeiture Fund Sub-total 28,297,963 42,416,082 66.72% 2.6257
Total 39,883,971 118,722,970 33.59% 3.7008
G:\Budget\Quattro\Budgetû4\SheriffExp.xls
'-
"WI
TAX: Ad Valorem
ISSUE: Additional $25,000 Homestead Exemption
BILL NUMBER(S): HJR 1603
SPO~SOR(S): Representative Kottkamp
MO~TH/YEAR COLLECTION IMPACT BEGINS: January 4, 2005
DATE OF ANALYSIS: April 8, 2004
SECTION 1: NARRATIVE
a. Current Law: The basic homestead exemption is $25,000.
b. Proposed Change: Amends s. 6, Art. VII. Increases the basic homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000.
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTIO~ OF DATA & SOURCES
2003 Homestead exempt values, homestead exempt parcels with taxable value, and total county millage rates from DOR Property
Tax Administration,
Parcel count by just value category from U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, Census 2000.
SECTION 3: ASSUMPTIO~S & RATIONALE
Difference between just value and assessed value will offset increase in property values since 2000.
Average property value in each value category is approximated by the mid-range of the category.
Growth occurs at 2% per year.
SECTION 4: METIIODOLOGY
Census 2000 data on owner-occupied housing by value category (less than $10,000, $10,000-$14,999, etc.) was used to determine
the percent of homesteads valued between $25,000 and $50,000. This percentage was applied to the 2003 number of homesteads
not totally exempt by county to determine the number of homesteads that will receive less than the full $25,000 exemption, The
value of these homesteads was estimated using the weighted average of owner-occupied housing for those valued between $25,000
and $50,000. The amount of the $25,000 exemption these homesteads will not receive was calculated and deducted from the
product of the number of homesteads with taxable value and $25,000. Applicable millage by county was computed by dividing the
grand total taxes paid by county by the total taxable value ofreal, personal, and railroad property.
Municipal impacts were computed by applying the countywide percentage increase in exempt value to each municipality's exempt
value and multiplying by the city millage rate.
SECTION 5: Il\IPACT SUMMARY (DETAILS ATIACHED)
FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
State Impact-All Funds FY 2004-05 Annualized Cash Cash
High
Middle ($2,233.1) Million
Low
Consensus Estimate: FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
Adopted: / / FY 2004-05 Annualized Cash Cash
General Revenue
Total State Impact
Total Local Impact
Total Impact
'-
f"
..,. r-- N a; '" 0 ..,. <D '" ~
'" ~ ..,. r-- ~ ~ <D r-- 0
r-- N M ~
M VI
<'I
<D '" ..,. <D M M N N M ~
M N <D ~ ~ ~ ~ <D <D
'" N ..,. 0
Ö Ó
-
'" '" ..,. ; r-- '" N r-- ;¡; ~
0 '" <D '" ~ M 0
'" N ..,. ,"\
.,; N
'"
<D N r-- 0 '" " ..,. '" CD ~
~ '" M r- N ~ <D <D '"
N N N ..,.. '<t
.,; N
'"
'" 0 <D M N N M 0 M ::
..,. ..,. <D ~ ~ " <D ;¡; '"
<D N N 0>
..: ....:
N
'" 0 ..,. <D r-- en '" '" '" ~
N '" '" '" ~ ~ '" r-- <D
0 M '" 0
.,; Ñ ....:
..,.
en ex) en 0 <D N M N 0 ~
N ..,. N N <D ~ ~ ~ ..,. 0
..,. M <-
.,; N
N
on ;¡; <D <D <D ..,. 0 en M ~
N en ~ '" " en en '"
"!. N " M <D "i '"
~ ~ .,¡
.... <'I
on '" C;; en en '" OJ '" N 0
; '" ; r-- ~ 0 en
N N ex) M. '"
Ñ ~ ~ Ñ ,.:
en
<0 U; ..,. ..,. r-- M '" 0 N 0
r-- ~ N U; '" ., '" co
co ..,. "i "!. <D CD
..: ~ ~ Ñ cé
0
N
'" en ..,. '" ..,. " 0 0 ; 0
r-- ex) M ;:¡ <0 ..,. CD en
0 ~ M <D ~ tt) N
..: ~ Ñ .,;
ex)
~
'ë
"
CI
c:
ïñ
"
0
.<:
'0
CI
ë.
"
u
u
0
¿
CI
c:
~ 0> en
0 en en en OJ 0>
'0 0 en en en en en en en
0 en en en en en 0> en
~ 0 i. ~ .¡ .,; .¡ .,; .,;
Ü å N N M M ..,.
;;; '" '" '" .. '" '" '"
" .s .s .s .s .s .s .s
Q, c:
U) '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W ;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
::> CII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-' CII å .,.; å .,; å .,; å
'" " ;;; N N M M ..,.
> -' '" '" II> '" '" '"
w
µ.¡
~
-<
~
:J
V)
ç¿
t.U
f-
::2
:J
V)
w
....
a
2:
::2
µ.¡
V)
-<
f-
a
V)
;2
-<
V)
-<
V)
~
-<
I-
Z
-<
V)
w
U
:J
~......,,.¡
.?: .
. l-
V)
V)
~
a
....,
l-
V)
::2
-<
~
:J
p.,
~
,.¡
a
Q"
V)
-<
,.¡
,.¡
w
~
p.,
o
u
V)
-<
Q"
'wtI
M
,"\
<'I
«i
,"\
'"
'"
,"\
....
«i
'''\
(/}
CoO
VI
"<T
Ô
....
V)
....
'"
"'.
'"
""
.".
,"\
<'I
~
,"\
""
M
<'I.
....
""
'"
«i
,"\
""
o
CoO
V)
",.
,"\
""
~
cq
~
<-
'"
CO'>
~
M
""
~
o
....:
'"
<-
""
ó
'"
....
~
<-
or;
V)
00
"'.
""
....
.:t
o
tI)
....
..::
tI)
N
....
~
o
v
"
0;
>
v
t.O
E
u
>
-<
'-
...,¡
""'"
o r-
a, 0
~""
ó
v ;;; a, v 0 ", '" '" "'" 0 a, '" '" r- '... '" ~ a, ..., ..., '" 'n '" a,
r- r- '" '" a, a, .... .... ~ ..., '" .... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 r- '"
'" '" r- :: '" a, .... Ñ '" ~ '" '" '" '" V '" '" '" "" '" r- '" a, ~
V '" '" '" "1 '" '" r- '" '" '" '" '" '" c-, 0 '" '" r- '"
u ..¡ or; ..,; .,; oô ó oô r-: r-: ó oô oô 8 ,..¡ .,; oô r-: ó ó oô .,; r-: .,; r-: ..¡
e/
;: 2
u
z :2
u '"
0
¡g ~
~ '¡j ó
u
.s ~
....
u 0
011 .9
,g
:â
'"
'"
u '"
:ë -.6
'" u 'n
¡;¡ :> r-:
¡-. -¡¡ '"
" > a,
u
Z
0
r-
u 'n
:g r-:
'"
~ u r-
0: :> ""
r- -¡¡ '"
-¡¡ > o.
Õ
¡-.
~
'"
-¡¡ 0
c.. '"
'ü 'r>
'2 u ...,
:>
~ c: ~
u
"" :>
,5 u
<>::
~ '"
0: '"
~ ¡-.
u
u
0
'"
u r-
bJ E t"'~
.§ ~ ~
t ~
c...!;
O~
M~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ N~~ ~M~O~~N~OO
Ód~~~d~ddd~~ dÓ~d
~NMO~_O~~~~~NV~~~O
v~~~N~~~~~~~N~~~M
~NM~~~~~~~~Nv~M~V
~~~~~6~~6~¿~¿~~~~
O_M~~~~~~~~~v~~o~
~~~~~~M~~_N~~~MN~
~~~~~~~~¿~~¿~~¿~~
O~M~-~~N ~M~MON~
MM M MN- ~
M
rl~_O~O~~~MO~MO~ONO
In~~OM~~~~o~~O-N~O
_~Ø~MNv~~~-~~NN~O
M~ÔM~~~~~M0~~ó¿Ñ~
~v~_~~~~M_ØNO~M-.
~M~M~~~MNOM~MO~~~
~~~~~~~~Ñ~M~M~~MM
~~v~~~ø~- O~v~=M~
, M ...:
-----------------
~O-VN~~~NNM~~-~~~o
N_MO-~~-ØO~~~~MVN~
Ov~N~~NMO~~~~~O~M
M~~M~~~~~~~~~~d~~
~~~~~N~N~ v~M~~~~
NN~~~~~M- _~vM~~~
~~_____~ ~_~ "--V')
-- - -- -~ '-"
oooooooo~ooooooooo
~ooooooo~o~~o~o~oo
oOOOOO~N~~~~~O~~o
~~~~~5~~0d~~~~~:~â
OO\,....-¡M\'o
~Nr_~
\.O~\"O\.ON
~~d~~
~O"'COM
OON"CTO\
MONOO~
~ '" v) oô I,.)
oO'\\O"'Cttr)
0'\.. _.. 00.. ~ N..
11')\0_\1') In
"'¢"Nr--N
'"
\.OMV'":Ir_N
V \.0 N In N
MO\O\MO
Ô \lS \lS C"I'" å
"'¢"_...::>oo_
M 0'\ II') "'Ct-
N"'Ñ-:i~a\'
lOMO-N
M
-----
OO\,o"'¢"ViVi
COr_-O'\N
cor_\O-OO
r--:'M'''''':òvi
V'¡\I')\'oMN
,^f;,0'7N,^f;,0'7
---~--
00000
OOOlnO
00000
OOOMr_
o\oóoö~..c
"" '" 0
a,a,,,,
"'v v
"'¢""Mln'"
r-o'"
",,,,v
::::r-:r:-
'" ....
"'''''''
v ",a,
Ov-
ó"":r-f
'" r- -
"'-'"
a\'M'M
","'M
o v
.....:M..
r- '" ""
'" 0 '"
r- M -
ô~Ñ
a,,,,o
"'''''''
r--: c£ v'"
_ '" 0
a, '"
II') r_ 0\
_ In 00
In N-
I,.) «<f \Ó
",coa,
",",,0
or::ir--:oo
va,,,,
'" -
'" v
- '"
-.E""':
"'..,.
.... v
~~
000
000
000
0"'0
oó..ot"'i
In 0\ 0
oa,o
",MO
ooO'\~
r...:~
'" 'n ,., '" 0 r- '" .... '" .". v a, ;;; '" -0 ..,. '" 0 '" ..., 0 '" a, '" r- "" ..., '" r-
..,. 0 .,. '" ,., 0 r- '" 0 ·n ..., '" '" r- '" "" ..,. '" 0 0 '" r- 0 '" r- '" a,
a, .,. "'. ..,. '" r-. ,., .... 0 '" C-I .,. v. '" .., '" .... 0 "'. :: .... 'n ..., '" r- v a,
0 M 'r> ..,; 'r> e> M r-: 0 'r> -d' :ö "'" Ñ 'r> ..¡' Ñ M "'" -.6 0 -.6 'r> Ñ M
r- v '" ,., 0 a, 0 '" .... v '" '" '" 0 '" ..., '" 0 '" "" ;; '" 0 0 '"
'" '" '" '" ..., r- '" '" '" "'. CoO. '" v ..., .... '" 0 v r- r- co '" v M .,. '"
cö oô' 'r> M ,..¡' e> Ñ Ñ -.6 ~ ¡;;; ô r-: -.6 -.6 S cö orÎ -.6 -.6 Ñ "'" M M -.6 M "'" "'" "'"
'n 'n r- V; V; "" '" V; ..,. '" .... ..,. '" .... '" .... "" '" "" .... .... '" '" ·n ..., ""
"" .... .... .... .... "" .... ..., <A ¡;;; .... .... .... V; r-
<A ....
"0
0:
~ u
E~
~~
.~ ~
co: X
~tJ,¡
u
.s
o
o
'n
cö
u '"
~~~
~ > V)
u -
g ~
:r:æ
~ ,q
ZU
;::>"O'g
8 á :§
V'¡O'\OO_MOOMOO-C"I-~~"'CtOO
_M~-\O-\O-OO"'CtViO'\N~r-M~
_OO\O~MMO\OOOO\l')_OO\.Oooooo
~r-:\lSa\''''.....:MMdôM~~\lS~Ô.....:
\O~OONO-~O'\O"'oO"'¢"-~\I')-
oo"'¢"-ooOO\OOO'\~O~\I')~M~NM
~~~~å~~~.....:~~~.....:å~a\a\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V! V!
,Qu
;~
~ ð E ~
~=.5~
u 0 =' co
~=-<~
~~
c- ~ ¿: .¡; ~
0.- :r:: ~
o U] VI-
~~~t~
2 .¿; .~:: ~
tLt::I:::r::r:....1
c:
u
:>
0:
~.è:r:
u u t
=E ~ .5
:2æa:
c:
Æ VI
ª~~
~~]
., '" '"
..:1..:1..:1
t:
o
o.U
c: U
u"O
:> c:
'" "
00
u u
"äøg
..:I u
u;::E
ëot:
'" 0
tJ,¡¡,.,
",¢"_O\-M
\0\000\0\0
~'rI_r-oo
OÔM""':OÔOÔ
Vi'rlMN-.:r
~_"'\ON
OÔa\~",tñ
~tA~~EoA
....
>.
ë
g .£ ~ ~
U U u p,.
ceë-fidm
gc;8$~g
¡;.sî3ü~E
öc:u.5~æ
'" '" 0
","'0
v"" 0
"'¢".. M V;"
..,.0'"
_ '" '"
M~";
.... '" '"
V! V!
0\ 0 In
"'''''''
",_0
~·-.:iÑ
-..., '"
r-"'"'"
o~ ~ ~
","'V>
_ r-
V! V>
,Q
c
:>
o
U
.<::
u
3~
~ c:
., u :>
.~.§ U
en =' ~ .!:!
c.oc:.oc.ou
c ::t ::J ::I
",«..:I
~tñcñci
u
cI)
u ~
u'g :>
e..J 0
.~ ..: 'ü
p,. tI) :>
t:t:..:I
00_
¡,.,p,.<f)
'"
., ==
~'õ
Û..,
?;ci
~
'-
....,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
/ 04-77
J\L_ --
'\ {j
Board of County Com . is rers
Douglas M. Anderson, ,unty Administrator
TO:
DATE:
May 19, 2004
RE:
Constitutional Petition Initiative to Double the Homestead Exemption
Please find attached a report discussing the petition initiative campaign to double the
homestead exemption to $50,000. If approved, this exemption increase would be effective
for assessments in 2005.
81. Lucie County's current operating millage rate is 7.9551. This consists of Mosquito
Control, Erosion, Fine and Forfeiture, and the General Fund. According to our calculations,
if this additional homestead exemption is approved, 81. Lucie County's operating millage
rate would increase 1.0265, bringing the total operating millage rate to 8.9816. The
attached published report shows a millage rate increase of $1.0913 to offset the increased
homestead exemption.
As I receive additional information regarding this initiative, I will be forwarding it to you.
DMAlab 04-77
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Jeff Furst, Property Appraiser
Citizens' Budget Committee
Attachment
'-
$25,000 Homestead Exemption
Fund Name
Homestead
Exemption
Current Value
Current
Millaqe
General Fund
Fine & Forfeiture
Erosion
Mosquto Control
1,389,542,378
4.0728 $
3,5066 $
0,1000 $
0.2757 $
7.9551 $
.....,
Tax Amount
5,659,328,20
4,872,569,30
138,954.24
383,096.83
11,053,949
If an additional $25,000 Homestead Exemption is enacted, In order to recoup the lost revenues, the Countywide
millage would have to be increased as follow:
General Fund
Fine & Forfeiture
Erosion
Moquito Control
Total
Notes:
+ Calculations are based on 2003 Value -10,777,175,136.
+ Current Millage Rates are adopted rates for tax year 2003 (Fiscal 2003-04).
. + Current Amount of Homestead Exemptions 55,790.
Sources:
1. SLC _ 403AC (The 2003 Revised Recapitulation of the Ad Valorem
Assessment Rolls of St. Lucie County, Florida)
2. St. Lucie County Property Appraiser's Office
0.5251
0.4521
0.0129
0.0364
1,0265
'-
.....,¡
Attachment 1
Constitutional Petition Initiative to Double the
Homestead Exemption
Jeffery Sauls, a multi-millionaire from Indian River County, is funding
and organizing a petition initiative campaign to double the homestead
exemption to $50,000. The initiative would make the exemption
increase effective for assessments in 2005. Current reports indicate
that over 250,000 signatures have been obtained. This is over half
the amount necessary to get on the ballot. The campaign has
involved television and radio ads and includes an email and internet
petition campaign.
Issues and impacts
o Would have a $614Mimpact on county levies and a $1.9 B
impact on counties, school boards and municipàlities.
. Would result in 28 counties at 10 mills - Including Alachua,
Clay, Escambia, Hernando, Highlands, and Pasco.
o These six medium counties would lose $12.9 M that could
not be made up by increased millage due to ten mill cap
c 22 of the 31 small counties would be at ten mills - as opposed
to 15 today.
o Those 15 counties at ten mills today would lose $11.8 M
.0 due.to increase in homestead. .. ,... p-'
o The seven additional small counties pushed to ten mills
would lose $8.3 M that could not be made up by
increased millage due to ten mill cap
. Anther twelve counties would be at eight mills or above -
Including Citrus, Hillsborough, Leon, Manatee, Polk, and St.
Lucie.
. The additional $25,000 homestead exemption for low income
senior citizens would be on top of the $50,000 homestead
exemption - as would the $5000 partially disabled veterans
exemption. This could result in a total homestead exemption of
$80,000 for certain individuals.
..,,------
, ,
- r-=~r= "
: ~L~~',{.r-:71 :-; n \v7~~\
-t~_~ Y 0 6 ~004 15
co. ADMIN. OFFICE
Estimate of Impact for Additional $25,000 Homestead Exemption
HB1603
Additional $25,000 Homestead Exemption
,,:,... ',",.,
Impact of Increase
additional Homestead
on County Operating
'K56'~
r::: ')')(\ ;:;J::i
r::.r::: /ìr:::
Increase In County Current County
Operating Millage Government
Roo" it ad Offset ¡ Qpor,tin '" i tleg e
kb'.7'
. Q) À"i17'
County Government Operating
Millage Required to
Generate Current Revenues
Cou~ty
~:',
5,6620
)"
¡:.;,;""
'-'
U
),1
5,2647
7.2997
.' . ,'",,>'''i 2,Tfl .~
5.450:
9,058:
)''"'.,
.R _C TE
\U~
,'.
¡.:,.'.<'.',...: '."
4.4344
6, )065
>i ::2X<: .....:··'..11 ¡ "., .'::.',':,:.,. .:. ~
0.: 14 '
1.3173
^ "r
L '\I\U
. i::-;';,o.
'7{\
')/ì-l iÚ'10
017,49~
:",::»,'."",
'::':"::~::
i51
":.' TiiJilll
.10e 0
[,285
í'lìl
'.;"\:
$944,788
'"
V"\, \1-
101
~I~~
.Y!.~ I~
~;" 1 816 0,3298 ~ IT "6:Z
",."::,.:~~ ~ ""'¡;';": ~ ;J;:
),5992 8.7500
_~ 1.8052,:.".
$4 9U.r~· _~ '77 .
2ilÆ ,">,: ',"..:q
8111_;::"" . 3. IT
S9,287,725 1,0532 ~I;'"
$16,512,300 0.4118 ~I:
'.".,. ".' 8.5500'i , ","'2.
$13,310,251 0.789S 7.7089
$9,664,633 1.2115 5.4600
$5,315,355 0.4322 5.3950
$60,153,321 0.5030 5,9690
$1,532,696 0.1077
$3,019,809 0.7404
$4,181,603 0.4843
$1,340,262 1.2566
S24,382,089 0.4228
$5,749,338 0.5186
S35,173,181 0.3871
,.
ffii Y;:;f,;'
..,
>""'.,.>
"';".:
.c;·-,'):nl.
11,0
'"" ·'·."','·A^
'Vi,
. ;' .....'
1,::',,>,<·,:·.'·
;;"", ,.'
DU\A
K?:'
tJ '::1 ¡: J
5.703
5.3962 ]i
~
..
LJL'-
,-"U
'.
.,"
-III
."..
:";':'",..,\',.01
...
~ ~
¡:"~:'
NUIAN F
..;:
.1424
:..--'
LAI:Ë
LE¡
LEi ~
6. 7
5.7519
9.7"
lAC :t
rv1AKIU
MARTIN
MIAMI-DADE
MONROE
NASSAU
OKi\LOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PAl M BEACH
t
5.1639
5.9945
4.5000
L4913:
6.6715
5.8272
6.4720
3,6315
8.4225
4.7
9
L
'1
D8~2 Source: Revenue Estimating Conference
Estimate of Impact for Additional $25,000 Homestead Exemption
Count'
Impact of Increase
additional Homestead
on Count Operating
Increase in County
Operating Millage
Current County
Government
Operating Millage
County Government Operating
Millage Required to
Generate Current Revenues
STATEWIDE
Data Source: Revenue Estimating Conference
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PETITION FORM
1 04.185-A person who knowing!ysigns.a petition or petitions for 8 Gandidate¡ a minor political party, or an issue
more than one time commits a misdemeanor of the first punishable as provided in s, 775.082 or s, 775,083,
I am a registered voter of Florida and hereby petition the Secretary of State to
, place the following amendment to the Florida ConstitutionQn the ballot in the genera! election,
IS THiS A CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR VOTER REGiSTRATION?
NO (in this county only)
Print Name as ¡tAppears on Voter LD. Card
Voter Registration
- or-
DATE OF BIRTH
VOTER
DATE SIGNED
Office Use Only:
Serial Number:
Date Approved:
01-08-04
DS-DE 19 (5102)
Pd. Pol. Ad'!. by FamHies for Lower Property Taxes
'- 'wII
RESOLUTION NO. 04-174
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING A PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE PETITION TO INCREASE
THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BY $25,000; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. There is a proposed constitutional amendment by the group
"Families for Lower Property Taxes" (the "Amendment")
( copy
attached hereto as Appendix A) that proposes to increase the
Homestead Exemption to $50,000.00.
2. The proponents of this Amendment have promised all Florida
homeowners a property tax savings of $500.00 should this amendment
pass.
3. The Amendment will result in a $1.9 billion shift in the
property tax burden to businesses, rental property, second homes,
and agricultural properties.
4. Certain homestead properties will also experience an
increase in taxes rather than a decrease because of the shift in
burden.
5. The Amendment, if enacted, will potentially force at least
28 counties to the constitutional ten mill cap.
6. The Amendment will impact Florida's rural counties
significantly, many of which have little or no capacity to replace
any lost revenues.
7. The 15 counties currently at the constitutional ten mill
'--'
....."
cap will lose a minimum of $11.8 million in operating dollars with
no local ability to replace lost revenues and most likely will
result in putting these counties in positions of financial
emergency.
8. The Amendment will impact voted debt levies, placing at
risk current pledges of property tax revenues to meet debt service
for such voter approved issues as environmentally sensitive land
purchases.
9. Florida's counties are constitutionally and statutorily
charged with funding and providing an array of services for
Florida's taxpayers and visitors to the state, including but not
limited to, law enforcement, courts, elections, public health,
emergency medical services, transportation improvements, and land
use planning.
10. Local ability to fund and provide some or all of these
services will be adversely impacted by the amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida:
1. This Board does hereby declare its opposition to the
Families for Lower Property Taxes Amendment increasing the
Homestead Exemption.
2. The County Administrator is hereby directed to forward a
copy of this resolution to Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director,
Florida Association of Counties,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
100 South Monroe Street,
'-'
..,,;
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as
follows:
Chairman Paula A. Lewis XX
Vice Chairman John D. Bruhn XX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson xx
Commissioner Cliff Barnes XX
Commissioner Doug Coward XX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 2004.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
DEPUTY CLERK
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
'w
....I
APPENDIX A
Text of Proposed Amendment
Reference:
Article VII, Section 6
Ballot Title:
Additional Homestead Tax Exemption
Ballot Summary:
This amendment provides property tax relief to Florida home owners
by increasing the homestead exemption on property assessments by an
additional $25,000.00.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
ARTICLE VII Section 6 of the Florida Constitution is hereby amended
to add the following paragraph (g).
(9) By general law and subject to conditions specified
therein, effective for assessments for 2005 and each year
thereafter, an additional homestead exemption of twenty-five
thousand dollars shall be granted to any person who has the legal
or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the
permanent residence of the owner.
.....,
.."."
FROM:
ADMINISTRATION
EMORANDUM
04-112
TO:
Douglas M. Anderson
unty Administrator
DATE:
June 15,2004
RE:
Proposal - Criminal Justice System Assessment
Today I have received a proposal from the Institute for Law and Policy Planning to provide
a Criminal Justice System Assessment for St. Lucie County, The project budget to perform
such an analysis is $99,480.
Should you decide to proceed with this type of assessment, County staff would proceed
with a formal Request For Proposals (RFP).
DMAlab 04-112
c: Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Citizens' Budget Development Committee (wlo enclosure)
Public Safety Coordinating Council (wlo enclosure)
Enclosure
'-'
...."
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-109
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson,
TO:
Board of County Com
DATE:
June 15, 2004
RE:
St. Lucie County Jail - Informative Materials
The Citizens' Budget Development Committee along with members of County staff and the
Sheriff's Office toured the State-owned Martin Juvenile Justice Maximum Security Facility
last May to determine whether or not this facility could be used to house St. Lucie County
Inmates.
Attached is an e-mail received today from Ed Lounds, Citizens' Budget Development
Committee Member, with his current understanding of the situation.
Also attached are Public Safety Coordinating Council Ad-Hoc Meeting minutes discussing
alternative housing of inmates ideas, and comments on the tour of the Martin Correctional
Facility.
A May 8, 2003 memorandum from Pat Ferrick, Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Member, is also attached, offering her comments.
This morning I contacted Senator Pruitt's office and they confirmed that the $3,500,000 to
construct utility lines to Martin Juvenile Justice Maximum Security Facility has not been
funded in the upcoming State budget and is not occupied. I have also discussed this with
Martin County Sheriff, Robert Crowder. There is also a Department of Corrections
Maximum Security Facility located next door operating off of well water.
DMNab 04-109
c: Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Attachments
l Douglas Anderson - Re: Fwd: Florid~je youth offender prison in_Martin County -.....I
Page 1 !
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Anne Bowers
Anderson, Douglas
Tue, Jun 15, 2004 7:42 AM
Re: Fwd: Florida State youth offender prison inMartin County
»> Douglas Anderson 6/15/2004 7:41:36 AM »>
>>> <Elounds@aol.com> 6/14/2004 9: 13: 15 PM »>
Doug, The Citizen Budget Review Committee, along with members of the County administration, Ray
Wazny, Central Services, and the Sheriffs office toured the State Juvenile prison facilities in Martin
County, That facility is west of the State prison on State Road 609 and the county line, The Youthful
Offender Prison would be a great and wonderful facility to use if we could over come one slight problem,
That problem is the State never got the potable water permits or lines nor the sewer lines run or
connected to the prison from State Road 609, Martin County was not going to run the lines without the
states agreement to pay for the installation.
Senator Pruitt tried to get the fees and cost for the lines into this years budget and was refused along with
some bitter feelings from the Senate President.
That facility has been complete for 18 months and never used, A true waste of tax monies,
The Citizens Budget Review Committee has been working with the jail population problem since the TENT
CITY issue went into effect with Sheriff Knowles,
The Commissioners all get the minute of the CBRC meetings and the Safety Council meetings so they
should all be up to speed on the issues, as I'm sure they all read the minutes.
Let me know if I can be of further help with this project.
ED Lounds
Ed Lounds
Brandt Consolidated
elounds@aol.com
'-'
"-'"
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
AD HOC COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
May 16, 2003
~>'~¡'ì~;:~~~>r;ç~:::~!d:'¡;;':1;; ~::!~;T!",'o\:~;r:~r'1'!r~':j~~~~V::~:::'. ~~',,:~,+~':'~:'t':, : ~ ,.:', " : .:, ,.' . " .,: ";" " ;' : '. " "::";: '- ''';":,;·a~:::':~:ÞY¡j.,:~\;,~~ ).",~~
Convened: 8:00 A.M.
Adjourned: 10:08 A.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ed Lounds called the Meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room #3,2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
2. ROLL CALL
Roll call was not taken
Members Present: Major Pat Tighe, St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office
Dorothy Belcher, Senior Adm. Dept. of Correction Probation & Parole
Judge Philip Yacucci
Mitchell Hilburn, SLC Bail Bonds Association
Commissioner Paula Lewis
Ed Lounds, Citizens' Budget Committee
Sylvie Kramer, Citizens' Budget Committee
Tom Willis, Court Administrator
Pat Ferrick, Citizens' Budget Committee
David Phoebus, State Attorney's Office
Members Absent: Judge Cynthia Angelos
Diamond Litty, Public Defender
Commissioner John Bruhn
JoAnne Holman, Clerk of Circuit Court (Out of town)
Keith Pickering, Bar Association
Others Present: Ja'net Pentz, Aide to Commissioner John Bruhn
Karen Countryman, St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
J, Russ, St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
Ray Wazny, St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
Chairman Lounds stated that the Committee needed to elect a vice chairman, so that if he
was unable to attend someone could carry on. He stated he would entertain names or
nominations for vice chairman. Dave Phoebus stated that since it is the Sheriffs jail he
thought that the Sheriffs representative should be the vice chairman. Major Tighe stated he
would have no objections, but since it is the Sheriff's jail, it may be more objective if
someone else would volunteer. Tom Willis stated that he would volunteer to be the vice
chairman. Chairman Lounds stated all in favor of Tom Willis as the vice chairman. All
stated aye, motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lounds announced that Tom Willis was
now the vice chairman.
'-'
"wtI
3. PRESENTATION OF IDEAS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman Lounds stated the Committee was created to look at jail bloating or overcrowding,
He stated that Major Tighe had obtained books on jail bloating which gives ideas on
monitoring, fast tracking, and notice to appear and magistrates that are permanently at the
jail to hold and to address first time offenders. He stated that there is a lot of information in
the book and amazingly there are about four places that St. Lucie County is mentioned.
Chairman Lounds stated when the Committee talks about social services and the mental
health patients we need to consider instead of putting them in jail and holding them getting
them to New Horizons. He stated that this is a State deal and the State is pushing all of that
funding back on the Counties, Chairman Lounds stated in talking with and understanding
some problems that are occurring at New Horizons the majority of the folks that the
Department tries to go to New Horizons occur early evening and at night. He stated that the
night shift at New Horizons is different then the day shift at New Horizons. Chairman Lounds
stated there is a problem at New Horizons. He stated that as the Committee reads through
this book they will need to think about how we will pay for these services. Chairman Lounds
stated that the cheapest way is to put a person in jail, and we are faced with a lot of
expenses on that right now. He stated with that in mind he would like to look at the second
sheet and get comments from the Committee members. Discussion ensued on the absent
of the ability to track data and unified information. Mr. Phoebus explained what the State
Attorney's office is doing to track data and can do to speed up the pre-trial felons. Chairman
Lounds stated that each of the Committee members needs to look at their own departments
and see how we can speed up the system. He stated this is a composite of about four or
five ideas that came from reading the book that Major Tighe just gave to Committee
meetings. Chairman Lounds stated that there are also things that have been missed in the
book that have been brought from other Committee meetings. He stated that one is the
Sheriff's Department working with the municipalities and seeing if they can be charged for
notices to appear. Chairman Lounds stated that there are things such as that, which would
help to defray some of the cost of these. He stated that this segment and those ideas are
not in the packet, but are things that this Committee needs to look at, because part of the
Committee is from the Citizen's Budget and we have to be attuned to what they will cost us.
Chairman Lounds read word for word from the document given to Committee members titled
Jail Population Committee (please see attached copy). He asked for comments from the
Committee and discussion ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated as a recommendation the Committee should look at what to do with
overcrowding, and asked the Committee if it would be possible to have a goal of 10 to 12%
to reduce the jail population. He asked the Committee if they could look at ways at cutting
back overcrowding by 10 to 12%. Chairman Lounds asked if this would be realistic. Major
Tighe stated that he thought if this panel did nothing else, they needed to at least set a
mission statement that they will at least attempt to do that. He stated if the panel does not
reach the goal, but does stop the population from rising then it will have been a success.
Discussion ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated that the Committee now has a mission goal to reduce the jail
population by 23%.
Chairman Lounds stated when the Administration goes to the County Commission, the
questions that are going to come from the County Commission are; are you looking at
monitoring, are you looking at ways to reduce population and what are you doing and how
are you doing it. He stated that the Committee needs to be able to give Mr. Wazny and Mr.
'-'
'wtÌ
Anderson the information that says yes, we are looking at that and yes, we are addressing
that and yes we are working on that, but it is not the short term fix to get us through.
Chairman Lounds stated that overcrowding is long term and forever. He asked Mr. Wazny if
he would be able to use this information in the Board's packet and how much more
information would he need. Mr. Wazny stated that he would take the minutes from several
meetings that have discussed the jail overcrowding issues because it is something they
have asked for.
Chairman Lounds asked Major Tighe if he had brought his ideas on funding from the
Sheriffs Department. He stated that he had brought the 5220 program and the goals. Major
Tighe stated that if the County could help, knowing that the jail population is based off of the
County population and the County being in the best seat to provide projected numbers for
what the population will be then maybe some County statistics need to come to this
Committee. Chairman Lounds commented on the unwritten seven day rule. Tom Willis
stated that he has been with the Courts since 1988 and has never heard this. Discussion
ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated that a lot of discussion will come out through this Committee that all
of these things mesh and make the system what it is today. He stated the problem is still
two fold and have to be able to tell the Board of County Commission that the Committee has
a goal to reduce overcrowding. Chairman Lounds stated the other part the Committee has
got to be able to do is get this information to the public. He stated if the public does not
understand what they are doing, then they have not done anything. David Phoebus stated
that the Committee needed to invite the press. Chairman Lounds asked where the press
was. He stated that somewhere along the line, if through the County, they can get the
information out that all of this plays a part in overcrowding and that the Committee is trying to
control our tax dollars. David Phoebus asked if this was a published meeting. Chairman
Lounds stated yes. Mr. Phoebus stated if it was published then the press just does not care.
Major Tighe stated that he would try to supply this panel with better statistics, that it would
not take individual cases, but would show the clumps of individuals or classes that are
caught in the system. Discussion ensued. Chairman Lounds asked if we could identify what
portion of the County that an inmate comes from. He stated that he would be interested in
the unincorporated area, City of Fort Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie and would like to
know what impact those three have on the jail population and variety or class. Discussion
ensued. Mr. Phoebus stated that he would be able to print the persons name, date of arrest,
class of arrest and zip code, which would give Mr. Willis the information. to figure out if there
are things that can be done internally in the Court System to speed things up.
Major Tighe asked Mitch Hilburn if they are getting enough information and access at the St.
Lucie County Jail. Mr. Hilburn stated that they would like to be able to get access to the
status of the people that are incarcerated and bondable. but have not been bonded. He
stated that they do not know how many people are held that could be bonded on felonies
that are still there. Mr. Hilburn stated if they could get that information then it would certainly
be important to the bail bondsman. Major Tighe asked what list they would want. Mr.
Hilburn stated that he would want a list of everyone in the jail. Major Tighe stated he would
have it posted at the jail, so that it would be available to everyone.
Chairman Lounds gave each of the Committee members an opportunity to ask questions
and give comments.
'-'
...."
Chairman Lounds asked Mr. Wazny if he had any questions or comments that he would
need from the Committee in order to prepare the packets for the Board of County
Commissioners. He asked Mr. Wazny if he had what he needed. Mr. Wazny stated that yes
he had what he needed and Missy would get the minutes typed up from this meeting which
will also be included in the packets. Chairman Lounds asked Mr. Wazny what his opinion
was that the recommendation was from this Committee to the Board of County Commission.
Mr. Wazny stated that based upon the discussion here, he feels the Committee direction is
that two pods are essential and the recommendation is to find money to not only put the two
pods in, but to also see if we would be able to put in the dorm and do the interior
refurbishment. He stated that in the meantime the Committee would focus on working on
things that can be done administratively to reduce the jail population.
Chairman Lounds stated that for the next meeting he would like for each of the Committee
members to bring from their areas items to be put on the agenda for the next meeting, so
that we can proceed with this. He stated that if the Committee is going to do this they have
got to stay focused on the end result, which it to make the goal of bringing the jail population
down.
4. COMMENTS ON TOUR OF MARTIN COUNTY FACILITIES
Chairman Lounds stated the committee met Major Tighe and went through some of the
facilities in Martin County. He stated that Pat Ferrick sent out a letter to most of the
Committee members covering what she saw and felt (please see attached copy). Chairman
Lounds stated that everyone should have a copy of Ms. Ferrick's comments that echo what
was there and also a copy of the recommendations that came from that meeting and
discussion as the committee toured not only the facility at Martin County Youthful
Correctional, but also looked at their dormitory. He stated they all should have two
handouts; one has a line and a space that should cover the ideas of housing prisoners in
other counties, as well as some of the pros and cons for what it would cost. Chairman
Lounds asked that everyone please look it over for a minute. He stated the idea behind it is
to give the corrections temporary relief until the pods are built to bring the numbers back
down into a manageable point. He stated one of the things that we need to bear in mind is
the economics of all of this, through this jail population reduction. Chairman Lounds stated
that they need to think about what we can do with not only the numbers, but also with some
economics in mind. He stated the thought process of the Martin County Facility was that it
was the closest, just across the county line; some of the issues that Mrs. Ferrick brought are
also in the general summary of the Committee's thoughts as when well as they traveled and
looked. Chairman Lounds asked Committee members to please look over Pat's notes,
because they were thorough and covered a lot of the pros and cons with it. He stated that
one of the things that comes to mind as a tax payer is, why he is paying all this money for a
state facility and there is no one in it. Chairman Lounds stated that he thinks this is a sign of
things to come from the State. He asked is anyone had questions on Pat's letter. Chairman
Lounds asked if anyone had comments on the list of thoughts and ideas on jail population
from the jail population committee. Pat Ferrick stated that she did, and that it was stated in
her letter. She commented on the Martin County facility and was amazed at the amount of
money that has been spent on that facility and is still being spent on the facility. Ms. Ferrick
commented that no one is using it, but it was a beautiful facility.
Chairman Lounds asked Major Tighe to comment briefly on the feeling from corrections as
to what it would take to go to Martin County. Major Tighe stated the first thing would be the
lack of water. He stated supposedly the facility was built acting on a Federal grant where the
'-'
"wI1
money had to be spent and now Martin County is refusing to supply water to it. Major Tighe
stated that Indian Town plans to supply the water in FY 2004 sometime. He said the builder
stated that St. Lucie County could at approximately $3 million cost supply water to the
facility, which would be out of the question. Major Tighe went on to explain other reasons
why this facility would not work to help with the overcrowding of the St. Lucie County jail.
Chairman Lounds stated that for these reason this takes it out of the realm of us putting
prisoners there to temporarily overcome or long-term overcome, what we would like to do.
He stated they went to the Martin County Sheriffs Office and facility to look at the
dormitories that they had built, which are minimum-security dormitories. Chairman Lounds
stated that it was a nice facility and the Sheriff's Department would consider doing
something like this, as a temporary relief for trustees, minimum-security people and
weekend folks to get more bed space in the jail. He stated that what we need to keep in
mind is that it is not necessarily total numbers, but having jail space in the right categories of
people to give us the relief. Chairman Lounds stated that It may not be the trustees creating
the overcrowding, it is the harden criminals, the felons, and such that we have to have space
for. He stated one of the things that was floating around in the discussions while we were at
the dormitory facility in Martin County was that if we spent the time, money and effort to build
that, we could do that same amount of effort to get the pods up and running. Chairman
Lounds stated the ultimate goal, is to get the pods up and running. He said this Committee
needs to decide whether we would advise the Board of County Commissioners to look at a
dormitory effect as well as pods, or move forward as rapidly as we could with pod
develo me
Sylvie Kramer stated if we do the dormitory style, and the trustees and non-violent felons are
moved to it, then the space that they are going to free up in the existing jail would that need
to be remodeled. Major Tighe stated that is correct. He stated that they have an estimate
on it somewhere around $650,000. Major Tighe stated the dormitory would cost
approximately $860,000 to build outside the confines of the current Rock Road facility and it
would be another $650,000 to refurbish the existing dormitory that they are in and harden for
medium secure prisoners, which they have an over abundance of.
Chairman Lounds asked Major Tighe in his consideration, and in the knowledge that he
brings from a history of corrections, would this be a temporary fix for what we are trying to do
or is it a separate issue for what we are trying to do and get two pods through the County
Commission with information and get up and go with it? Major Tighe stated the he would
have to answer this in two parts. He stated that they look at the dormitory style as an
intermediate solution prior to the pods coming on. He stated they are overcrowded today
with 250 inmates and therefore look at it as an intermediate solution. Major Tighe stated
when looking at the cost of $860,000 and $650,000 to refurbish the inside, he thinks it is
cost prohibited. Major Tighe stated that the Committee should make recommendations on
these three short-term solutions, so we at least have intermediate notes to bring to the
Public Safety Meeting on the 29th and then we can look at new ideas today.
Chairman Lounds asked the Committee members to look on the first handout and see the
three reconsiderations.
Major Tighe stated the S1. Lucie County Sheriff's Office contacted 17 county jails, which
were Lafayette County, Taylor County, Hardee County, Lake County, Glades County, Pasco
County, Highlands County, DeSoto County, Marion County, Polk County, Indian River
County, Hillsborough County, Collier County, Okeechobee County, Martin County, Leon
County and Alchua County to see if they had any additional space for us to house additional
'-'
"""""
prisoners there. He stated that only 4 jails that we contacted said that they had space. Major
Tighe identified each of the four counties with space and explained reasons why each of
them would not be feasible. He stated there are also statutory issues to house St. Lucie
County prisoners outside of this jurisdiction and there would be jurisdictional issues to have
staff work outside the jurisdiction, Major Tighe stated that this is not a solution for short
term. Chairman Lounds asked for comments from the Committee. Ms. Kramer stated that
the cost would be exorbitant, but there are some statutory issues, that it does not make a
difference. Major Tighe stated the statutory issues are not inoperable, there are some
issues, but it is really the cost and the distance.
Ms. Kramer commented that she has been around a long time, and we have been
discussing this for a long time and feels that the issue keeps getting side-stepped when
ultimately we need the pods. She stated at some point we are going to have to stop the
dancing and get down to business.
Major Tighe stated the soonest we could have the first pod would be May 2004. Ms Kramer
asked if we could struggle through with this. Major Tighe answered probably not, which is
why after we look at these three solutions and vote on whether or not we are going to go with
one or all three, we will have something documented for the Public Safety Coordinating
Council on the 29th, then we will start looking at some new solutions. He stated that he has
some new solutions and Ed has asked the Committee members to bring their new solutions.
Sylvie Kramer stated that she thinks we can struggle through by looking at them, but thought
that the mentally ill should be put where they belong. Major Tighe stated that the mentally ill
is taking a shift since the last time we met; the State has basically cut the budget on all drug
and alcohol rehabs and mental ill. He stated that New Horizons is going to be coming back
to the County, because they have already come to the Sheriff's Office with their hand out,
asking for money. Chairman Lounds stated that this is a sign of the times for all the social
services coming out of the State of Florida, which we will get into in looking at the ways we
can lower the population. Major Tighe stated the importance of that is that the Sheriffs
Office jail will be the largest mental health provider in the County, which is not what it is
meant for. He stated that everyone at the table needed to know that.
Pat Ferrick asked if the Committee voted on the short-term solutions contained in the
document would it alleviate the situation until the jail pods would be complete in 2004. Major
Tighe stated that he did not think that the three solutions were feasible at all because they
are all cost prohibited.
Judge Yacucci stated that one thing that is not provided for by statute for misdemeanor
cases is community control, electronic monitoring, that sort of thing. He asked if anyone has
ever looked at the possibility of when people are serving sentences, even if it's a
misdemeanor case, if we did some kind of community control that is not really statutorily
authorized, but if we did it for a short time, nobody is going to really challenge it, certainly the
defense is not going to challenge it because they are not sitting in jail. Judge Yacucci stated
there may be a way that we can figure out something, even if it would mean spending money
on some electronic monitoring equipment to where we could select the best possible
candidates for that, which may be the way to eliminate some of the percentage that would
otherwise be serving two or three month sentences at the jail, and that way we may be able
to reduce the population a littJe bit that way.
Major Tighe stated that he did not believe that anybody from the Sheriff's Office had looked
'-'
......,
into that. He stated when you talk about electronic monitoring, that this is the most restrictive
of all, house arrest. Major Tighe stated there is pre-trial release, which we monitor by
telephone and other means. He stated there is day reporting. This is where the person can
be released, pre-trial release, and has to report daily and they can also be sentenced to day
reporting, but electronic monitoring and other forms with electronic monitoring combined with
a bail bond is the most stringent of all and the most staff intensive. Major Tighe stated that
he has heard electronic monitoring mentioned at County Commission meetings and other
places. He stated to remember that he comes from a place, Broward County where they
have 7,000 people released from jail. They have 5,000 people in custody and 7,000 on the
street. He stated it is very staff intensive and these people have to be watched 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year. Major Tighe stated that you will also run the risk of someone violating,
which make it a public safety issue. Judge Yacucci stated that is true, but what we are
talking about is trying to find a one or two year solution to reduce enough, yet get where we
need to go. He stated that it does not have to be electronic monitoring and maybe it can be
a call in situation everyday. Judge Yacucci stated we would be taking some chances, but
we are going to be taking some chances anyway if we do not do something, because
basically the judges are going to have to make some decisions, for example this person is
less of a risk than this person is, so we can reduce the bond or we can give probation
instead of extra jail time. He stated we may have to look at something like this. Discussion
ensued on whether or not this would help the overcrowding and if the pre-trial
misdemeanors are the ones crowding the jails. Major Tighe stated that he looked at pre-trial
and did a statistical analysis on what Broward County does to pre-trial. He stated they have
650 out and what St. Lucie County statically could do, based on the population would
probably be 165 defendants that could be released on a pre-trial release type basis. Mitch
Hilburn asked if it would be a publicly funded pre-trial. Major Tighe stated yes. He stated
that everyone is looking at the Sheriff's Office to do the pre-trial or the electronic monitoring
but it would take the Judges and the State Attorney first to agree that these people would get
release, not the Sheriff's Office, Major Tighe stated that it would then take the County to say
who would do it. He stated they would need to decide who would run the program if it would
be the County running or a private firm. Major Tighe stated that either way the County would
have to fund it. Discussion ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated he would like to focus on the first question. He asked if the
Committee would like to make a recommendation to the County Commission that we house
our prisoners in other areas, build a dormitory for short term or proceed with the pods.
Chairman Lounds stated this was the three questions facing the Committee right now. Ms.
Kramer stated that they need to proceed with the new pods, but at the same time wanted to
know what should be done until they are built. Chairman Lounds stated that if the
Committee makes the decision to recommend they build a dormitory for relief and proceed
with the pods and/or try to house in other areas and proceed with the building of the pods.
He stated that they also have some other recommendations that may help with
overcrowding, which is really what this Committee was asked to do. Chairman Lounds
stated that Major Tighe has some books to pass out to Committee members. He stated that
in the books are some outstanding ideas. Chairman Lounds stated that before they discuss
the other issue he would like to address the questions. He asked if the Committee would
like to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the County house prisoners
in other prisons outside the County. Mr. Phoebus stated that before they answer that
question he would like to have some questions answered. He stated that this was his first
meeting and wanted to know what all of the options were before making a recommendation.
Mr. Phoebus asked if the dormitories would be the cheapest thing that could be done to
house minimum security people. Major Tighe stated yes the cheapest and most cost
'-'
'wtJÍ
efficient. He stated that the previous StJ,eriff1íõüseèr-them in tents, but they have
deteriorated. Discussion ensued regaømg the cheapest and\most feasible solution to
housing the minimum security inmates':' Majo/ Tighe explained the other alternatives that
~ave been looked into as a short term fix, b~t'have long term impli,9ation, ~s. Ferrick asked
If the dorms and the pods could be woçRed on at the same time. Major Tighe stated
operatio.nally yes. Chair~~n Lounds ~sked if the~ would still ~.o throug~ the $,650,000
conversion to make the facIlity that we now have available for medium security. MaJorTighe
stated yes and we would be talking a~ost $2 million rather thcín $860,000 because there
would be a dormitory and refurbiShin~'nSide. He, stated thatJtí'e cost benefit to the County is
prohibitive. Discussion ensued. Mr Wazny stated that !þé County staff and Sheriffs staff
are working on a presentation to th Board of County ßommissioners and hope to have a
complete package by Tuesday of next week sçvtfÍat they have a week to digest the
recommendation to construct two jai ~ods. tie-stated this would provide the Commission a
week before the hearing on the 2ih of Kfcïyfó ask staff any questions if they have any and to
work out any additional information that the Board may want so that a decision can be made
on the 2ih. Mr. Wazny stated that just as Major Tighe has stated there really is no
intermediate solution economically. He stated there is a modular building for low risk
inmates and the big problem at the jail is the medium and high risk felons. Mr. Wazny stated
that the tent facilities will not fix the felon problem and the only thing that will fix it is the
construction of the jail pods, which is the way we need to go. He stated that once the felon
problem is resolved then we can look at ways to expand space for the medium and lower
risk. Mr. Wazny stated there is no intermediate solution unless there are other ideas that will
be presented today.
Chairman Lounds asked if it was the recommendation from the Committee to not advise the
County Commission or the Sheriffs Department to house prisoners in another County
facility. Committee members concurred that they did not want to recommend to the County
Commission to house inmates in another County.
Chairman Lounds asked if the Committee wanted to recommend to the Commission to
utilize the Juvenile facility in Martin County. Committee members concurred no; they did not
want to recommend to the County Commission to utilize the Martin County Juvenile facility.
Chairman Lounds asked if the Committee wanted to recommend building a dormitory style
building. Tom Willis commented the Committee needed to be careful how it will present the
options to the Commission because they could opt to build a dormitory and one pod instead
of two pods. He stated that it needs to be clear that without the second pod being used to
house Federal inmates we will not have the funds available to pay for the first pod nor
support staff for the second pod. Discussion ensued on the best recommendation to be
presented to the County Commission. Mr. Lounds stated that for the May 25th meeting this
Committee needs to be able to give the Administration firm, supportative recommendations.
Ms. Kramer stated the Committee needs to continue. We cannot wait, and if we do, it will
just cost more, so we need to recommend the two pods and continue to look at bettering the
system between the Courts and the other agencies. Judge Yacucci stated that he thought
the Committee should be strong and go for two pods and a dorm and then the Commission
would have the option of asking for other altematives. Mr. Phoebus commented on the short
term fix of fast tracking and explained that it did not have significant impact on what they did.
He asked Major Tighe at what percent the jail was over today. Major Tighe stated the jail
was 23% over. Mr. Phoebus stated that if nothing is done and the Feds come in and claim
critical then the Judge can come in with a temporary order and say okay you have 30 days to
get them out and we will really be in a jam because if we do not do it, they will. Major Tighe
'-"
"-'
stated that worse then that, they could have an untimely death, which will cost more than the
pods ever thought about being. T A Wyner, Chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union
stated that to her knowledge there is no threat of a lawsuit or pending lawsuit. She stated
"Jim Green is her personal attorney and friend, and their concern is the same as the
Committees, to find remedies that will possibly take out multiple misdemeanors one year
sentences because there are people that are in our jail that are serving more than a year for
misdemeanors that are stacked one on top of the other." Ms. Wyner stated that they have
no intention of bringing a suit at this time, but are happy to see that the Committee is talking
about it. She stated they have no intention of bringing a suit and does not know what the
people in the Committee are talking about.
Chairman Lounds asked Mr. Wazny how much help he would need from this Committee on
the 2ih presentation. Mr. Wazny stated the presentation to the Board is essentially a three
page report which would be backed up by tabbed charts and minutes of this meeting and
past meetings. He stated if the Committee would like to present something to the Board of
County Commissioners that would be great, but Board direction to staff was to provide
complete information as to where we are on the Federal program, Citizen's Budget
Committee recommendation and the recommendations of this Committee in tab form and
provided to the Board with a target date of Tuesday of next week. Mr. Wazny stated that it
may be appropriate for the Committee Chair to speak to the Board on the consensus of the
Committee. Ms. Ferrick stated that she thought the Committee should give a strong
recommendation from this Board to proceed with all three and the refurbishing, and then put
it in the County Commissions lap, and let them make the decision. Discussion ensued.
It was moved by Pat Ferrick, seconded by David Phoebus, to recommend to the County
Commission to proceed with two pods, build a dorm and refurbish the facility for medium
security inmates. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chairman Lounds
reminded Committee members that they all need to be able to stand tall and take part of the
beating. He stated if they come out of it and they do not do it then shame on them.
Pat Ferrick asked how much one law suit would cost the County. Chairman Lounds asked
Attorney Heather Young if she could get this information. Attorney Young stated yes, she
would look into it. Ms. Ferrick stated that this information should be provided for the
Commission because one law suit may cost more than the $17 million. Major Tighe stated it
would be easy to say, what is life worth. Chairman Lounds asked Attorney Young if she
could get case history, which would give Ray an idea of what some of these law suits have
looked like.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, Chairman Ed Lounds adjourned the meeting at 10:08
a.m.
Respectlully SUbœ,~ ~_
.//Y, // / '
/ /1.bú-ðd,c, /, -,' '-~ -
Melissa W. Stiadle
'-'
....,
To:
Major Tighel Assistant County Administrator Ray
Wazny
Patricia A. Ferrick 772-461-3612
Jail constructionlbloating
From:
Subject:
'......'
}¡
5/8/03
. The ad hoc committee for the Safety CounciJ toured facilities,
at the request of St. Lucie County Sheriff Mascara. To look at
all options available to help aÌleviate the bloating at St. Lucie
County jail. We also toured Martin County's dormitory
facili~T.
I
One .., facility ,"ve toured was an $18,000,000 million dollar
building constructed for the Juvenile Justice system to house 8-
10 classifi~ation Juveniles. Th~s faéility ,"vas unoccupied
because no funding was allocated for staffing. This is a state of
_ the art facility, including operating monitoring systems.
- We learned that due to a problem with water in the area an
additional $3,000,000, would be needed to run water to this
facility. We also learned that even though there was no money
to run the facility a -7,000 'square foot classroom was to be
constructed for % million dollars, using grant money already
.....,
allocated.
Major Tighe and Captain 'Valsh, and other staff were with us
1
in order to answer questions.
We learned that it would take 22 staff personal per shift to
man this facility total staff *88, these would have to be
overtime staff, as this facility if it could be used ,"vould be
temporary, and utilized only until our own jail pods ,"vould
come on line.
1
""
...."
We learned that ourdeputte-rpYo-batdy~ave to be
deputized in ~artin County, as this facility is locatea--i~ Martin
County./'- ,,/ "........"
//'- --- - "'"
My personal recom~endation would be that this facility is to'Ó
costly, and our ownfacility could be rèady prior to water being \
installed to this faciJity. \
,
-'-
The contractor Ed Parker tòld, us the dormitory facility in
Martin County cost $860,000, dollars to construct 3 years ago.
St. L~cie County Jail has a bloating problem, ,vhich in the
. foreseeable future could become a major liability to St. Lucie
County.
After exploring all options available I have the following
_ suggestions based on presentations by Sheriff Mascara, and
; staff from previous meetings.
The Citizens Budget Committee on April 18, after receiving the
follo'wing information made..., a motion by William Casey
seconded by Patricia Ferrick to' construct tbe 2 pods necessary
bà'sed on the follo,ving. Two 280-prisoner pods, at an
estimated $8, million dollars each. The fund to pay for the
construction of these pods will come from two separate
sources. Using correctional impact fees ,viII finance the first
pod. The refinancing of the 1994 refunding sales tax revenue
bonds will finance the second pod.
1. That we declare a state of emergency and fast track
construction for the following.
2
"'"
....,
,.
2. 2 pods as requ~sted by Sheriff Mascara and staff to elevate
bloating and possible repercussions at the St. Lucie County
j ail facility.
3. That we at the same time based on cost factørs of up to an
additional miHion dollars consj~uct a donnitory to house
'",' .
trustees, and others as allowable under the penal system.
Interest rates are low at this time.
4. By doing all of the abo,:e we could stay ahead of the
projected curve, and utilize one of our pods to generate
income to offset costs by renting them to the house federal
prisoners.
Based ~n information provided by Major Tighe a~d Captain
. W als~ 'the following suggestions are also made.
Have a sit do\vn meeting with the chief judge, and other
judges. . To discuss the following amending the current
rulings that induded the 7-day rule; this could mean 140, less
;'-prisoners being housed.
1. Look at raising the current impact fees and raising them to
help offset costs of buiJding"ne\", facilities.
2. Look at charging a per deem cost for the .weekend
'prisoners make sure that all \veekend prisoners have
medical insurance.
3. Revisit why \ve do not send substance abuse prisoners to
New Horizons instead of the jail this for a short term \vould
help alleviate bloating.
3
'-"
'twill
Jail Population Committee
The Jail Population Committee was formulated by unanimous vote of the Sf.
Lucie County Public Safety Committee on . The PSCC also
named Mr. Edward Lounds Chairman of said committee. This committee was
commissioned to review'ar:¡d analyze solutidns to the prisoner population growth
and the current over capacity conditions. The current prisoner capacity at the Sf.
Lucie County Jail is 883 and the average daily population for the month of April
2003 was 1080 prisoners.
The following is an analysis of short term and long term alternatives to assist
in alleviating the overcrowded conditions currently experienced at the Sf. Lucie
County Jail. .
Short Term Solutions and Recommendations
1) House Prisoners in other County Correctional Facilities
Thè Sf. Lucie County, Sheriffs Office staff have solicited several Florida
counties to request a contractual agreement to house,the overflow of prisoners at
the respective facilities. The following are the results of the inquiry:
a.) Seventeen (17) Florida County Jails contacted. ( Lafayette, Taylor,
Hardee, Lake, Pasco, Glades, Marion, Highlands, DeSoto, Polk, Hillsboro,
Collier, Indian River, Okeechobee, Martin, Leon and Alachua)
b.) Only four (4) County Jails contacted have prisoner space available.
.c.) Lafayette County has 13 beds available, $35. Per day plus medical
costs. Facility is 289 miles~way.
,d.) Taylor County has 50 beds available, $35. Per day plus medical
costs. Facility is 328 miles away.
e.) Hardee County has 20 beds available, $35. Per day plus medical
costs. Facility is 110 miles away.
f.) Lake County has 192 beds available at no cost. We must supply staff
to operate. Facility is 150 miles away.
g.) Statutory issues exist to house St. Lucie County prisoners outside
the jurisdictional boundaries.
Recommendation
""
....,
2) House Prisoners in the vacant Department of Juvenile Justice
Facility located in Martin County.
On Thursday, May 8,2003, several members of this comrpittee toured this
facility and the following ¡sa summary of thaj ~ite visit:
-.,
-
a) The facility was constructed for maximum security juvenile
prisoners. Constructed to house 260 prisoners.
b) The facility was designed with the correctional,'direct supervision'
philosophy. The philosophy óf design is extremely staff intensive
with a staff ratio of less than 15:1. St. L,.ucie County Sheriff's Office
staff estimate that this facility would require a minimum of 22
correctional staff for the hoùsing areas per shift. This number
combined with support staff,· external perimeter security staff,
transportation staff, first r rvisors and managers equates to
. well over 100 total s to properly d effectively operate.
c) The facility curre Y has no access to ater and sewage. Plans to
~nstall this re Ired commodity are tenta ·vely scheduled for July
- ·?004.
d) The build r Mr. Edward Parker of Biltmo e Construction) stated that
St. Luc· C unty could provide this se ce at a cost of
appr ' imat Iy $3 million dollars. .
e) Sta tory is ues exist to house pr" ners outside of the jurisdiction.
f) St tutoryiss es exist for the ority of St. Lucie County Sheriff's
Office personn to con operations outside jurisdictional
boundaries.
Recommendation
DO
o
00,
()
§.~'
'-'
....."
Intermediate Solutions and Recommendations
1) Construct a Dormitory Style Building
\
This possible solutiotl was raised as an intermediate measure to displace
approximately 1 00 minim~ri1 custody prisoners from cell block A 1 B and house in
a dormitory style building outside of the existing A-Wing but within the security
envelope of the existing jail site.
On Thursday, May 8, 2003, severql members of this ~ommittee toured a 96
, bed dormitory style building located on the grounds of the Martin County Sheriff's
Office. The following are a summary of the findings:
a) The contractor, Mr. Edward 'Þ-arker stated that this facility was built
in 1999 at a cost of approximately $860,000. Dòllars.
b) The facility could be utilized for minimum security prisoners only.
c), The facility contained no lavatory facilities for security staff
ßssigned
d} Construction of this facility could be completed in less than 4
months.
Recommendation
-
........,
-..,
'-'
-
~.
Executive Summary
'",
)¡
\
.'-....
.....,
'-
'''w¡1I
Jail Population Committee
Recommendations to alleviate crowding:
),
1) Jail Population Data Reports:
The committee requires more specific data from the S1. Lucie County
Sheriffs Office, Department of Detention. '
-
.
Experts tell us that there are two key factors that determine the
average daily population:
a) The number of admissions (new arrests)
, b) The length of confinement for each arrest
I . ,
- The committee requests that monthly reports be compiled highlighting:
a) the average daily population
b) the number of admissions, daily
c) the average daily admissions, monthly
d) the percentage of total population pre-trial male felons
e) the percentage of total population pre-trial female felons
f) the percentage of total population sentenced male felons
g) the percentage of total population sentenced female felons
h) the percentage of total population pre-trial male misdemeanants
i) the percentage of total population sentenced male misdemeanants
j) the percentage of total population pre-trial female misdemeanants
k) the percentage of total population sentenced female misdemeanants
I) the percentage of population of male/female felony violation of
probation
m) the percentage of population of male/female misdemeanor violation of
probation
As we move forward with the evaluation of these statistics we may also
need to review the average length of confinement for each of these specific
categories and the overall length of confinement for all categories combined.
'-'
....,
2) New Arrests:
Mentally III: Are the mentally ill being diverted to the jail out of
convenience or are they appropriately transported to a hospital or mental health
facility (New Horizons)?
Myers Act (Public.Jnebriates/lntoxicatiòn): Are these individuals
transported to the appropdate detoxification facility or are they brought to the jail?
Notice to Appear: Are law enforcement agencies issuing these citations?
Excerpted from 'Alleviating Jail Crowding' (pages 32-33)
In 1991, Jefferson County, Kentucky enhanced the Notice to Appear
process and witnessed a notable decrease in the number of individuals jailed
who pose little or no risk to society and who have a high probability of appearing
in court. The six most frequently cited offenses are shoplifting, public intoxication,
criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, operating a vehicle on a suspended or
revoked license and unlawful possession of less than eight ounces of marijuana.
3) 'Monitoring/Expediting Detention Cases: (page 40)
Is there a possibility that the S1. Lucie County Sheriff's Office could create
a new position, as was done in Jackson County, Missouri, called the Inmate
Population Control Officer? This individual could continuously monitor and review
inmate case folders for those that can be diverted from the jail or for individuals
whose case can be expedited in some manner.
,
4) Providing Access to Inmates: (page 40)
'-...
'. Can the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office review. the process that we
currently utilize to provide access and interview space to the public defenders,
mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, probation officers,
defense attorney's and bail bondsman?
There are several relatively cheap alternatives that could possibly enhance
the current practices and in the long term reduce the length of confinement and
overall population:
a) Expand interview space or operating hours for professional staff to
interview clients
b) Provide inmates with additional "free" telephone access within the first
24 to 36 hours of arrest.
c) Enhance video interview capabilities for the public defenders, defense
attorney's.
'-'
...,
5) Prosecution- Intake and Screening Practices (page 41)
The prosecutor's office in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin screen charges of
all new arrests within 1 working day of the arrest. The Milwal)kee County
prosecutor's office gener~lIy reaches a char~ing decision within 24 hours after
the arrest on weekdays and 36 hours on weekends.
The Multnomah County, Oregon prosecutor's screens cases within 1 day
of arrest and provides discovery information to the defense counsel at the initial
appearance to help speed case processing. Although th~ prosecutor has 5
judicial days to make a charging decision for incarcerated defendants, an
attempt is made to have the lower-level felony and misdemeanor cases
disposed of in 2 or 3 days.
Is it possible to work toward and create an 'Early Screening Process' in
St. Lucie County?
I
6} Expedition of Detention Cases (page 43)
Salt Lake County, Utah established an acce.lerated c~lendar for jail cases,
setting a time, standard of 10 days between ~harge fiiirig and preliminary hearing
and 45 days between hearing and trial.
By placing jail cases on an accelerated calendar, Bexar County, Texas
was able to reduce the time to indictment from 90-120 days to 60 days bringing a
sizeable drop in the average length of confinement and thus the average daily
population of the jail system.
What is the process. and timeline in St. Lucie County?
'"
Can we look at alternatives to expedite detentiçm cases?
7) Case Management Practices (page 44) (also on page 55)
On page 44, it relates that St. Lucie County, Florida created a fast track
court that reduced the time for plea agreements from several months to less than
4 weeks.
Are we still conducting this program? If not, why not?
~
....
8) Judiciary- Bo~d Review Hearings (page 55)
Excerpted from 'Alleviating Jail Crowding' , (page 55)
"Judges can reduce the length of confinement of defendants who at first
are unable to post bail by scheduling bond review hearings sèveral days after the
defendants enter jail. " ) I "
The Volusia County, Florida court regularty holds "jail arraignment"
hearings for defendants who have been incarcerated 3 to 5 days after their initial
appearance and who might qualify for case disposition or bond reduction..."
Can we discuss the possibility of instituting a program similar to Volusia
County, Florida?
9) Case Management (pages 55-57)'
Washoe County, Nevada instituted an Early Case Resolution program
which' hé\s resulted in cases being resolved in 4 days instead of 2 weeks (page
55). I ' ,
Fairfax County, Virginia instituted the "Rocket Docket". The court
disposed of 96.5% of all criminal cases within 120 days, resulting in less time for
defendants in jail (page 56).
The concept of rocket docket was applied specifically to the processing
of domestic violence cases in Oakland County, Michigan. Arraignments occur
within 5 days, instead of the 40 days it took prior to the program, and cases are
now tried in 13 days, instead of 113.
In Broward County, Florida th~judiciary instituted a specialty court called
Strike Force. Retired judges from across the state were hired to preside over the
GOU rt. Cases that have been postponed are pulled from the dockets of sitting
judges and assigned to the Strike Force judges. Strike Force judges can hear
assigned cases immediately. In the first 4 months of Strike Force operation, more
than 300 cases were disposed of.
,
Jefferson County, Alabama implemented a Rocket Docket procedure. In
the first of 2 special sessions, Jefferson County criminal, civil and family court
judges disposed of more than 600 cases in pretrial hearings. As a result of the
procedure, the jail population was brought to well within the jail's legal
capacity, from 1,442 to 1,000 inmates.
We need to discuss in-depth the possibilities of instituting like practices in
S1. Lucie County, Florida.
~
""""
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
FROM:
. < MEMORANDUM
04-113
Board of County CO~f'~ners
Douglas M. Anderson\Jiounty Administrator
June 15, 2004
TO:
DATE:
RE:
$500,000 Correctional Officers' Separate Contingency
The attached are budget workshop meeting minutes from July 2,2003 and July 17, 2003
discussing a contingency for additional correctional officers. At the July 2nd worksho~, the
Board's consensus was to place $750,000 in the budget forthis purpose. On July 17 h, the
Board lowered the $750,000 by $250,000 and allocated the $250,000 to Parks Capital.
DMA/ab 04-113
c: Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Attachments
~
Tape 2
49.3 SHERlrr
7/Z! t }b: ¡-Jy""f>1;/'/'
bll/J" .
This budget reflects an 8.21 % incrcase.
The Chainnan rcqucstcd inrormation on the funding of the two new pods.
The County Administrator advised the Board that pod:'2 is planned to house Federal
Inmates which will be covered, plus there will be some funds available to be utilized for
pod one.
The annual cost to operate pod one is approximately 1.8 million for personnel, this is
over and above what we are now paying for inmates doubled up in the other pods which
will be transferred to the new pod. $1.5 is for lahor the balance is for the additional
inmates supplies, medical, food for those to fill the pod. ),
Pod two will cost approximately $2.1 million to operate once completed. Budget year
06/07 is when the operating cost ofthis pod would begin.
The Sheriff distributed infonnation on the starting deputy salaries in the surrounding
counties. Martin County, $ 32,000; Indian River County, $33,000. after this year with the
increase, S1. Lucie County's Deputy starting salary would be $30,000.
The County Administrator advised the Board that the Sheriffs budget does not include
the $750,000 for the correctional officers.
...
In the budget $1.9 million is for personnel costs. $295,000 capital outlay for vehicles,
$300,000 contingency, the balance for operating expenses and increase in cost of inmate
medical up 13% .
The local hospitals charge a large amount of r,10ney for treatment. The County
Administrator stated he was working with the hospitals to see if they could get the
Medicaid rate which is what should be charged. Pr;:sently they have reduced the charges
by 35% ofthe bill charges, which is still considerably higher than the Medicaid rate.
.--".---
It was the consensus or the Board to place $750,000 in the budget and transrer $11
million from the Fine & Forreiture Fund to the General Flmd for the existing correctional
o mcers.
//
---/
-------
Lunch Break
Tab 40 side B tape 2
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
This budget reflects a .7% increase.
Tab 41 PUBLIC WORKS CODE COMPLIANCE
This budget reflects a 6.3% increase.
They are requesting one position, Asst. Code Compliance'Manager.
$25,000 has been budgeted for a Special Master for the hearings.
Tab 42 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
,-,'
.. ,
This budget reflects a 9.5% increase.
They are requesting one position, Senior Accounting Clerk and 2 pick up trucks.
5
·~
T AYLOR CREEK
...;
1)1)7jjC:;~
Taylor Creek- Grant funding from FIND has been applied for which has not been
approved as yet. TotaljJLoj!<ÇtCQsUs_$3~5_rriil1ion.dollar~
~........ ....,,' -----=-:-----
Board Discussion - It was the consensus of the Board to keep $500,000 from the
$750,000 designated for the correctional officers in a separate contingency and allocated
$250,000 from the $750,000 to the parks capital.
--
.
The County Administrator advised the Board the Parks Capital reserves are at $200,000
and Central Services is being left at $300,000 reserve.
The County Administrator calculated the following:
$250,000 from the pod personnel, plus $450,000 from the annex campus plan, brings the
unallocated fund amount to $766,128. Also $250,000 from the fairgrounds which was to
originally to come out from the general fund for the fairgrounds which now totals
$1,016,128 in unallocated funds.
** There seemed to be some confusion as to what funds are being cut and added. Staff
will attempt to coordinate the figures and return to the Board for app·roval.
Com. Bruhn explained the reason for the $51,000 requested for the public defender to be
stationed at rock road.
** It was the consensus of the Board to approve this allocation.
Video Conferencing was discussed, A survey is being put together by the Florida Assoc,
of Counties to see how many utilize this equipment.
The County Administrator stated he would keep the $8,000 equipment cost in the budget
until they can get justification for the purchase;
Legal Aid- The County Administrator advised the Board he is not sure what the outcome
of this will be, but will keep the Board informed.
Florida Retirement System- lowered the budget by $200,000 for this.
Sheriff Services Network Roundtable- take out of contingency if they wish to continue.
$10,000 would be allocated, the application will be brought before the Board for
approval.
Nuw Horizons- It W:IS the consenslls afthe Boanlto allocate the udditional 5% requested
$36,213.
Economic Duvelopmcn! .. Consenslls of the Board to allocate $125,000.
Un allocated Fund Balance -$944,915.
The Management and Budget Director reviewed the roll back rate and also the proposed
millage rate.
Vehicle Allowance- It was the consensus ofthe Board to keep the policy as it presently
states.
Vnallocated Fund - $952,915. this includes the $8,000 from the vehicle allowance added
back in.
The meeting was adjourned.
9
-<
--
-.
~
(Jt..r."'..-,/--!."1 i--. _.~~c t- ~,
ASJ65J>'7év~ ~
(J," ,¡)CL /
~~/6 4,.vG¿u~ ¿Z
--./ I'" ""- '"
ß.óu- ¿;"./-'¿~~¿;¿;,..-o '"...., c... L
.Á -:J(f;0C_~.
/) '/-.L./ -{;:} .-
L-- < /-,/ t~
6/7';&y
Board of Directors
Alan Kahnanoff, JD, MSW, Ph,D.
Board President
Executive Director
Linda Guyden, CPA
Board Treasurer
VÙ~ Pmirl.nl, Pmrl<:nlial1wllran«
Shelley Bergum
Board Secretary
Direäor, De.ýal!d DÙab!td
Tele~,()/J1JJ1J1llÚi.l!iot!,i. Tnt:
Roben Funk
Retired General Counsel
Lqllal Lmpfo)'mtfll
Opporll/I/ily CommlJ)ion
Dr. Blanche Pearlman
Ruear,b P,C)rho!o.gisl
Candice Wong, M.D.. M.P.H., Ph.D,
1Üallb Smi,-eJ fuseareh
U niz'mi,ty of Caúfornia, Stili F"""ù,YJ
Advisory Board Members
Brian T augher
Depl/ty Allorne)' Gmeral
Cali/ornia Deparlmmlo/fl/ilitf
Allen Breed
Rflin'd DÙtdor
National J nJtititf¿ I!! C'omdior..r
I. ¡\lichad J leyman
,S'{'t'1l'laf)', j·mitbi(JI!Ùm J mtit;¡/io/l
Shddon Messinger
ProftJJor O/1.LIW and. 1'0,';'1.)'
U nim:rily of California, Bcrlc.dey
Ruth Rushen
Rilir.rI Dim'/or
Califomia Depar1fJ1tfll o/ComdiOlIJ
Dr, !-.Iimi Silbert
PnJi{k nl
Ðthl1"'!)' J/ml FOlmd.llÙ)fJ
Dr, Bayard Catron
Pro/èJJor of Pl/blÙ' AlbniflÙlralÙJf/
GMt;!!,e WOJhin.r,loll Unlimil)'
Judirh [fcumlnn
Amilal1l.remla,)'
0llìœ of,lþdal Ldl/(aliol1
Rehabilil'llioll SmÚ'u
Nancy Isaac
'I 1111"porlalion! COnIfJ1llnl[Y Planlling
ILPP
2613 HILLEGASS AVENUE
BERKELEY, CA 94704
MAIN: 510.486.8352
FAX: 510,841.3710
WWW.ILPP.COM
PLANNERS@ILPP,COM
June 14,2004
Mr. Douglas M. Anderson
St. Lucie County Administrator
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
,/'//7,,? ~¿
c
,~ /;v7
~/?/"', ,
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Thank you for your interest in having the Institute for Law and Policy
Planning (ILPP) conduct a criminal justice system assessment for St.
Lucie County. We are pleased to submit our unique qualifications and
proven approach for performing a comprehensive study in time for
your meeting on June 15th.
ILPP is a nationally recognized nonprofit planning agency that has
performed more than 200 criminal justice system assessments since
1979. Our unique approach of looking at the justice system as a whole
enables us to produce significant findings that alleviate jail crowding
and contain justice system budgets. Our consultants examine the
interaction between all agencies in the criminal justice system to
determine what each agency could do to increase efficiency in the
overall system. The sum of these changes produces dramatic results
that resolve system issues such as court delays, congested programs
and services, and funding shortages.
ILPP's experience with Florida counties is extensive and includes
Orange, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Polk. In Palm
Beach and Orange Counties, our reports continue to serve as a guide
toward reform and efficiency years later. Our work in these counties
has saved substantial taxpayer dollars over time by improving the
organization of the criminal justice system. In Hills b orough, Miami-
Dade and Polk our references remain strong.
We also encourage you to call our references in Salt Lake, a county in
which we have just completed a second project. The County Mayor,
the Sheriff (who is President-elect of the National Sheriffs
Association), the District Attorney, and the County Commission all
strongly praise our work. In Pittsburgh, we are now in our third year
of reforming their antiquated justice system by building consensus
among county leaders and judges. ILPP prides itself in its ability to
work collaboratively with gatekeepers while staying above politics and
business interests to deliver a meaningful review.
.-
~
'-'
....,¡
Please note that ILPP maintains a strict policy against associating with any vendors or
architects to ensure the delivery of an objective assessment. We pride ourselves in
providing an unbiased and complete analysis that empowers counties to manage their
criminal justice system more effectively.
Our proposal should arrive shortly. Once you have reviewed it, we are prepared to discuss
all aspects of our services and to develop a fInal work plan that suits your needs as well as
your budget. Please contact me at 510-486-8352 if you have any questions in the
meantime.
Sincerely,
Alan Kalrnanoff
Executive Director
~") ...l.(),j I Þ [' I" /...
~(J .! V' y,3 ,
! J' I'. v( l 1,1 /1: < / ~/gr1 .~ &,
The homestead shuffle . Û t ~ G CII' IJ/Jl11
A proposed amendment to raise the homestead exemption to $50,000 would only shift the bur:¿enJt2,/ r
ways that would further distort property tax policies. ,/ pI
""
A Times Editorial, 6/10
Homeowners might agree with Vero Beach millionaire Jeffrey Saull that the only thing better than a
$25,000 tax exemption is a $50,000 one, but that doesn't necessarily make it smart tax policy.
Saull and his wife Karen, who just happens to be running for U.S. Senate, have poured some of their
own fortune into a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the property tax homestead exemption in
Florida. If they succeed in gathering enough petitions, which seems likely given their investment, voters
will be asked in November to give themselves a tax break that is not all it seems.
Saull calls his effort a "property tax cut amendment" and insists in promotional materials that "every
Florida homeowner will save $500 per year in Florida property taxes!" But he's wrong on both counts.
Only local governments can raise or lower property taxes; his amendment merely gives some taxpayers
an additional exemption. In fact, the last time the homestead exemption was increased, when voters in
1980 raised it from $5,000 to $25,000, most cities and counties made up the difference through
increased assessments and higher rates.
Saull's own campaign materials point out that property tax collections have increased 78 percent over
the past decade, even as some homeowners benefit from a separate homestead amendment, Save Our
Homes, that limits their assessment increases. The reason: Tax rates have offset the difference.
Pinellas Property Appraiser Jim Smith has analyzed the effects of Saull's amendment and knows it likely
will shift the overall property tax burden, not diminish it. In Pinellas, the number of properties that would
'pay no tax at all would increase seven-fold. Kenneth City would lose 23 percent of its taxable base.
Some of the burden would be shifted to businesses and higher-priced homes, but not all. Among the
taxpayers who would pick up the slack are owners of commercial properties, which includes apartments.
"This should be called a tax hike on Florida's renters," Smith says. "If you vote for this and you're a
renter, you're just skewering your own heart."
Saull says he was motivated by his mother, who he says is "a woman who has worked and saved her
whole life and now her monthly expenses are rising beyond her means." But the tax code already
provides protection for elderly people who are worried that property tax increases could price them out
of their homes. More likely, Saull enjoys putting his family name in the political arena.
"If your long-term goal is you want to enter politics someday and you're starting at ground zero," says
U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, who met Saull18 months ago, "there is no better way to do
it than to put your name on TV."
Saull's alluring idea is troublesome because it further distorts property tax policy. It would layer yet
another exemption on top of one, Save Our Homes, that already is dispensing breaks disproportionately
to people in waterfront mansions. It would likely cause cities and counties to raise tax rates or, worse,
push the cost into regressive and hidden fees on utilities and other basic necessities.
This is awkward tax policy dressed up as tax cuts for the elderly, which is simply not true.
5
~
......1
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-84
FROM:
DATE:
May 26, 2004
RE:
FY 2004-2005 Budget Issues
Please find attached information regarding the Citizens' Budget Development Committee
and the current number of new positions, subject to change, that County staff will be
recommending to the Board of County Commissioners during the 2004-2005 July Budget
Workshops. Also included is an update on the balancing of the 2004-2005 General Fund
Budget.
Resolution 91-221
Creating the Citizens' Budget Development Committee (CBDC)
Resolution 93-77
Amending Resolution 91-221
Kev Points: The total membership be no more than 15 members; each board member shall
serve at the pleasure of the person appointing the member during the term of the person
appointing the member. This includes Constitutional Officers.
CBDC 2004 Attendance Record
Attendance Record for the Citizens' Budget Development Committee for 2004 is
attached.
Position Requests Summary for FY 2004-2005
This report outlines the positions that the CBDC originally recommended to be included in
the 2004-2005 Budget. The report also includes the position requests of various
departments and the associated dollar amounts. The Recommended column is the new
positions that are still remaining in the 2004-2005 FY Budget. The General Fund (Fund
#001) has a requested total of $1 ,436,250. At this point in time, the staff recommended
total is $206,913 (this includes fringe benefits). This decrease was necessary to balance
the General Fund Budget.
~
\",I
Page 2
May 26, 2004
FY 2004-2005 Budget Issues
Also attached is a report of all funding, including the General Fund of all proposed new
positions with the same information provided. The total of positions requested is
$2,363,610. At this point in time, the recommended positions will be $833,632. As we
work through the budget process with the Commissioners, this amount can go up or down.
Personnel Historv Report - FY 1995-2004
There are 20 recommended new positions Countywide in the 2004-2005 Proposed Budget.
Currently, the County has 846.4 approved positions (see attached FY 1995-2004
Personnel History Report). As a comparison, the 1991-1992 FY approved positions totaled
699.15. Over 12 years, the positions have increased 21%. In 1990, the County's
population was 150, 171. Today it is estimated at 212,000 or an increase of 41 %.
14% Propertv Value Increase
The General Fund was balanced after a net decrease $4,842,440 in adjustments to
requested new positions, capital items and operating costs and using a 14% increase in
countywide property values. Should the countywide property value increase exceed 14%,
we would request the Board consider reinstituting some of the requests that were
eliminated. We would also request, if funds are available, a 2005-2006 Budget Reserve
Fund be established to enable us to program for unforeseen and foreseen increased costs
in 2005-2006 such as Article V Revision 7, increased construction supply and health
insurance costs, the opening of the Lakewood Park Regional Park and the expansion of
the Lawnwood Complex. Should the property values increase come in less than 14%, we
would have to make additional adjustments to the budget. Each 1 % increase in property
values generates $400,000 for the General Fund.
We are still balancing the Fine and Forfeiture Fund and have yet to determine what
increase in countywide property values would be necessary to provide a breakeven
recommended budget for that fund.
The next Citizens' Budget Development Committee meeting is scheduled for June 18th, at
7:30 a.m., in Conference Room #3 of the County Administration Building.
DMAlab 04-84
c: Board of County Commissioners
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Department Directors/Managers
'-' ........,Fee S,¡y·(\) DOW"'.o\S D'XON
, . Ooe Assump S ~I. Luc..e Courly
/~
,. 1139214 Ðoe Tax $ /;t CI",k Creu,! Court
In! Tax S '<'~ By, 'j
ra..}
RESOLUTION NO. 91-221 Total S ')y.~ Deputy cl....k
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CREATION OF THE CITIZEN BUDGET
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO INCREASE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, AND
PROVIDING FOR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of st. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. This Board recognizes the need to assist County
government in increasing its efficiency by improving business and
management practices.
2. This Board is desirous of increasing the effectiveness
and efficiency of County government by creating a Citizen Budget
Development committee for the purpose of establishing a budget
development process in order to increase County government
efficiency, and ease the problem of future government growth caused
>-
I-
~
cç
by the demands of a growing population.
3. This Board should further define the duties and functions
2)
of the Committee.
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of st. Lucie County, Florida.
_Î
;;-
~
J:i
~\
~
1. This Board does hereby create
the Citizen Budget
Development Committee.
2. The Committee shall consist of
at least twelve (12)
members who shall be appointed as follows:
(a) Each Board member shall appoint two
( 2 ) members to serve on the
Committee, and the Chairman shall be
selected from these appointments.
g~O 7 5 8 PA6f26 52
'-'
\..,¡
(b) The County Administrator shall
appoint two (2) members to be
comprised of County staff to serve
on the Committee.
If any Constitutional Officer elects to
participate in this program, each
Constitutional Officer electing to participate
in this program shall appoint one (1) member
each to serve on the committee which would
increase the number of members of the
Commi ttee to an additional five (5) members
for a possible seventeen (17) member
Committee.
(c) All Committee appointments shall be
subject to the approval of this
Board.
3. Each Board appointed member shall serve at the pleasure
of the person appointing the member during the term of the person
appointing the member. Each County Administrator appointed staff
member shall serve for a term of three (3) years from the date of
appointment.
Each Constitutional Officer appointed member shall
serve at the pleasure of the Constitutional Officer appointing the
member during the term of the Constitutional Officer appointing the
member.
4. Vacancies shall be filled upon:
(a) Death of member
(b) Resignation
(c) Removal
( d) Three ( 3 ) unexcused absences in a
six (6) month period.
Vacancies shall be filled by the person who
nominated the member who created the vacancy,
subj ect to the appointment approval of this
Board for the unexpired term only. Any member
may serve for any number of consecutive terms.
All members shall serve without compensation.
5. This Board directs the Committee members to designate
appropriate officers from the appointments to the Committee as
~~o 7 58 PAGE26 5 3
.
..
'-'
\...".¡
. approved by the Board.
6. The Committee shall establish a time and place for
holding meetings as shall be necessary and the Committee shall
adopt such rules of organization and procedure as may be required,
provided, however, that a majority of the members of the Committee
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the
concurrence of a majority of the members present and voting shall
be required to take any official action.
All meetings of the
Committee shall be open to the public and shall be subject to the
requirements of Chapter 286, Florida Statutes. The Committee may
establish subcommittees for specific subjects or tasks from among
its members. The Committee shall hold its first meeting no later
than four (4) weeks from the date this resolutipn is adopted.
7. The Committee members shall possess special expertise and
experience in managing large businesses, but the membership shall
be balanced in representing views of the entire community.
8. The Citizen Budget Development Committee shal1 have the
following duties and functions:
(a) Assist in identifying areas of
County government where the need for
increased efficiency is greatest.
(b) Analysis and review of the existing
structure, organization, staffing,
management, business practices and
procedures of County government.
(c)
Make recommendations
efficiency and
implementation
recommendations.
for increased
assist in
of those
(d) The Committee and County staff will
select the study areas. Once
selected, the Committee will
identify specific sub-area topics
g~O 758 PA6E26 5 4
·"
"--
'''-tJ
.
and organize special technical task
forces. These task forces will
analyze the specific area, document
their findings, submit alternatives
to problems and then make their
recommendations.
(e) The committee will review and
evaluate the task force findings and
make final recommendations to the
County Administrator and the Board
of County Commissioners.
9. The actions, decisions and recommendations of the
Committee shal1 not be final or binding on the Board of County
Commissioners or Constitutional officers, but shall be advisory
only.
10. Upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners,
County government will provide legal, administrative and consultant
support and facilities as is hereby declared to be a County
purpose.
11. If any action, sentence, or clause of this Resolution is
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way effect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Resolution.
After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as
follows:
Chairman Havert L. Fenn
AYE
Vice-Chairman Jim Minix
AYE
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
AYE
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner
AYE
Commissioner Jack Krieger
AYE
2~O 7 5 8 PAGE2 6 5 5
.. -." .
~
.
# PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
, '..'
~ ,..I' '. ~......,¡ ~.~6::~~r>\~'..:"·
. ..," " '"t} , .,.v
. ';., ,',/.<,:' ~y .~:;:;~!",
:'
\..,;
..,.A~~::'Y: .
. .,~~':5/l:(~; 4'..~r
1 st day of October, 19 91 .:;~i;;j,- . .,;.:Y':t
. .,...\. 0,1' r n "<,'." .'
'. s.' -'¡S',
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS~Ql,f~S';:;'i: r.,';''::'';'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLO~A~-'." ,<.,.'.~,;:..'(.o;.
By~1fævd :/-, ~~~~!~:~~;~f~~;";
CHAIRMAN" .:...' -..-¡~"..,:,.., ,~.
,':>' "'iJ :::~/ '.,~ (" "'....
" ,f \..\,;~:.',
" . '.' ~~:., .
.........., ,
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
.~
A~COUN~~~TORNEY
1139214
'9\ œ1 \0 ~,..49.(
[CORüEU
f\\ [0 ^H~!.~('\,..¡ r\ t:R\"
OO\.):·'·\~:·
Sì \ ~)' .' ' .
g~O 7 58 PA6f2 6 56
'-
,Lf'
~
~
~
J
'-'
'-'
RESOLUTION NO. 93-77
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
91-221 WHICH AUTHORIZED THE CREATION
OF THE CITIZEN BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE BY DELETING THE TWO COUNTY
STAFF PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM SERVING ON
THE COMMITTEE; AND CHANGING THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP TO NO MORE THAN FIFTEEN
MEMBERS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of st. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. On October 1, 1991, this Board adopted Resolution No. 91-
221 which authorized the creation of the Citizen Budget Development
Committee to increase county government efficiency, and provide for
duties and functions of the committee.
2. The Citizen Budget Development Committee has determined
that county staff needs to be actively involved in the meetings of
the committee in order to provide technical support, but believes
that these staff members should be deleted from membership.
3. By deleting County staff as members would change the
membership to the ten (10) members appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners.
4. Further, the Citizens Budget Development Committee has
recommended that the total membership of the Committee be no more
than fifteen members.
5. This Board believes that amending Resolution No. 91-221
as indicated above is in the best interest of the public health,
Struck through
passages are deleted.
Underlined passages are
added.
1
::O~C-4
CD ....·0
o I-':Þ
o CD ~
Ii ~
o.ZCD
CD~
0. :z:
., 0
CD I-'
Ii a
0·' III
w t:;j
I ..
~J-i()
I ..,.....
\0 ,,, CD
wW*
iDo
~~H1
"(ßrt
I-' :::r
N(ßCD
"t ()
. .....
3: Ii
. 0
o~
::0 .....
rt
tx!
on
00
~~
Ii
rt
o.
men
W~
JÞ.t"<
~
o
.....
"t CD
:Þ
G)()
1::1]0
~
~
o~
0\
W
Q)
'--'
~
safety, and welfare of the citizens of st. Lucie County, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of st. Lucie County, Florida:
1. Paragraphs 2 and 3 under the NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
paragraph of Resolution No. 91-221 are hereby amended as follows:
2. The Committee shall consist of riD
no more than
fifteen (15) members who shall not
be staff members and who shall be
appointed as follows:
least twelve (12)
( a ) Each Board member shall
appoint two ( 2 ) members
to serve on the
Committee, and the
Chairman shall be
selected from these
appointments.
œIJ
The Coullly ^dlll in istrator
shall appo.i nttwo ( 2 )
members to be comprised
of County staff to serve
on the Committee.
(b) If any Constitutional
Officer elects to
participate in this
program, each
Constitutional Officer
electing to participate
in this program shall
appoint one (1) member
each to serve on the
committee which would
increase the number of
members of the Committee
to up to an additional
five (5) members for a
possible
fifteen (15) member
Committee.
"eventeen (17)
Struck through
passages are deleted.
Underlined passages are
added.
2
o
::t
tJ:I
8
:;.;:
o
CD
W
tÞ
'tJ
~
~
o
(T\
W
\C
~
'-'
(c) All Com m i t tee
appointments shall be
subj ect to the approval
of this Board.
3.
Each Board appointed member shall
serve at the pleasure of the person
appointing the member during the
term of the person appointing the
member. Each County Admi n i strator
appoi.nted ~jLaf ( member shell 1 serve
£cn a t.erm of UHe(~ (3) years from
the elate of appointment. Each
Constitutional Officer appointed
member shall serve at the pleasure
of the Constitutional Officer
appointing the member during the
term of the Constitutional Officer
appointing the member.
2.
Except as amended herein, Resolution No. 91-221 shall
remain in full force and effect.
After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as
follows:
Chairman Judy Culpepper AYE
Vice-Chairman R. Dale Trefe1ner AYE
Commissioner Havert L. Fenn AYE
Commissioner Denny Green AYE
Commissioner Cliff Barnes AYE
PASSED. AND DULY ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 1993.
. \ :,;:: '~ !.' ¿'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM:rSS:r()NERS ;',
ST. LUC:rE COUNT?,! . F,fO~~~~l : ; .
BY: ¿~.
~ ,:.'c:J......>.
ATTEST:
struck through
passages are deleted.
Underlined passages are
added.
3
o
~
txI
8
~
o
Q)
W
iÞ
~
:;Þ
G1
t::I
o
0\
tÞ
o
....
.. .
,-
'"
"
added.
struck through
, .
'-'
passages are deleted.
4
.'
'. . . '. ;f. '~ . . ...
'-'
Underlined passages are
o
::ø
f:x
o
o
~
o
m
w
¡þ
't
~
G1
tz:I
o
0\
iÞ
-1
'-'
......,
CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE - 2004
NAME
LAST FIRST MEETING DATES
Jan Feb March April May
SAMUEL DAVID BRUHN P P P P A
HOGAN KENNY BRUHN P A P A P
TAYNTON MARK COWARD P P A P P
PARRISH RON COWARD P P P A P
YOUNG PAUL LEWIS P P A A A
CASEY WILLIAM LEWIS A P P P A
HAWLEY DEBBIE HUTCHINSON P P P P P
KNAPP JOHN HUTCHINSON P P P P P
LOUNDS EDWARD BARNES P P P P P
KRAMMER SYLVIE BARNES A P A P P
FERRICK PAT WALKER A P P P A
MESSER STEVEN FURST P A P A A
INGERSOLL TROY HOLMAN P P P P A
HENSLEY CARL DAVIS P P P P P
BARTZ LINDA MASCARA P A P P P
tJ)
a:: an
Wo
zO
O~
"It
tJ)o
~~
:eo::
:e<
O~
O-J
~5
z~
:JLL.
00::
o~
u->
00::
c<
a:::E
<C~
OU)
£X)U)
~æ
Z::J
:JO
OW
00::
WZ
_0
oi=
:J(ñ
-10
...=Q.
tJ)
'-
'-'
: : :
C
~888888888888888888888888888888888888888
u.
:E
:E M~ <0 ~ g ~ ~
8~~~~~~~~~â~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
w ~.. ::4 J..... ~ ¡¡¡
~ ~
I-
~ ~
W2~~~~<o~~<oIOO~~~~~~~~~~~ø~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~N
~IO~,~,M~, NO<O(j N<OO~IO~~O~~~~IOMq~~~O<OO<OOIOIOMM~
g~~~~~¿~MmÑ~romÑ~Ó~M~¿~~~~øO ~~ - -~ro¿~~~ó~
ß....~..~~~~ ~::4~~~::4~~~~..::4~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~::4~~
~ ~
I-
~
W
~
a
W I-
~ (/)
~ ~
z Z
o 0
~ ¡::
(ñ g I-
o a Z
Il.~ ~=(/)~
I- c.. is
z ¡::: 0 I- ¡¡j
W(/)I- Z (/)
:E~ 3~~
~u=u¡¡j~
<~:i~~"
Il.(/)u¡::wo
W<W~Ua::
CiSl-a::¡¡:c..
~~~~~
C
W
C
Z
W
:E
:E I-
o (/)
U ~ I-
W Z Z
:S ~a-=~
zU I-¡¡j
05 ~z~
~oz3~"",
(ñ a:: w u (/)!!1 :(
o ~ ~ w a::
Il.wo::!:~8
u~u.~~a::
£caga::¡¡:c..
UZW<u.I
w ¡¡: c.. 0 ..¡.
I- ...Jw
< U
z is¡¡:
W Ou.
:IE ¡...:~o
I- Z:JZ
~(/)<uo
< z::!: Z ¡¡j
fhozºaJ
c~S~S
~~~~
~ 0 ~ Z
aU::!::J
wa::ao
::!:«u
IT
u
c..
\!:.
(/)
w
u
:>
a:: t:::
w u.
en 0
~ I-
ð ~
>- W
;; ~
Z c..
~ >-
a:: a::
~ ~
CD CD
::¡ ::¡
~~
8~
c.. en
z~~ ~ffi
u~¡so OZ
zUen~ en~ a:: a::
~§;: ~~~g~~~§~~
z~l-~ ~~~:>\!:.~~~ffiffi
isw wwena::=en:>owc..c..
a::uen UUZWl-zt:::u:J:J
8~¡;:¡~~~ºª~º~~~~en(/)
u Z < < m m ~ u ~ ~ ~ m u Ul-_ u u
en ~ t5 ~ I- I- ~ W U ~ en I- ~ < ~ ~
~~~~ê~~~~~~~~~~~~
en
w
u
~t:::
w u.
eno a::
~ I- ~
ð ~ Z
>-w=is
~~~¡S
~>-~8
~~~en
a::a::¡¡::'::
CDCDU.~
::¡::¡Oc..
>-
a::
~
CD
::¡
en
a
Z
:J
o
a::
"
a::
<
u.
= =
IT
u
c..
\!:.
a::
J: w
u "
w <
I- ~
W ::E
U en
Z a
:;2 Z
W :J
I- 0
Z a::
<"
::!: Q;;
fi~
~
en
~~
~ t::: ¡¡: Z
u f5~ ~ð
z en~ Wu
< > ~~CDI-
I ~f588~:J
hJ ~~a:~~~
=~ ~~~~~~
~:;2 ¡::w<~~~~Ienl-
~~ a::Wuuen...J
a::Z ua::¡¡:¡¡:uo
f2~~~~~~~~
en
:.::
a::
~
Z
o
¡::
L5
a::
u
w
a::
en
u
¡::
<
:J
o
<
I- I-
ª ª
a::
W
u
¡¡:
u. a::
00
~ (/) I-
~ a:: ð ~
W 0 ¡:: w
u~iDen
¡¡:a:::¡:z
u.:JxO
ouwu
c.. -
::!: I
W U
I- W
I- I-
ª ~ -
en<
UZ
~ ~
:J~
~~
-
I ~
frl u
I- Z
W - I
Ul- U
Z en w
< ~ a:: I-
mw~~
~ ~ ~ c..
< u. :J !!1
::!: 0 U a
éi'Cñ
o ::!:
t;~
~ 3
e.~
(/)en
a:: a::
< <
u. u.
u. u.
«
en ...J ...J
:;2 ~ ~
Z:J:J
<1-1-
>< ...J...J
:J:J
en u u
I
U
W
l-
I-
Z
<
::!:
~~
a:: a::
w w
c.. c..
w w
w w
:.:: :.::
w w
~ ~
" "
~ ~
§'
o
CD
x
Q.
I-
en
::¡
= <
--I U
IU W
U w c..
WI-(/)
l-u;:Z
~¡¡:enO
< ¡:: a ~
::!: aJ 9 u
~ g ~ §
(/)
W
u
a::
:J
o
(/)
W
a::
...J
«
I-
Z
W
::!:
Z
o
a::
:>
Z
W
Z
<
u
Z
I
U
W
I-
Z
o
¡::
u
W
I-
o
a::
c..
LU
u
a::
:J
o
~ t3
Z a::
§'Q'
o a::
CD ~
ðg
~a::
I- CD
!!1 >-
<t.~
ü -
W I
c.. U
(/)~
ð u
¡:: ¡¡:
« ¡::
Urn
5 u
LU en
Q'
a:: a::
~ I- ~
a Z ¡¡:
" ~ ~
~ !!1 LU
~~u
< ~
I W W
u>en
W ¡:: Z
~ ~ ~
¡¡:I-w
¡:: ~ tü
Z _ >
!:!:! ::!: ....
U a ,
en < c..
a::
w
u
¡¡:
u.
o
LU
U
~
W
en
Z
~
W
I-
W
>
~ ~ ~ !;:
Z Z Z ~
en
I-
U
W
'"'>
~
c..
...J
~
U
LU
c..
en
..,
>- Z
fB ~
~ ~
I- W
en >
c::;ö=~-J
,
rc,:
\-- -.:¡...
c::;¡
t:::-- c::>
ç- ("0.\
w
\0
\~
',:;2:
!91
! ~,
t '
\0
Jo
c
...--
L>
("'.,:
>-
..c(
::?:
r¡~
\:::,
2\
i::·,-:'~lt·_
en
a::: It)
We
ze
O~
-~
eno
~~
:lE~
:lE<
O~
(.).J
~5
z~
::;)I.L.
o~
(.)~
1.1.>-
o~
c<
a::::E
«:E
o~
men
~æ
Z:J
::;)0
Ow
(.)~
WZ
_0
(.)¡:::
::;)ëñ
..Jo
.n.
I-
en
'-'
"-"
"*'
c~mmmmooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
z ~'<I''<I' '<1''<1'00000000000000000000000000000000000000
::J
U.
:E
:E ~~ ~ M* <õ ~ g g¡ ~
OommOMO~qOOOOOOOOONOOOOO'<l'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOo~
ß~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~
0::
I-
eI)~w m N~mW~N~ ~ NNMl'-m~M~O ~Ol'-I'-WI'-WN'<I'M mMNNW~
W~~0~og~~~&~~0~8$8~$~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~ggo~~~~~~
ß~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!~~~!!~~a~
0::
I-
eI)
W
::J
a
W
0::
eI)
Z
o a::
~ ~
Ü) ¡¡:
o u.
c.. 0
l-
I- Z
Z W
W ::E
:E ~
I- a::
0:: 0
< u.
c.. ~
w W
c 0
o
U
5:
:J
(/)
<9
Z
ø
Z
= W
a:: U
W =ï
;¡¡; a::
::E 0
~ t;
(/) ~
Z I-
:xi ð
Q. U
l-
(/)
(/)
<
Z
o
¡::
U
:J I-
z~8 ~ ~
«&: o=(/)
uu¡:: ol-ø
ZZ(/) I-~(/)
J:J:=ï (/)1-<
uu< :J(I)::E
~~@=~~~
<9<9 Q.I::E <t:<9
zZ(/)UI-WO
oo~w:ua::
-'-'01-a::¡¡:Q.
55w~<Q.u.J:
IDID::E... O..¡.
c
w
c
z
w
:E
:E a:: I-
o ~ (/)
ßit ~ !z
0::0 Z ð Z ~
eI)!z <t: ¡:: ~=(/)
Zw= U U 01-
O::Ea:: Z 5 ~~~
~~~ J: OZ~I-;
Ü)a::5E ~ &:~u~~
of2~ I- oca::W(/)
c..~w ~ ltlf2~~8
uw(/) 0 zo¡..:.ua::
lnoZ -' ø-'a::¡¡:Q.
u8~~~~~æ~~~
I-
Z
w
:E
~ W
< U
c.. ~
W =ï
C Q.
::E
o
U
W
o
o
U
-' W
< U
o ¡¡:
o u.
~ Ii) 0
Z :J Z
(/)<uo
Z ::E Z ø
~ð~~
:xi¡::~~
WOI-W
a:: Z ~ ~
< 0 ;¡¡; Z
fij~žSð
::E < < U
û
U
Q.
~
(/)
W
U
:;
a:: I::
W u.
(/) 0
~ I-
ð ~
>- W
;; <9
Z ~
~ >-
a:: a::
~ ~
ID ID
=ï =ï
~~
~~
Q. (/)
->1:: ¿,!::
-u. -u.
Z a:: a:: W
U<OO OZ
Z U (/) ~ (/) ~ a:: a::
~Ï- ~~~~û~oÏgg ~Ï ffi
I-UI- uuw(/)¡rw~u:;:; wU U
~~I-~ ~~~:;~~~~ffiffi ~~ ita::
OW~ Ww(/)a::=(/):>wQ.Q. Q.W- 00
a::u UUZWl-zl::u:J:J ªUI- (/)1-
g~~~~~º~~º~~~~(/)(/)(/)~~a::ð~
U z« zzSu~S~z uuuug~ <0 ¡:: W
~~~~~~5~~5~~~~~~~!z~~~~
~ ~ < u. 0 < < W Q.I:: u. W W < 0 0 0 0 0 < u. :J X 0
ZQ.::EOu.::E::Ea:: oa::a::::E««<::EOuwu
(/)
W
U
:;
ffi t¡:
(/) 0 a::
~ I- 0
ð ~ ~
>-w=o
;;(!)Ii)~
Z ~ (/) 0
~ >- < U
a:: a:: W (/)
~ ~ u :>::
IDlDita::
=ï=ï0~
>-
a::
~
ID
=ï
(/)
o
Z
:J
o
a::
<9
a::
Œ
0::
Ï W
u<9
W <
I- ~
W ::E
U CI)
Z 0
< Z
Z :J
~o
;¡¡; a::
< (!)
::E Q;
~~
= =
û
U
Q.
~
~
(/)
~~
~ t¡: ¡¡: Z
a:: 0 W:J
u 0 Z 0
Z (I) ~ W U
< :; ~~IDI-
J: a::a::uuO:J
U wg¡r¡r~o
~ ~:;~¿,O::!ã
=~ ~~~~~~
z~ ¡::(/)~~Cl:~
~w ~uww:J(/)
wI- a::WUU(/)-,
0:: Z U a:: ¡¡: ¡¡: U 0
f2~~~~~~~~
(/)
:>::
a::
<
Q.
Z
o
¡::
<
W
a::
U
W
a::
(/)
U
¡::
~
$I
¡¡
-
J: ~
~ U
I- Z
W - J:
U I- U
Z (/) W
< ~ a:: I-
~w~~
!z~~Q.
<u.:J~~
::EOuoz
~éñ
~ ~
U W
~~
e.~
(I) (/)
a:: a::
< <
u. u.
u. u.
< <
(/) -' -'
~ ~ ~
Z:J:J
<1-1-
~-'-'
.... :J :J
(/)UU
a:: a::
W W
Q. Q.
WW
W W
:>:: :>::
W W
!;( !;(
<9 <9
~ ~
Z
<
u
Z
J:
U
W
I-
Z
o
¡::
U
W
I-
o
a::
Q.
W
U
a::
:J
o
~ fß
Z a::
~Q'Q'a::
o~~w
~Q.Q.U:>::
o º º ¡¡: a::
~a::a::ou.~
I- ID ID U
~>->-~<9
s~;s:;~
UJ:J:a::z
WUUW:J
Q.ww(/)o
(/)I-I-Zu
ª ~ ~ ffi ~
!;( ¡:: ¡:: t¡j a::
g~~>~
o u u I:: W
W (/) (/) Q. (/)
~
o
~
l-
(/)
=ï
= <
--J: U
U W
W Q.
I- _ ~
U I- 0
¡¡: (/) ¡::
¡:: ø <
Z 0 U
W-':J
U 0 0 ~
(/)mwz
a::
W
U :>::
¡¡: a::
u. W
o -'
W U
u~
>¡::
a:: Z
W:J
(1)0
Zu
ffi~
I- a::
W 0
> Z
~ ~ ~
J: J:
U U
W W
I- l-
I- I-
Z Z
< <
::E ::E
~ ~
(/)
W
U
a::
:J
o
(/)
W
a::
-'
~
Z
W
::E
Z
o
a::
~
W
Z
o
~
I-
~~
~ 5E
W 0
I- <
~~
fJ)
e::::U)
We
ze
OC'¡l
~
fJ)e
~~
:æo::
:æ«
O~
O...J
~t3
Z~
::>LL
00::
of2
LL>-
00::
C«
e::::::iE
«~
Oen
men
~~
Z::::I
::>0
OW
oD::
WZ
_0
ot=
::>ëi5
...JO
a-:Il.
fJ)
: : :
Cz 00
- -
::)
LL
'-'
(/)
~~~~~~~~~ooo~~w~6
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ v .~
>
:æ
:æ ~~ ~~~ ¡gr--~~
O~~OOOMMMO~~~~ooooo
ß!~~~~!!!~I~~~~~~00
0::
.......,
o ~
~cø
¡;j ::i
0~
I-
ø 0
w~~~~~æ~æ~~~~g~~~~~~ø
::)~~~M~MMMq~r--~"'MM_"''''~~
aoo~oo~~oo~oo~'<t~~~~~~~~ciØ
W~~~~~~~~~~0~~U~~U~~~
0:: ~
I-
ø
W
::)
a
W
0::
ø
z
o
t=
ëñ
o
Q. ~
I- :I:
Z frl
W == f-
:æ :I: W
!:::; U U
"' W Z
«f-«
Q. >- Z
W W ~
>~
C a:: ~
:J«
en::E
c
W
C
Z
W
:æ
:æ
o
o
W
0:: ~
ø :I:
z U
o == ~
t= :I: W
ëñ U U
o W Z
" f- «
_ >- Z
ow W
>f-
IX! a:: ~
o ~ ~
I-
Z
W
:æ
I-
0::
«
Q. W
Wc¡C¡
C Z º
-a::¡...:
fficnz
Woð«
~ 0 ::E
~ ð ~
wa::....,
Î
U
W
f- co
~ Z ~
Z ~ ti: a::
~ ~ ìñ f-«O
f-f- --- ¡:::
frlfrl ffiffiffi a::~--!z~
..J..J UUU Oz «a::
~~~ititit~~¡¡j ~8-
oo¡sooo~wfiJ enU
~~~ððð~~~ ~~
oO:Jf-¡:::f-:I:!zo:;! a.
~~~ððð~~; ~8
~~~3331:i:~õ Iñen
en en I-;" :JW zf-
ZZf-~~~¡rO::E a::
gg~888~~~ ~fu
co
('oj
u.i
f-
u.
ìñ
¡:::
ffi ffi ffi a:: ~ - -
UUU Oz
zü:ü:ü:=f-w
«u.u.u.z~cn
¡sooO<wO
o~~~üa.~
Iñoooz~~
z:J¡:::f-¡:::5z~
<~ððð~~~
a::Ü::EZZZt;°o-
wõi:f-:J:J:J.....Z
cnf-"';'::E::E::Eo:Jw
::EUf-::E::E::Ea.O::E
~~~888~~~
- - -
f-
Z
«
::E
en
Z
o
¡:::
<
..J U
~ Z
o :J
o ::E
f- ::E
en 0
Ö U
..J..J
~ ~
!::?!z
Ow
;¡U
..J
o
a::
f-
Z
o
U
o
f- f-
a:: 5
00
!loen
a:: 0
« ::E
a:: a::
00
f-f-
~ ~
W w
a. a.
00
a. a.
5 5
00
w w
§ §
:I: :I:
a:: a::
00
f- f-
~ ~
W w
a. a.
00
a. a.
5 5
00
w w
§ §
:I: :I:
- -
:I: :I: :I:
UUUz
wwwa::
f-f-I-w
WWWf-
~~~~
<<(<(a::
ZZZW
WWWW
f-f-I-Z
Z_ Z Z ,n
«<;:;
::E ::E ::E r5
~~~~~~
W
f-
en
<
~
°
:J
o
en
en
f-
U
W
o
a::
a.
..J
«
@~
a. ..J
en a.
oð ::E
>- 0
c¡ U
w en
f- f-
~ a::
f- 0
en fu
en
w
¡:::
:J
¡:::
:J
U'J
0:::
w
z
a
U'J
U'J ~
:E 0
:E 0
l- N
a 0::: 0:::
U a «
>- D- W
I- W >-
Z 0::: ...J
=> «
a ~ u
u U'J
u. 0 u.
a I-
U'J
C J: J.t')
0::: en
...J en
« w 0r-
a z 0:::
m z «
0 w
>- U'J >-
I- 0::: ...J
Z W «
=> D- U
a U'J
u u.
w
u
=>
...J
¡...:
U'J
~
.......,
W
C)
Z :oR ~<C :oR :oR :oR :oR ~ :oR :oR :oR ~ :oR ~~ ~ ~
<C ~ '¡f?~ 0 ~ ~ :oR :oR :oR :oR ~ :oR ~ :oR
0 o -.; 0 å 0 å ..- 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0
:I: 0 NZ 0 ..- ..- 0 ..- N 0 Z 00 N ZO C"> 0 0 0 ..- 0> 0 0 0 0 t- t-
o I ..-
:oR
c
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[) 0 0 It) 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 N l[) l[) N 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 ~ ~ N 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0)
0 Lri cO C"i ..- v .... ..- c:i cO N N ..t c:i C"iC"i cD c:i ..to 0 .... .... cõ ai C"i ..t N C"i .... cõ
N ..- l[) co ..- ..- eo .... ..- M N l[) ..- co
I ....
M
0
0
N
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[) 0 0 It) 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....
0 0 0 0 l[) It) ~ N l[) l[) N 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 ~ ~ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
0 Lri c:i c:i -.i 0 ai cO ..- 0 ..t c:i C"iC"i Lri c:i ..tai 0 ,..: -.i C"i ..t N C"i cD ,..:
0 ..- ..- .... ....
N ..- ..- l[) co ..- eo.... ..-- N N l[) ..- t-
N ....
0
0
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[) 0 0 It) 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It)
N 0 0 0 0 ~ It) ~ N l[) l[) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 co 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 <'! It)
0 Lri c:i 0 ..- N cõ ..- ai cO ..- 0 ..t 0 C"i ..t Lri 0 ..to cõ 0 .... ,..: 0 C"i C"i N C"i .... ,..:
0 ..- ..- l[) I'- ..- eo .... ..- M .... l[) ..- I'-
~ ....
....
0
0
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[) 0 0 It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.... 0 ~ 0 0 ~ It) 0 N ~ 01'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 It) It) en 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 <'! co
0 Lri t- o ..- t- o cO ai eo ..tai ..t 0 ..-- ..t C"i 0 N..t ..t 0 .... cD 0 C"i C"i N C"i .... cD
0 ..- v I'- t- en ..- N .... l[) ..- t-
N
0
0
0
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[) 0 0 It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 ~ It) 0 N l[) 01'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 It) It) ~ 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 CD co
0 Lri cD 0 cD ai cO aiM ..t 0 oi ..t Lri C"i N"': ..t 0 cD ai C"i C"i N C"i d cD
0 ..- ~ t- ....
N ..- '<:t CD vI'- N .... '<:t ..- I'-
en
0)
0)
....
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It) 0 0 It) 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0) 0 0 0 0 ~ It) 0 N ~ 0 N 0 0 00 0 0 ..-- .... <'! 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 CD 0
0) Lri cD 0 ..- C') u) r--: r--: 0> 0 M C"i 0 cO..t 0 0 N"': .... 0 .... u) ai ..t C"i N ..t N cD
00 ..- '<:t CD It) I'- ..-- N .... '<:t ..- t-
O)
0)
....
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[) 0 o It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co 0 0 0 ~ ~ It) 0 N 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..-- .... <'! 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 <'! 0
en Lri cD 0 u) r--: cD ai cOo C"i Lri ..t 0 0 0 N..t d u) ai ..t C"i N C"i cD
..:.. ..- C') .... .... ....
..- '<:t CD v I'- ..- ..-- M .... v ..- I'-
0)
0)
....
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t- O 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 N ~ 0 N 0 0 00 0 0 ..-- .... .... 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 <'! 0
0) 0 M cD N C"i Lri ..to 0 0 N..t N 0 u) ai ..t C"i N C"i cD
cb Lri cD ..- ..- t- eo ..- .... ....
..- '<:t CD It) I'- ..- ..-- M .... '<:t ..- I'-
0)
en
....
0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD 0 0 0 ~ ~ It) ~ N 0 0 N 0 0 00 0 0 ..-- .... .... 0 ~ N 0 0 co 0 0 CD 0
0) M cD r--: cO cci C"i Lri C"io 0 0 NM N 0 u) ill ..t C"i N C"i cõ cD
.;, Lri r--: 0 ..- C> t- ....
..- V CD It) I'- ..- ..- M .... v ..- CD
0)
0)
....
0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0
It) 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 N 0 0 C'! 0 0 00 0 000 <'! 0 ~ 0 C> 0 C') 0 0 M 0
0) N Lri ill r--: C"i C"i Lri Lrio 0 ONu) 0 u) ill ..t C"i N C"i cõ cD
..t Lri cD 0 ..- C> .... .... ....
..- '<:t CD co co ..- ..- M .... '<:t ..- CD
0)
0)
....
....
If ~ r::
en CII
W 12 CII z ª
.... C.J W
~ r:: 0 ~ :¡: '~ ::¡: cnë
z CII :> 0 en
W ig E ~ ~ CII a. ë If Q; W c: Q)
-0 en en 0 Q) Q) > 0 E
::¡: 0 r:: W :J i:ï:: ..J ë § ,2 r:: CII en 0 ~
z ... ena:¡ C1I ~ :> I~ I~
co ë5 C1I ìñ > W Q) ~ .Q C 0
~ ... c: > W-o Q) .. > E 0 Q)õ i~ < ~ 'E ro
W :m I/) iD .r::. 0 > c: e en lIS W ~ ãi en Q) LL ~ W >- :J I: ...
> 0 C) Q) ... W ~ ro lIS
c: Q) - ro :J 0.... C I: > roe r:: LL W en E e z
o c: I: 0 I: f- "iã ~ë 0 .- If >- ,Q ro Q) ::s ~ < ~ >- W :¡: en
'Ë ~ 0 en g ~ '2 I: 0 ,2 a. E ::I ~ LL E ~ ë ~ C.J en
C) 0 c: ... ~ Q) ~co ro ..J !::: < 0 Z
-0 ~ C1I Q) Q) .- o I: ~ 0 ro::
..J ëñ <C ãi .Q ~ E ~ en E - ... :¡:g. ._ .r::. Q) E ..J < Z en ü c: ü en.c <
s::: ëñ z...
<.!!? .?; ~ .?; co C1I !a ~ c: ro -'0 ::I ,!Q .r::. r:: E 0 e E 0 ::I ~ oð ::I 0 "ê ~ rn Q) ::s ~
~ E E C) ~< ::¡: ,~ ~ 'E o Q) :J en 0 0 ::I ::¡: c:a. W
ro Z ro ro .r::. 1:1::: o .¡: ::¡ ... Eo
W E c: '6 c: - I: E 0 ë- ::¡: E ~ ~ ..J ë Q) .~ ñS ~
:J :J .E "iã ::¡: ro ::; o I: oen en ::s lIS ..J Õ ::¡: m E ~~
z 0 0 Q) 0 :J Q) lIS 0-0 ... ro 0- Q) 0 .... Q) :¡:õ W
.... C:¡: üÕ C.9ã: wC.9 ~~ C) ::I 0 ::I Ü >
Wü ü :¡: ü c: 0 :I: a. o<C 0 en w
C) ~ < ~ ~ < 0 . 0 a. ~
i
,.:
UI
:;:
UI
'"
w
!!o
Ii
o
e-
o.
i
EO
."
~
m
...
!1i
~
~
a
;
0>
."
~
g¡
¡;
V)
œ:
w
z
0
V)
V) oqo
:æ: 0
:æ: 0
l- N
0 0:: 0::
() 0 «
~ 0.. W
W >-
Z 0:: ...I
::J «
0 ~ ()
() ~
LL 0 LL
0 l-
V)
C :I: It)
œ: C')
...J C')
« w '!""
0 Z œ:
OJ z «
0 w
>- V) >-
t- o:: ...J
Z W «
::J 0.. ()
0 V)
() LL
W
()
::J
..J
...=
V)
~
""""""
w
ø
z èf2.èf2. ~~ ~ ~« ~'*' '*'-;?. ?fl.';!!. ~ ::f ~ ~ ::f
« 0 ~ ~ 0 ';j!.';j!. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:I: 00 ZO 0 ......- 01/) ..-0 ov 0 C") 0 N 0 ro 0
I/) ..-Z 1/)0 I/) ()') 0 Z ..- Ov 0 N N Z ...... 0 ...... 0 I,{)
0
~
0
'Ot 00 01,{) 0 00 ()')O 0 o co N 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') 0 ~
0 01,{) 0 NO ..-0 ......C") ()') OCO ...... CD CD I,{) 0 I/) 0 "!C? I,{) 0 0 0 C? 0 eo C') 'Ot 0
0 cDN 0 ~cO LCÌo r--:o LCÌ LCÌC"Ï eo) .....: Id r--: ..- cci C"Ï I,{) ..- LCÌ 0) 0 0) C") LCÌ 0 cci cci ..-
()')
N ..- tDC") N..- ...... ...... N N V C") ...... ..- .,... 'Ot ..t
M .,... N eo
0
0
N
C') 00 0 I,{) 0 1/)0 ()') 0 0 0 CO ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') CD ~
01,{) 0 "! 0 MO ...... CO ()') 0 CO 'Ot CD V I,{) 0 I/) 0 N C? I,{) C? 0 0 0 0 eo M CD 0
0 cDN 0 ..- ..t ..to r--: cò C"Ï LCÌ C"Ï .....: eo) eo) r--: 0 ,...: C"Ï ..t ..t 0 ..t C"Ï ..t Id cci cci tD
0 ..- N ()')
N ..- tD N N ..- CD ...... N N V C") ...... ..- en 0 C"Ï
N .,... .,... eo
0
0
N
0 0 0 I,{) 0 I/) 0 V 0 0 0 CON 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 00 M I/) ~
N 01,{) 0 N 0 MO 0 CO ()') 0 CO .... C"! 'Ot I,{) 0 I/) 0 N 0 I,{) 0 0 0 C? oeo M eo
LCÌN 0 0 ..to LCÌ r--: C"Ï LCÌ C"Ï cci eo) r--: 0 ,...: C"Ï C"Ï cD C"Ï 0 ..t NId ,...: N
0 ..- .,... ..- C") ,...: CO
0 ..- tD N N ..- I/) .... N N C") C") ...... ..- eo .... r--:
~ .,... .,... ....
.,...
0
0
N
0 0 0 0 0 I/) 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 I/) ~
.,... 0 0 0 CO 0 CO 0 0 CO en 0 OM eo I/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) C? 0 0 C? 01/) 0 ~ 0
LCÌ 0 0 C"Ï 0 0 LCÌ C"Ï LCÌ Ncci .....: N LCÌ 0 Id N C"Ï LCÌ 0 ..t r--:.....: cD V
0 ..- ..- ..- N C") .,... ..-
0 ..- tD N N ..-'Ot CD N N C") C") ...... .... N LCÌ
N .,... .,... ....
0
0
0
N
0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 I/) 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 I/) ~
0 0 0 N 0 CO 0 0 CO N 0 0.,... co I/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? 0 0 C? 00 0 .,... 0
0 LCÌ 0 N M 0 C"Ï 0 LCÌ M LCÌ N"': ,...: eo) LCÌ 0 Id N M M N LCÌ occi Id cD en
0 ..- ..- ()') C") ~
N ..- tD N N ..-1/) CD N N C") N ...... CD eo
, .,... .,... CD ..-
en
en
en
.,...
0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 I/) ~
en 0 0 0 N 0 ..- 0 0 CO N 0 OM co I/) 0 tD CD 0 N C? 0 C? 0 0 C? ON 0 ....
en LCÌ 0 M 0 ..t 0 0 ..t M ..t N"": .....: eo) LCÌ cD N C"Ï LCÌ N cD o~ Id N N
cO ..- ..- ..- ()') C") N
..- tD N N ..-'Ot CD N N N N ...... CD .... 0
en .,... .,... CD ,
en
.,...
co 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 I/) ~
0 0 0 N 0 tD 0 C? CO N 0 0 co eo I/) 0 ~ CD 0 N C? 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 N 0
en LCÌ 0 LCÌ 0 M 0 ..t C"Ï ..t N 0) ,...: ..t r--: cci N N r--: 0) N 0) M old ..t ..t tD
,.:. ..- ..- ..- ..- 0
..- tD N N ..-'Ot CD N N ..- N ...... I/) ...... 0
en .,... .,... CD
en
.,...
0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 I/) 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 I/) ~
.... 0 0 0 N 0 «) 0 C? CO N I,{) 0'Ot 'Ot CD 0 0 0 0 N C? 0 C? 0 0 0 ON 0 co 0
en LCÌ 0 LCÌ 0 N C"Ï C"Ï No) ui N cD ,...: N N r--: ..t M 0 00 ..t eo) I,{)
cD LCÌ 0 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- C")
..- tD N N ..-'Ot CD N N ..- C") co CD .... 0
en .,... .,... CD ,
en
.,...
0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 I/) 0 I,{) 01/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 00 I/) 0 ~
CD 0 0 0 N 0 «) 0 C? co N C") 1/).... 'Ot CD 0 0 0 0 N C? 0 0 ...... 0 0 00 .... N co
en 0 0 LCÌ 0 LCÌ 0 N C"Ï LCÌ còui cD N r--: cci N N r--: M N LCÌ 0 o eo) N ui
.;, LCÌ ..- ..- ..- I,{)
..- tD N N 'Ot CD N N ..- C") co CD .... 0
en .,... .,... CD I
en
.,...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 I/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I,{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/) 0 I/) ~
I/) 0 0 0 0 0 «) 0 0 0 N C") N 'Ot co CD 0 C? 0 0 "! 0 0 C? 0 0 C? 0 N 0 .,... 0
en 0 0 LCÌ 0 C"Ï M cD 0) ,...: ui N r--: cci ..t cD N cò 0 ..t N 0 en
..t ..t 0 .0 CD ..- ..- ..- N 0 0
..- N N 'Ot CD N N ..- C") co CD co N
en .,... .,... CD
en
.,...
E ë rx:
::¡ w «
Q)
If) > W
::¡ 0 >-
Z ~ c:: rx: :I:
0 ro 0 If) a- 0
:¡:¡ Q) a-
¡:: ë lIS Ü «
« Q -' t: :; « w
If) Q) ... 0 I-
W 'C E u rx: rx: e 0 en w
rx: c c Q ~ If) (/ If) z ø
rx: I- 0 Q) Q) ..:.: c
0 ro e z a- ë( en ü I- a:: ... ,Q 0 Z
W ...J X 'C Õ C CfJ 0 ¡::
'> Q) 0 rx: ~ ~ ro «
a:: c '- ro c:: 'C C ª ~ ro ;:
c Q)I~ 0 ë( rx: '¡: I~ ü5 :I:
:8~ ë '- If) lIS c:: 0 Ig ¡¡; ~ ë
c w 0 :;::> Q) 'C '- .!:! 0 0
ro Q) Q) .æ'C c:: ~ 0 (/ 0 C lIS ~ i:5 ¡¡; ,~ '¡: Q) Q)
Z c:: c:: UJ UJ 0 If) ..:.: t: ;: 0&i cc ro E :c en 0 a- I-
« ~O E Q) ::¡ E c:: :;::> ro ::¡() ... >- I- Z ¡¡; 0 ~ Z
c:: () 0 Q) ro c:: o (/ lIS rx: 5 « 0 0 'c Q) c () -g oð ~ C ::J W UJ ...J
en 'c Q) e ::¡ c:: a- t:: a- 0 E e a- ¡:: Q) ~ W
.- c:: ~ Q) :2 UJ Q) ro ()t:: « 0 l- e :J 'Ë c ïñ Q) :!2 'C ª 0
~ Ü ..:.: '- 'g '- '> :J
E '¡: '> UJ '- ü ~8 rx: t:: ß 'C Ü ro ß
a:: '> :.c > lIS en rx: In e ë5 0 5 0 rx:
'C ro c:: ïii ::J ro Q ro - In 0 0 'C C 0 Q) 0 û5 c ¡::
« «~ w Ü u. ~ () a-a:: CfJ C)CfJ 0 0 ;:¡: a.. 0 ~ « w w () CfJ a:: a:: w 0 I- W
a- . ~ I- :J :E a- l- ll. I- ~~ Il.
j
,.:
'"
Ï
'"
II:
W
0.
~
o
e-
o.
~
G
'"
"
~
III
;!
'é
=
.
~
a
;:;
G
'"
"
~
!!!
êi
;;
..
m
'"
en
:J:
¡¡;
-f
~
:s::"(')m:s::»~
c: !!!, :;::' ::J 0> Co :::tI
C/) ;:¡ ñ' S.::" 3 ~
CD ~ "":J _. "'"'
c: Ò (') g CD 2. en
3C:CD3(')~»
Cl)à.3.CDro@Z
CI)~3.3.gc
!!!.~::J:::tI
r m
0> (")
::J :::tI
Co m
C/) »
-I
Õ
Z
0'>
N
o
~
cx>000'>
0000
0000
t71
0,
o
~
CX>00t71
0000
0000
~
t71 t7100,þ.
0, 0000
o 0000
~
t710t7100,þ.
0,00000
000000
~
g;~g~~~
000000
~
t710t7100t71
O>ONOOO
00t71000
~
t710t71....0t71
o>oNooo
00t71000
~
WOO1:-,,!=>~
o>oNooo
00t71000
~
.þ.ow~~~
:""'ONOOO
00t71000
~
wow!,,~~
œONooo
t710t71000
~
wO.....O......01
œoœooo
t7100000
....
.þ.o.....~~~
WON0t710
t710t71000
~
,þ.,þ. ~!"~
WON0t710
t710t71000
~
CJ1O>.....ONO>
:""'oNoo,b
00t71000
"""0'10 Zoo
~~~»~~
<
m
-I
m
:::tI
»
Z
en
d:s::::o»m(')~
S' 0> » 2. 3 CD CD
- ::J, 0 3 CD ;:t r
-u::J o>';:¡~-
cCD -(¡)!!!.(")
fj'Cf (')::J(')Cf
~*' ~Q03~
enf< ~:s:: m
1\1 Q.O>c3-1
cr :J-<
~ ~~.
CD D>
~g
3.~
01
o
o
ØI~ ,þ.
cøCX>NW,þ.N
000000
000000
01
o
o
ØI~ ,þ.
cøCX>NW,þ.N
c..oowoo
000000
01
o
o
....~ ,þ.
N"'NW,þ.O>
c..oowoo
000000
01
o
o
ØI~ ,þ.
OOWNW,þ.O>
c..oowoo
000000
01
o
o
01.... ,þ.
OOWNW,þ.O>
c..oowoo
000000
01
o
o
ØI~ ,þ.
OOWNW,þ.O'>
0,000,00
000000
01
o
o
....~ ,þ.
.....WNW,þ.CO
a.ooo>oo
000000
01
o
o
....~ ,þ.
......WNW.þ.c.o
a.ooo>oo
000000
01
o
o
....~ ,þ.
N,þ.NW,þ.CO
a.000,00
000000
01
00
o
....~ ,þ.
OWNWWCO
a.ooo>oo
000000
01
00
o
.... ~ t71
......wNwwa
a.ooo>oo
000000
....
i.n
U1
....~ t71
.....WNWWO
a.ooo>oo
000000
....
a.
.....
....~ t71
ØIWN,þ.W,þ.
000000
000000
00
ÍD
o
00 ~ t71
.....WN.þ.WC'O
000000
000000
....
'"
~
o
"'OOOOCO
;f!.cf?rfl.cflèf!.?fi.
(")
o
i:
i:
c:
z
~
en
m
~
Õ
m
en
U1
o
o
U1
o
o
U1
o
o
U1
o
o
U1
o
o
U1
N
o
U1
N
o
U1
N
o
U1
N
o
01
N
o
01
N
o
....
N
o
....
N
o
00
N
o
~
,þ.
~
o
.....
o
o
.....
o
o
.....
o
o
.....
o
o
.....
o
o
.....
o
o
....
o
o
....
o
o
....
o
o
....
o
o
.....
o
o
o
~
o
.
en
o
¡=
Qa
:E
~
m
;:0
(")
c:
r
-I
c:
;:0
»
r
»
"
"II
»
;:¡¡
en
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.....
o
o
.....
o
o
o
~
o
~
;:0
Õ
c:
!:j
c:
;:0
m
dõ'::CG>m"tJG>)>8
~cg¡ëñ8~ò~i:
(")iiJ,g:::¡õ 2,~:j'i:
03 n ~ 3,;2 ::T¡¡;'C:
3 (þ5ñ'~:S::¡¡¡:!!:
3 "tJ-'o 0>",,-1
c",O ::::Jo-<
::3 !3.!!!.~ ~::Jc
;;: ~Cf æ. CD m
'" cr.!!¡Q 3 <
~ g 5'3 ~ ~
~ £~ - 0
- C/)_ -u
~ i:
3 m
CD z
a -I
....
,þ.
c..
o
W ..........
U1NOOONOOW
00000000
00000000
....
W
ÍD
o
W ~....
WNOOONO'>W
00000000
00000000
....
....
ÍD
o
W ~~
WNOOO,þ.,þ.W
00000000
00000000
....
....
a.
o
w ~....
,þ.NOOO,þ.t71W
00000000
00000000
....
....
a.
o
w ~~
UlNOOOt71U1W
00000000
00000000
....
N
:...
o
w ........
WNOOOWt71W
~:""booooo
00000000
....
N
:...
o
~"'ooo~~w
:"':"'000000
00000000
....
....
a.
o
W ~~
,þ.NOOO,þ.U1W
:"":""000000
00000000
....
....
a.
o
N ~
....NOO,þ.OOOW
:"":""000000
00000000
....
,þ.
~
o
N
....NWt71,þ.COO,þ.
i.ni.noooooo
00000000
....
,þ.
ÍD
o
N ~
....NOW,þ.~O,þ.
i.nu,oooooo
00000000
.....
0>
00
o
W ~
O,þ.Ot71,þ.wo,þ.
00000000
00000000
N
o
o
o
N ~
cø,þ.Ot71wwo,þ.
00000000
00000000
N
o
o
o
W ~
O,þ.OØlWwo,þ.
00000000
00000000
o
~
o
~~~~~~zo
0'0'»~ø:::e;::::»~
d(,)ïJ::I:Š::~
~1!~3~~
ȋJ::TD>9:!z
C.-g¡::::J(¡)ëii
3Cf -'::03-1
-. CD 5 CD ;:0
~.~. ¡g1!»
..0 co>-I
!lm n::J<
_. CD C. m
~ !!!.[Den
en ~cm
CD ~I~;:O
ë! ".. 7D ::;
ñ' I~- (")
CD r-::;. m
III en
OOO'>~
.....WOU1W
NOONO
00000
cøOO
ØIOOOU1W
:"'U,ONO
00000
....0'>
........O'>,þ.w
NOONO
00000
....0'>
01 0 0>U1t71
NOONO
00000
000'>
.....w"'O'>t71
NOONO
00000
....t71
0>00....0>'"
NOONO
00000
....t71
~......(X)O)~
NOONO
00000
....,þ.
000 co 0>""
NOONO
Ul00U10
....t71
woco"'....
NOONO
Ul00t710
....,þ.
wcoooco'"
:"'ou,NO
Ul00t710
cø....
cø....oocooo
:"'ou,NO
U100010
.....
.....00 ~
Q......!=D~~
NU,t71NO
U100010
.....
.....00 ~
o......coco.....
Nu,u,NO
Ul00U10
.....
...... CD -- .....
NNCDO......
Nu,u,NO
Ul00010
N......O:=O
"?fi*''#.rfl.'ifl.
d5'('):S::(')(')~
S'õ'0CDOOz
-:¡§9:§3m
G>:j.:;:-0>::::-3;:o
g ê::þ~:þ¡jf~
CD 0 ::I: - C. -,
¡¡¡::Jo0> 30c>
- -I 3 g _,::::J 0
C> CD ( ::J 2. <
Og.<III!!!. m
<::J ãJ:::tI
~Q. Õ z
::38 ~ i:
3< m
CD z
a -I
ØIW~
UlCX>U1
000
000
ØIW~
woow
000
000
ØIW~
.....OON
000
000
ØIW~
NCON
000
000
ØI,þ.~
1\.)0......00>01
000000
000000
ØI,þ.~
WO.....O.....,01
i.nU,0000
000000
ØI,þ.~
(..)...........00>0'1
000000
000000
ØI....~
c.nw......OC)CJ1
i.nU,0000
000000
ØI,þ.~
c.nw......oO'>O'1
i.nU,0000
000000
g;t::OO'>(J1
i.nU,0000
000000
....,þ.~
0""""".....0.....,01
i.nU,0000
000000
.....01..... .....
CDN-"OOCJ1
i.nU,0000
000000
(DCJ'1.-. ......
Q.þ......OOO1
i.nU,0000
000000
~~::WCÞ01
i.nU,0000
000000
.....OOz~O
~~~»~*
'" 01
00
00
....t71
00
00
0)01
00
00
0'> 01
00
00
...
cø
cø
o
cD
.....
.....
cø
cø
.....
cD
N
.....
cø
cø
N
cD
W
.....
cø
cø
W
cD
....
.....
cø
cø
....
cD
UI
.....
cø
cø
UI
cD
01
.....
cø
cø
01
cD
....
.....
cø
cø
....
cD
00
.....
cø
cø
00
cD
cø
.....
cø
cø
If
N
o
o
o
N
o
o
o
~
o
o
.....
N
o
o
.....
~
o
o
N
N
o
o
N
~
o
o
W
N
o
o
W
~
o
o
....
~
o
(")
::I:
»
z
C)
m
'TI
Cñ
o
»
r-
~
m
»
::0
..a.
<0
<0
o
'TI
Cñ
o
»
r-
~
m
»
::0
I\)
o
o
.¡:.
"'I:J
m
::0
C/)
o
z
z
m
r-
:J:
ëñ
-I
o
::0
~
::0
m
"'I:J
o
::0
-I
en
:-I
r-
c:
o
m
o
o
c:
z
~
m
o
»
::0
c
o
'TI
o
o
c:
z
~
o
o
s::
s::
Cñ
en
Õ
z
m
::0
en
.
;tëÐS-§'"U~~
(þ:::!lo.Q)~~ëi)
m~ CD ~¡g enO'OO
--"0 CD::J
~ :T ~ a.::J 5 ~.
S:(þ3S:~~~
(') tu CD CD Q) tu g
~ & ~ ~ 5.:g S'
ü). ~ - ë ""0 a :T
cr~~~~~tt)
œ·~-Q)aãr"C
:Jc.m-c-::r.Q)
. a~o@g~
2 oen:E
(') D3 ° :E tu
ë¡jja.~~
S·õ'!'JCÞo
CC~-i(")-
::JCD::rQ,:;'
Q)Q)CDëõQ.
eng.O$lc
g,< :!;~g.
gæ£=r~
~ :"' 0 ° :>
CD ....3:f
c. ~tD¡¡,
?' 3 a. m
-cc'O
Qag¡,g
OJ ~"
a.g¡~
~~~
::r¡¡ N
Q)" 0
~~8
O'O:E
3 tu CD
~ ª 3'
CD (1)'0
~aëõ
~ º aJ
g.~a
Q)õ~
~ ÿ1 ~
c.g¡g.
c.Q)
:>
cc
(1)
!"
ëõ
J<
tu
:>
c.
~
ii)
en
"tI -f
m 0
;;a -f
o >
~ ....
-f "tI
o g
~ ::¡
z Õ
(i) z
m UI
m >
~ "tI
:J: ;g
-< 0
m <
> m
;;a !=?
:T
(1)
c.
Q)
¡¡j
::J
Q)
en
0-
(1)
(1)
:>
3
o
c.
3i
(1)
c.
::: ¡
CJ) ~
?fi t.n
.:.,¡ C7I
èn ~
.þ. :..,
~ c.n
~ ~
~ C7I
-...J i-,)
'#. U1
õ
N C7I
o ~
CD ~
~ (It
6 C7I
0. ...,
00 C7I
cf! ~
6 C7I
W ëj
en Co
?fi:. UI
o C7I
o ~
CJ) i-,)
"$. UI
6 C7I
i-> jj
N :..,
~ U'I
~ C7I
<0 g:
<0 ~
cf!. (II
~ jj
~ -
.þ. :,..
?f!. (II
-...J ...,
ex, ::I
N Co
cf!. CJ'I
~
N ~
o co
<0 0.
?f!. en
CD co
o ~
..., :,..
cf!. 0
en
.þ. eft.
~
*'
C7I
co
...,
o
CD
.c:
C-f
g¡=
=:::¡
(1) _
en m
OUl
g
~
õ'
:>
en
õ'mcn;:c;:ccn()mm>;g
¡¡j:>õ°(1)OOa;;1C.œ
- < ... Q) ,<:1 = c. en ",. 3
"tI ã' 3 c.~ c. (1) õ' :;':;' C
c:>:E ¡¡o=:ï:():> (1) ëi,O
5!:3!!!.tD:ðQ)°o~."':::E
ñ'~~5: *§.!!1Sê:O
<¡¡j~~ =:>,o;;a
<-cnCD tuo:>"
~;:C-f g- UI
~mc (1)
o
C
n
(1)
en
o
o
o
- ~
CD O.þ....a. f'\)
o o.þ.oenOOO~N
o 00000000
o 00000000
o
o
o
-
..... c.o w...... J\)
.þ.ooenOOOOOO~N
0000000000
0000000000
o
o
o
-
C1I CD w...... J\)
......oomo......C')o......w
0000000000
0000000000
o
o
o
-
CJI CD w...... f\)
COOOCJ)ONCJ)OO.þ.
0000000000
0000000000
N
o
o
-
C7I 00 w~ N
.r:a.OOCDI\JJ\)O').............þ..
i-,)oooooooi->o
U10000000eno
N
:..,
U1
-
0') CD w...... J\)
Co>ooenNW"""'NN
oooo:"'oooi->o
ooooenoooeno
.þ.
o
o
-
ØI 00 W... N
ooow.þ....................f\Jf'\)
i-,)oooooooi->o
U10000000eno
.þ.
o
o
-
c.n ~ f\)...... I\,)
U10W(OI\,)"'..........a.f\)1\,)
i-,)oooooooi->o
U10000000(]10
U1
o
o
-
ØI ..., NN N
-a.owcnNC,OOI......Wf\)
i-,)oooooooi->o
U10000000(]10
U1
o
o
-
ØI ..., NW N
coowenNCDW"'WN
0000000000
0000000000
C7I
o
o
-
..., -...J WW N
......""""'W.þ.ON01......WI\J
U,000000.000
U100000enooo
...,
w
Co>
-
CD...... """'" WW N
U1NW.þ.OWCJ)"'WW
CoOOOOOo.oi->o
000000en0(]10
co
¡",
Co>
-
(Ø...... '" úJ.þ. I\,)
U1.þ.W.þ.ON.þ.....þ.W
CoOOOOOo.oi->o
000000en0(]10
00
¡",
Co>
N
--....... -..,, w.þ. N
001WC'OO<D01......CJ1W
CoOOOOOo.oi->o
000000en0(]10
o
~
o
OJ~~~~~~~~~
ò'c¡::.ò'ò'»cf.ò'ò'?F-õ'
.... "tI
0-0»0
¡¡j0=';;a
-:48....
"tI :4>
o z
; C
:> >
c. -
> ;;a
_, "tI
ª 0
o ;;a
;¡ -f
co~""
000
000
co ~-...J
000
000
co~...,
000
000
co......,
000
000
co-""
000
000
co~""
000
000
",,"'CJ)
000
000
co...-...J
0.0,0
000
C71~(]1
o.èno
000
U10(]1
000
000
Uloen
000
000
""0""
u,oo.
000
""0""
u,oo.
000
co......,
u,oo.
000
"'ZO
~>"$.
3:
o
UI
D
c:
::¡
o
o
o
z
....
;;a
o
....
N
W
0.
o
N
Co>
0.
o
N
Co>
0.
<:>
N
N
0.
o
N
N
0.
o
N
N
0.
o
N
N
0.
o
N
.þ.
u.
o
N
Co>
U.
o
N
Co>
U.
<:>
N
N
U.
o
N
W
:,..
o
N
Co>
:,..
o
N
UI
0.
o
<0
*'
....
iii
~
;;a
-<
.... . .
ocnQcn;:c-o()
[~~~~~E;
"tI:4()~m",Q-
III"'O:>Q) CD
;'()CQ)g :>_
en 0 ëiJ (I):;:) en
1IIr§.(1) ~
ã. ëõ :=;.
::u x g
CD 3
~ CD
CD :>
!to Q)
õ' i:
:> C
en
CD
C
3
C7I
C7I
0.
.þ.
...
CD
CD
_ 0
~wow~~o~
¡"'i->oi->:"'oo
Uloooenoo
C7I
UI
Co
o
-
~ I\J ......0') ~
oWC11w010107"
8:~~~~8g:S
C7I
o
:,..
o
-
~ ~ ...La> :g
wúJ~wúJ"""'o':J
~~~~~8g~
C7I
W
:,..
o
-
~~N "'CD ~
~o(Oww.......off
~~~~5::gg~
C7I
C7I
to
o
-
¡: N NCJ) :g
~<oO'>wúJ-a.ot"
~~~~5::8g~
C7I
C7I
:,..
o
-
_ CD
~oo~w~~oÿ:
~g~~~ggä:
C7I
C7I
:,..
o
-
¡:~I\) NCJ) :g
CDNWWN-a.Oc;n
~8g~~8g~
C7I
...,
Co
o
-
_ CD
ct~~w~~o~
8:8g~~8gg¡:
C7I
...,
Co
o
-
CD
_ CD
.þ.~N NO> 00
¡::~~~~~¡;:8
UlOOOOOO
C7I
...,
Co
o
-
CD
CD
_ CD
U'I.......'" ~CD N
~1'\Jc.núJ()10~O
~8g~~8gg
C7I
...,
ex,
o
N
o
o
o
:¡:.......N rvO'> N
CON(]1W(]100g
¡"'oo<oex,oo-
UlOOOOOO
...,
-
i-,)
o
N
o
o
-
- '
UI-N NCJ) N
!»~~~:-,~~g
...,OOO<OOOOON
NOOOOO.þ.O
...,
Co>
0.
o
N
o
o
_ N
Ø).......N NO> N
""W(]1WOO""OO
~g¡g¡g~~g::3
N
o
o
_ Co>
...,.......N wO'> N
Co>W(]1010...,00
~g¡g¡g~~g~
...,
...,
0.
o
en
~
o
~
o
o
~~~~~~~::c:
()'()'õ'~~~:Þ~
(i)
m
."
ëñ
(')
:Þ
ï
<
m
:Þ
:::a
..100
U)
( )
o
."
ëñ
(')
:Þ
ï
-<
m
:Þ
:::a
N
o
o
.þ..
."
m
:::a
en
o
z
z
m
ï
J:
ëñ
-I
o
:::a
-<
:::a
m
"tI
o
:::a
-I
en
:-I
r-
c:
(')
m
(')
o
c:
z
:;!
OJ
o
>
::0
C
o
."
(')
o
c:
z
:;!
(')
o
s::
s::
ëñ
en
Õ
z
m
:::a
en
'-'
-..II
St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office:
2000
Actual
2001
Actual
2002
Actual
2003
Actual
2004
Budget
2005
Request
Judicial 1,399,084 1,692,893 1,777,668 1,899,600 2,027,285 2,285,290
Law Enforcement 18,107,363 18,346,793 19,266,675 20,696,309 22,150,753 24,790,419
CorrectionslDeten tions 12,602,365 12,847,965 12,921,120 13,801,009 15,205,933 16,450,007
New Jail Pods 4,562,259
Subtotal 32,108,812 32,887,651 33,965,463 36,396,918 39,383,971 48,087,975
Excess Fees (73,242) (74,857) (75,582) (109,631)
Federal Prisoner Revenue (3,102,500)
Total 32,035,570 32,812,794 33,889,881 36,287,287 39,383,971 44,985,475
2% 3% 7% 9% 14%
/
" .'
I .
J
,
'-'
2004-2005
BUDGET REQUEST
~f..R/~
~ ~
(J)
-\
.
>-
t-
~
<v 0
C/E cO
...,
'-'
..."
>,
.f{
. "'," __ ¡{~f~~ ,
«, tw~'. If ' :;>-? 1
~." W."
~r
~berí~f
KENJ.MASCARA
.
Telephone: (772) 462-3200 . Fax: (772) 489-5851
4700 West Midway Road· Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
May 3, 2004
The Honorable Paula Lewis, Chair
St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County, Florida
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Chairwoman Lewis:
It is my pleasure to present my budget for the fiscal year 2004-2005. This budget reflects
the expenditures associated with the opening and operation in fiscal year 2004-2005 of the
new jail dormitories that the Commission recently approved.
I have included in the budget document a breakdown of revenue sources that will be used
to fund the Sheriffs Office operations, Please note the non-tax sources used to help defray
the increased costs. In consultation with your staff we have included the housing of two
hundred federal inmates for a portion of the year. We believe we will have the beds
available to house these federal inmates, and we will be fully staffed in the new facility.
The U.S. Marshals Service will not sign an agreement with the St. Lucie County to house
their inmates until the new jail facility is near completion. The Marshals Service has
verbally assured us that they are eager to house inmates at the St. Lucie County jail as
soon as space is available.
During the first three years of my administration have been focused on increasing wages at
the Sheriff's Office to a level that is fair and competitive. Our recent success to date in
attracting quality individuals to begin to fill the fifty-two new positions at the jail was only
possible because of this three-year effort.
As our county continues to grow at a record pace, I pledge to continue to work with the
County Commission and its staff to address growth issues as they arise.
Other than the increases due to staffing and operational cost of the new jail dormitories,
items that have driven up the costs in the budget are increases in health care (both
employee and inmate). retirement, workers compensation insurance, automobile insurance,
and liability insurance, These are increases that all governments are faced with and over
which they have essentially no control.
.,.,.
..."
The Honorable Paula Lewis
May 3, 2004
Page 2
As in previous years, I look forward to working with the County Commission and county
staff as we move through the budget process.
Sincerely,
ds
'-'
....,
St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office Budget Certificate 2004-2005
As required by Chapter 30.49(2)(a), I hereby certify that the proposed expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 are reasonable and necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office. Further, the functional distribution is
as follows:
16 Judicial 2,285,290
21 Law Enforcement 24,790,419
23 Detention 16,450,007
23 Detention (New Jail Pods) 4,562,259
Total Budget Expenditures
48,087,975
Miscellaneous Revenue
-117,000
Final Adjusted Budget Expenditures
From ad valorum
47,970,975
è£-i (),p A A
'''''H''':C~·
..,~,·:"Þ~",...:... "::~.~='=';¡;.;,.~.. ''fo\~....~t.~~ .
1!ft¡ ~g7/1?f.&!
Respectfully submitted,
Ken J. Mascara, Sheriff
3
'-'
"'WI
2004-2005 St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office Proposed Expenditures
Pursuant to FS 30.49(2)(a)
Salary of the Sheriff
$126,687
Salaries of deputies and assistants (inel. benefits)
35,432,908
Expenses, other than salaries
11,415,692
Equipment
690,688
Investigations
72,000
Reserve for Contingencies
350,000
Total:
$48,087,975
Expenditures budgeted in the Special Revenue Fund
(grants, joint ventures, etc.)
3,646,898
4
'-"
'wII
2004-2005 BUDGETED REVENUES
Impact Fee Revenue
Federal Prisoner Revenue
44,622,975
245,SOO
3,102,500
47,970,975
Ad Valorurn Tax Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
5/3/2004
line
#
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40_
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
5/3/2004
'-'
~
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
Proposed
2004-2005
16000 Judicial
512000-Salaries
513000-0ther (LIS Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA Mandatory
526000-Benefits
534000-Contracted Services
540410-Meals - Per Diem
541200-postage
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Ins.
546000-Tech Maintenance Cantracts
546425-Radia Accessaries
547000-Printing & Binding
549420-Camputer Supplies & Access.
549445-Repairs & Maintenance
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552490-Equipment under $750
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessaries
554100-Educational/Seminars
554150-Tuition Rei~~ursement
564410-Capitòl Outlay - Vehicles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
1,178,864
11,006
3,060
18,960
27,000
76,811
17, 964
621,986
263,000
200
50
25,652
o
100
100
200
500
500
3,500
1,650
3,500
15,000
500
500
4,000
o
10,688
Personnel Services - Judicial
Operating - Judicial
Còpital Outlay - Judicial
1,955,650
318,952
10,688
TOTAL JUDICIAL
2,285,290
21000 Law Enforcement
511100-Executive Salary:Sheriff
512000-Salaries (subtotal)
513000-0ther (L/S Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
Holiday Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA Mandatory
526000-Benefits
531000-Professional Services
531430-Atty Fee/Professional Fees
531490-Accreditation Costs
126,687
10,980,108
211,401
24,480
143,520
188,516
473,000
753,220
176,156
5,328,193
70,000
10,000
5,000
line:
#
55
56
57
58
59
60
6\
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
7\
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
9\
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
10\
102
\03
104
105
106
107
108
5/3/2004
'-"
""'"
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
Propased
2004-2005
60,000
72,000
2,000
500
500
2,000
72,000
120,000
110,000
20,000
140,000
48,513
80,000
352,671
349,932
200,000
255,000
2,000
3,000
250
1,000
30,000
25,000
8,000
20,000
100
8,000
40,000
10,000
106,433
50,000
18,000
157,300
288,465
58,708
40,000
70,000
20,000
810,000
50,000
3,000
9,000
500
90,000
1,200
5,000
75,000
15,000
15,000
45,000
15,000
1,000
15,000
625,000
534000-Contractura1 Services
535000-Investigations
540000-Travel and Per Diem
540410-Meals - Per Diem
540420-Private Vehicle Allowance
540440-Airlines, Ladging & Tolls
541000-Communications
541100-Telephone
541150-Cellular Phones
541200-postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
544410-Leased Vehicles
545410-Auto Fleet Insurance
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Ins.
546000-Tech. Maintenance Contracts
546410-Auto Repair and Maintenance
546420-Radio - Install/Removal
546425-Radia Accessories
546430-Radio Rep. & Maint (Contrct)
546440-0ffice Equipment Rep & Maint
547000-printing and Binding
547420-Copier Supplies
549100-Advertising
549410-Auto - Other Charges
549413-Towing
549415-Paint and Lettering
549420-Computer Supplies
549430-Palygraph
549435~Crime Lab
549445-Repair & Maintenance
549450-Physical Examinations
549453-Automated Services
549460-Aviation
549470-Marine Repair, Maint, Dock
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552410-Fuel and Lubricants
552420-Ammunition
552430-Fingerprinting Supplies
552433-Photo Supplies
552440-0ther Investigative Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $750
552590-Photo Equipment
552700-Rentwear
552750-Unifarms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554000-Books, Publ, Subscr & Member
554100-Educational Seminars
554150-Tuition Reimbursement
554500-Newspapers
554900-Training Equip & Supplies
564410-Capital outlay - Vehicles
line
#
'-"
"'-tIll
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
Proposed
2004-2005
109
110
III
112
113
III
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125---¡
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
5/3/2004
564450-Capital Outlay - Matorcycles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
571000-Debt Service
573000-Transfer ta BOCC/Computers
581000-Interfund Transfers
599999/CONTINGENCY-L/E
o
o
241,456
36,271
1,206,339
200,000
PERSONNEL SERVICES
OPERATING - LIE
CAPITAL ASSET - LIE
CONTINGENCY - L/E
- LIE
18,405,281
5,560,138
625,000
200,000
TOTAL LAW ENfORCEMENT
24,790,419
23000 Detention
512000-Salaries
513000-0ther (LiS Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
Holiday Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-fICA
521100-fICA MM
526000-Benefits
531000-Professional Services
531410-Hospital/Physicians-Inmate
531490-Accreditation Costs (Detention)
534000-Contractural Svcs/Off Equip
540000-Travel & Per Diem
540410-Meals - Per Diem
540415-Prisoner Transport
540417-Prisoner Transport-Dept Veh.
540440-Airline, Ladging & Tolls
541100-Telephone
541150-Cellular Phones
541200-Postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
545410-Auto fleet Insurance
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Insur.
546000-Tech. Maintenance Contracts
546420-Radio Install/Removal
546430-Radio Repair & Maint (Contr)
546440-0ffice Equipment R & M
547000-Printing and Binding
547420-Copier Supplies
549100-Advertising
549410-Auto - Other Charges
549415-painting and Lettering
549420-Computer Supplies
7,153,297
64,470
15,300
63,600
266,757
300,000
487,532
114,020
3,790,516
20,000
2,409,640
3,000
20,000
1,000
1,000
152,000
o
2,500
o
5,000
2,500
275,000
8,000
o
113,573
o
500
1,000
500
5,000
8,000
3,000
o
°
11,000
line
#
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
5/3/2004
~
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
549445-Repair and Maintenance
549447-Jail - Other
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552430-Fingerprinting Supplies
552433-Phota Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $750
552600-Jail Food
552610-Jail Supplies
552620-Jail Paper Goods
552630-Jail Laundry
552640-Jail Janitorial Supplies
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554000-Books, Publications & Mag.
554100-Educational/Seminars
554150-Tuition Reimb.
554900-Training Supplies
564000-Capital Outlay
564410-Capital Outlay - Vehicles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
599999/CONTINGENCY-CORR
PERSONNEL SERVICES - DETEN
OPERATING - DETEN
CAPITAL OUTLAY - DETEN
CONTINGENCY - DETEN
TOTAL DETENTION
PERSONNEL SERVICES - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
OPERATING - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CAPITAL OUTLAY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CONTINGENCY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
TOTAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET REQUEST
....,
Proposed
2004-2005
25,000
3,000
11,000
4,500
600
1,000
1,000
10,000
775,200
75,000
15,000
5,000
40,000
60,000
6,000
1,000
15,000
1,500
2,500
o
o
o
100,000
12,255,493
4,094,513
o
100,000
16,450,006
32,616,424
9,973,603
635,688
300,000
43,525,715
'-"
GENERAL BUDGET COMPARISON
PERSONNEL SERVICES - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
OPERATING - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CAPITAL OUTLAY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CONTRINGENCY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
2003-2004
BUDGET
31,110,452
8,295,519
516,876
300,000
TOTAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET
MINUS MISCELLANEAOUS REVENUE
TOTAL AD VALORUM TAX BUDGET REQUEST
40,222,847
-117,000
40,105,847
TOTAL PERCENT INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS YR:
8.24%
5/3/2004
..."
2004-2005
REQUESTED BUDGET
32,616,424
9,973,603
635,688
300,OCO
43,525,715
-117,000
43,408,715
line
1#
'-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
"""
Proposed
2004-2005
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
5/3/2004
Jail Population Increase & New Pod Costs
5l2000-Salaries
Holiday Pay
52l000-FICA
521100-FICA MM
526000-Benefits
5314l0-Hospita1/Physicians-Inmate
540415-Prisoner Transpart
541150-Cellular Phones
54l200-Postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Insur.
547420-Copier Supplies
549420-Computer Supplies
55l000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552490-Equipment Under S~50
552600-Jail Food
552610-Jail Supplies
552630-Jail Laundry
552640-Jail Janitorial Supplies
554100-Educational/Seminars
554900-Training Supplies
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
599999/CONTINGENCY-CORR
PERSONN£L SERVICES - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
OPERATING - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
CAPITAL OUTLAY - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
CONTINGENCY - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
TOTAL REQUEST FOR INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
GRAND TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES:
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY:
GRAND TOTAL CONTINGENCY:
GRAND TOTAL OF BUDGET REQUEST:
SHERIF:'S TOTAL OFFICE BUDGET
MINUS ~!!SCELLANEAOUS REVENUES
TOTAL .=>'D VALORU~ BUDGET REQUEST
1,730,436
66,555
111,413
26,056
1,008,710
804,360
16,000
3,000
1,000
97,000
22,000
62,798
9,000
2,000
5,000
63,500
75,000
295,431
6,000
3,000
30,000
16,500
2,500
55,000
50,000
2,943,170
1,514,089
55,000
50,000
4,562,259
35,559,595
11,487,692
690,688
350,000
48,087,975
48,087,975
-117,000
47,970,975
Wi
'r4ìi
Citizens' Budget Committee
Bill Casey, Chairman
April 16, 2004
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL., 34982
Dear Com'missioners:
The St. Lucie County Citizens' Budget Committee endorsed today, April 16th, to
approve in concept, Phase I of the North County Utility Expansion Plan, at an
estimated cost of $7,600,000 together with the financing plan outlined by
coun ty staff.
The Citizens' Budget Committee also approved in concept, the Midway Road
utility expansion program as once again outlined by county staff.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 201-3473.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ûJ
Bill Casey, Chair
Citizens' Budget Committee
c: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Mike Bowers, Interim Utilities Director
Citizens' Budget Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
~7'-~'''·,,·.-··----,,··.-·.-,:,------··.-__··-''-·'·''''·'···'··.....,..,.,..-..--_..,..--...--.,...,.~-.-._.--:'.-....'.--.-,.:,.-"",.,....'...,.-.".;:".
( Douglas Anderson'- Re: Jail.Pod.s . .
. '-'
Page 1 ¡
'IIIIItl.,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Roger A Shinn
Wazny , Raymond
6/18/03 9:46AM
Re: Jail Pods
~.-frL- ß7S
~~þA
Ray here's the plan
Pre-bid June 23rd
Bid closing July 9th
RF.Q, selection committee review July 14th or 15th
Board approval of Committee selection's July 22nd
Notifications to RF.Q. finalist to summit techniqal and cost proposal July 23rd
Bid Closing August 20th
Selection committee meeting and presentation August 28th
Board approval awarding of contract Sept 9th
Contract negotiations starts Sept 12th
Contract sign-off Sept 30th
Notice to proceed in 10 days Oct 13th
First Pod complete August of 04
Second Pod complete Nov of 04
ì
G ~~"\:)
o
·1 /
C' .J
»> Raymond Wazny 06/17/03 07:26AM >>>
Roger, can you put together a time frame for the jail pods showing estimated time for RFQ, RFP, Design,
Construction and Completion.
Also, do you have an estimated completion date for our Walton Road building.
,r--....
/'. '"
('" \-, \ :.. . /
L ,-0·· \
\-...J ' '. X
\ ',- "
/
\ ,'J
, .
\ '.
,
\.\-
.
'w'
.....,
SLC Sheriff
FY04 Sheriff FY04 Total Percent of Millage
Budget Budget by Fund Total Rate/Sheriff
001-2110-599043-200 500,000
001-8191-599043-800 11,086,008
General Fund Sub-total 11,586,008 76,306,888 15.18% 1.0751
107-8191-599042-800 22,150,753
107-8191-599043-800 4,119,925
107-711-599040-700 2,027,285
Fine & Forfeiture Fund Sub-total 28,297,963 42,416,082 66.72% 2.6257
Total 39,883,971 118,722,970 33.59% 3.7008
G :\Budg et\Quattro\Budget04 \SheriffExp.xls
....
'-'
,...,
"
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-114
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE: County Funded Court-related Positions
Attached is a report prepared by Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director, listing the
court-related positions currently funded by St. Lucie County. The left-hand column is the
total cost of these positions with the right-hand column being St. Lucie County's portion
coming from property taxes, which totals $145,807.23.
DMNab 04-114
c: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Attachment
~
....,
Judge Bryan & Judge Kenny
Part-time
General Master Judicial Support
Contracted General Master
Part-time Office Assistant \I
Court Administrator Admin
Personnel Specialist
Admin Secretary I
Pro Se Program
Pro Se Coordinators
Part-time Pro Se Coordinator
Mediation Program Coordinator
Contracted Domestic Relations Hearing Officer
Teen Court Program
Teen Court Director
Admin Secretary I
Contracted Civil Traffic Hearing Officer
SLC
2003-04 2003-04 SLC
Budget Budget Tax $.
$ 7,182.00 $ 7,182.00 $ 7,182.00 1,a
62,400.00 62,400.00 62,400.00 1,a
5,552.00 5,552.00 5,552.00 1,a
97,666.00 40,140.73 40,140.73 2,a
46,443.00 19,088.07 19,088.07 2,a
46,603.00 19,153.83 3
81,898.00 11 ,444.43 11 ,444.43 4
108,522.00 44,602.54 3
32,585.00 15,792.00 5
488,851.00 225,355.60 145,807.23
Court Related Positions:
Total:
Notes:
1 Fine & Forfeiture (F&F) funded,
2 Funded by all four counties (St. Lucie (41,10% -F&F), Martin, Indian River & Okeechobee) based on each
counties percentage of the total population of the Circuit.
3 Funded by Teen Court (traffic fines) & Mediation/Arbitration (filing fees) $ from all four counties Trust Funds -
moneys are allocated by Administrative Order,
4 Funded by grants(66%) and all four counties (St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River & Okeechobee)
based on each counties percentage of the total population of the Circuit.
5 Funded by grant & traffic citations,
a Budgeted for nine months - Article V (State will fund these programs starting on 7/1104)
r'
'w'
....,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
FROM:
TO:
DATE:
RE: $500,000 Correctional Officers' Separate Contingency
The attached are budget workshop meeting minutes from July 2, 2003 and July 17, 2003
discussing a contingency for additional correctional officers. At the July 2nd worksho~, the
Board's consensus was to place $750,000 in the budget forthis purpose. On July 17 h, the
Board lowered the $750,000 by $250,000 and allocated the $250,000 to Parks Capital.
DMAlab 04-113
c: Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director
Attachments
\w
7/z1 f Yer þJ"':f>11"'1"
& II/Jv
Tape 2
49.3 S\-IERlrr
This budget n:f1ects an 8,21'){, increase.
The Chairman requested information on the funding of the two new pods.
The County Administrator advised the Board that pod :;2 is planned to house Federal
Inmates which will be covered, plus there will be some funds available to be utilized for
pod one. '
The annual cost to operate pod one is approximately L8 million for personnel, this is
over and above what we are noW paying for inmates doubled up in the other pods which
will be transferred to the new pod. $1.5 is for labor the balance is for the additional
inmates supplies, medical, food for those to fill the pod. '.!;
Pod two will cost approximately $2.1 million to operate once completed. Budget year
06/07 is when the operating cost of this pod would begin.
The Sheriff distributed information on the starting deputy salaries in the surrounding
counties. Martin County, $ 32,000; Indian River County, $33,000. after this year with the
increase, S1. Lucie County's Deputy starting salary would be $30,000.
The County Administrator advised the Board that the Sheriffs budget does not include
the $750,000 for the correctional officers.
{f'
In the budget $1.9 million is for personnel costs. $295,000 capital outlay for vehicles,
$300,000 contingency, the balance for operating expenses and increase in cost of inmate
medical up 13% .
The local hospitals charge a large amount of r.10ney for treatment. The County
Administrator stated he was working with the hospitals to see if they could get the
Medicaid rate which is what should be charged. Pr::sently they have reduced the charges
by 35% ofthe bill charges, which is still considerably higher than the Medicaid rate.
--.----------
It was the consensus of the Board to place $750,000 in the budget and transfer $11
million from the Fine & Forfeiture Fund to the General Fllnd for the existing correctional
officers. --------~
-
Lunch Break
Tab 40 side B tape 2
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
This budget reflects a .7% increase.
Tab 41 PUBLIC WORKS CODE COMPLIANCE
I'"
This budget reflects a 6.3% increase.
They are requesting one position, Asst. Code Compliance:Manager.
$25,000 has been budgeted for a Special Master for the hearings.
Tab 42 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
..
This budget reflects a 9.5% increase.
They are requesting one position, Senior Accounting Clerk and 2 pick up trucks.
5
¡
\iiw
....,
T AYLOR CREEK
1, 11):} ,{ ¡pi dpv?
ïJ ' /d'" I-Jt~~'
Taylor Creek- Grant funding from FIND, has been applied for which has not been:
approved as yet. T_O!~~.PLOil,çtC:Q~Us_$.3-,~_milli.0.1l.dollars
:::::=-----'" -~
Board Discussion _ It was the consensuS of the Board to keep $500,000 from the
$750,000 designated for the correctional officers in a separate contingency and al10cated
$250,000 from the $750,000 to the parks capital.
---.---
The County Administrator advised the Board the Parks Capital reserves are at $200,000
and Central Services is being len at $300,000 reserve.
The County Administrator calculated the fol1owing:
$250,000 from the pod personnel, plus $450,000 from the annex campus plan, brings the
unallocated fund amount to $766,128. Also $250,000 from the fairgrounds which was to
originally to come out from the general fund for the fairgrounds which noW totals
$1,016,128 in unallocated funds.
** There seemed to be some confusion as to what funds are being cut and added. Staff
will attempt to coordinate the figures and return to the Board for approval.
Com. Bruhn explained the reason for the $51,000 requested for the public defender to be
stationed at rock road.
** It was the consensus of the Board to approve this allocation.
Video Conferencing waS discussed. A survey is being put together by the Florida Assoc.
of Counties to see how many utilize this equipment.
The County Administrator stated he would keep the $8,000 equipment cost in the budget
until they can get justification for the purchase: .
Legal Aid- The County Administrator advised the Board he is not sure what the outcome
of this will be, but will keep the Board informed.
Florida Retirement System- lowered the budget by $200,000 for this.
Sheriff Services Network Roundtable- take out of contingency if they wish to continue.
$10,000 would be allocated, the application will be brought before the Board for
approval.
Ncw Horizons- 11 was the consensus orlhe Board to allocate the udditional 5ex, requested
$J(),213.
Economic Dcvelopmcnt ,. Consensus or the Board to allocute $125,000.
Unal10cated Fund Balance -$944,915.
The Management and Budget Director reviewed the rol1 back rate and also the proposed
millage rate. .
Vehicle Allowance- It was the consensus of the Board to keep the policy as it presently
states.
Unal10cated Fund _ $952,915. this includes the $8,000 from the vehicle allowance added
back in.
The meeting was adjourned.
9
W'
'W
).1.,.
~....
..' r'f.RJr-.-,.-
oé~ ~~{~~
'i,' ~.~ .'ii~f
f _, r
'~.£9' N'~~'
~.-.:;;..~~.....
,.-' " '~'"
~beríff
KEN J. MASCARA
I~~
,"'. \
'~,"'"
~::* ,
, .
Telephone: (772) 462-3200 . Fax: (772) 489-5851
4700 West Midway Road· Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
June 14,2004
:,~.-::..
\~:f.7
L~ .
JUN 1 5 2004
Ms. Paula Lewis, Chair
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
~ ..~,-~~-,-_......-----
i
_ . ...1
-...~,~~,~---~-_.--..----_._..-----.._,.
Hand-delivered
Dear Madam Chair Lewis:
Continued overcrowding at the St. Lucie County jail has been the subject of prolonged discussion
over the past few months at Board of County Commissioners meetings and between myself,
Sheriffs staff and the county administrator, as well as other county staff members.
As I have repeatedly stated, the overcrowding has caused a severe strain on the jail staff, both sworn
and civilian, as well as the overall budget.
The first unbudgeted factor straining this fiscal year's budget occurred as a result of the continued
cost associated with providing security for the contracted security upgrade at the jail. Even though
the security upgrade began in February 2003 and was scheduled to end in calendar year 2003, the
project is not yet completed. The budget impact for fiscal year 2003-2004 attributable to this factor
is $484,154.
In May 2003, when I submitted my proposed budget for the current fiscal year, I fully expected that,
pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners' vote in May 2003 to expand the jail's number of
permanent beds, deputies would be moving inmates into one of the new structures last month, and
into the second new structure this month.
The direction given to me was that as we approached the move-in date, I would submit a
supplemental budget request to cover the expansion costs to the Sheriffs Office.
Regrettably, the move-in date is now set one year later than originally anticipated. This unfortunate
circumstance has not diminished the fact that we have a continuously growing jail population,
which, as of today, is 1,250. I have all of the costs of the expanded jail population without the
human resources and capital facilities to accommodate that population.
Once it became clear that the increasing jail population was pushing costs upward and beyond the
capacity of the current fiscal year budget to accommodate these costs, I put into effect a series of
~
,....,
"
Ms. Paula Lewis, Chair
June 14,2004
Page 2
cost-cutting measures. These include: limiting non-detention-related overtime, severely curtailing
out-of-town travel, restricting purchases to emergency needs only and halting education and other
training opportunities outside the Sheriffs Office. I also have used all non-tax revenues available to
me.
The full effect of these cost-cutting measures has not yet been fully realized.
In order to have qualified and trained employees ready to staff the new jail structures, I have had to
begin hiring personnel in the current fiscal year. During budget deliberations a year ago, I made the
Board of County Commissioners aware of this when I requested $750,000 for these costs. The
Board's direction at the time was that I would submit this request as the hiring process progressed.
That time has arrived. I am now requesting $527,477.98 pursuant to the Board of County
Commissioners' direction regarding costs to hire, train and equip the additional personne1.
I have attached schedules detailing the costs of the construction security details for county
construction as well as my request for funds for the new employees we are hiring, equipping, and
training.
If these trends continue, there could be a need for a supplemental budget request prior to year's end.
This request wi11 be considerably less than the $2.3 mi11ion supplemental budget request I would
have had to submit to you to operate the new jail structures, had these structures been completed as
originally anticipated.
I wi11 keep the Board apprized on a monthly basis of the budget impact that the jail overcrowding is
causmg.
I continue to look forward to working with you and your staff in a collaborative effort to creatively
address this difficult situation.
Sincerely, --
..///< . /"/-;7'
/~~~;:~~4-<.=~___..,.
Sheriff
/
c. Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Board of County Commissioners
Attachment
to
'-'
...."
Expenditure categories impacted by jail over crowding.
. Overtime and benefits. The need to provide security for an ever increasing jail
population requires additional deputy hours. The inmate to deputy ratio is
dangerously over extended.
· Bedding, clothing, meal trays, supplies, etc. Increased population requires an
increase in supplies of all types.
· Medical costs. The current contract calls for a charge of $1.85 for each additional
inmate when the population exceeds 1,050. A population of 1,250 inmates results
in an extra charge of$370 per day or $11,470 per month.
· Meal costs. Each meal costs $.909 for a cost of $2.727 per day. For each
additional 100 inmates the cost is $272.70 per day. This is an additional cost of
$8,453.70 per month.
· Water and sewer costs have increased due to overcrowding. The average increase
is between $7,500 and $9,500 per month.
· Bookings are up so booking supplies expense has increased as have janitorial
supplies and natural gas costs for cloths drying.
'-'
"wi
Budget Request for New Deputies
Salaries and Benefits
424,787.98
Cost of Academy
30,800.00
Psychological exam/polygraph
6,890.00
Bond and Liability Insurance
26,000.00
488,477.98
To be paid from impact fees
Equipment for new deputies
39,000.00
Total
527,477.98
'-'
'WI
NEW JAIL EMPLOYEES
NAME DATE OF MONTHLY MONTHS TOTAL
HIRE SALARY/BENEFITS
UNCERTIFIED 03-01-04 3,720.83 7 26,045.81
CERTIFIED 03-29-04 4,046.04 6 24,276.24
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,086.4 7 6 24,518.82
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,256.90 6 25,541.40
CERTIFIED 04-05-04 4,256.90 6 25,541.40
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464.57
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464,57
UNCERTIFIED 04-12-04 3,720.83 5.5 20,464,57
UNCERTIFIED 05-03-04 3,720.83 5 18,604.15
UNCERTIFIED 05-03-04 3,720.83 5 18,604.15
UNCERTIFIED 05-10-04 3,720.83 4,7 17,487.90
CERTIFIED 06-07 -04 4,086.47 4 16,345.88
UNCERTIFIED 06-07 -04 3,720.83 4 14,883.32
UNCERTIFIED 07-01-04 3,720.83 3 11,162.49
4 CERTIFIED 07-01-04 4,256.90 4 3 51,082.80
8 UNCERTIFIED 07-01-04 3,720.83 8 3 89,299.92
424,787.98
J
\wi
,,£R/¡t-
" ~
."
êl1eriff
KEN J. MASCARA
.
.
VI
--.
>-
¡...,
<\)-<'
CO
Member National Sheriffs' Associatior
Member Flodda Sheriffs' Associatior
9'.,
Telephone: (772) 481-1$00. Fax: (772) 489-585
4700 West Midway Road, Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
To:
Jerry Parenteau, Project Manger
Central Services
(l
From:
Major F. Patrick Tighe, Director
Department of Detention
St. Lucie County Sheriff s Office
Date:
May 3, 2004
Subject:
Security Systems - Vendor Escorts
On April 20, 2004 a meeting was conducted at the Saint Lucie County jail to discuss the
planned schedule for security escorts with representatives from Norment Security Group,
Inc., St. Lucie County, Central Services Division and the St. Lucie County Sheriffs
Office. During this meeting and in an effort to complete this project, Mr. Gregory Meeks
of Norment Security Group highlighted a schedule that illustrated representatives from
his firm and subcontractors would be working "double shifts" until the completion of the
project. After much discussion all participants agreed that the shift hours would be 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; twenty-four hours per day, seven days per
week.
On Sunday, April 25, 2004 representatives and contractors for Norment Security Group
commenced with this work at 7:00 p.m. The St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office in the
continued cooperation scheduled security escort personnel as projected by the contractor
of record. The contractor adhered to this scheåule for the evening of Sunday, April 25,
2004 only. On, Monday, April 26, 2004 at 7:00 a.m., the Sheriffs Office scheduled and
expended overtime funds on three (3) security ~scorts as requested with only two (2)
being utilized for the first four (4) hours of the shift. The subcontractor scheduled by the
Norment Security Group did not arrive at the specified time for unknown reasons. From
Monday, April 26, 2004 through Thursday, April 29, 2004 the original schedule of
"double shifts" was not adhered to with contractors and subcontractors only working 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
On, Thursday, April 29, 2004 at a regularly scheduled construction meeting it was
relayed by a representative of the Norment Security Group that the installation schedule
had again changed. I, along with representatives of St. Lucie County voiced our concerns
of the schedule change and/or revision. The original schedule has been
altered/changed/revised at a minimum three times since our meeting six (6) days earlier.
Several factors and or excuses for these revisions were provided by the contractor that
Parenteau, Jerry
Security System - Vendor Escorts
Page 20f2
was dismissed by all parties to have little or no merit. Mr. Gregory Meeks wasthen '
contacted telephonically who was also unaware of the schedule changes and revisions.
At this point Mr. Gregory Meeks spoke privately on the telephone with his staff. The
meeting reconvened after several minutes and again a new schedule ,ofevents was
introduced. .
'-'
....,
;'.'. i,i'
As you are aware, the operation of any detention facility is extremely complex to
coordinate the medical, food, mental health, judicial, programming, legal, religious and,
housing requirements as mandated by local, state and federal laws. The additional
responsibility to coordinate, schedule, notify and assign security staff to a St. Lucie
County contractor who is perfonning construction services to critical security systems
within the confines of the facility is extremely staff intensive and requires a considerable
amount of supervisory time to manage properly. Combine this with an overcrowded
(52% over capacity) facility and a contractor who continually revises the construction
schedule is a recipe for failure. It is apparent that the constant revisions in scheduling are
a direct reflection of the lack of supervision, management and overall control that the
contractor of record has with this project.
We have previously forwarded correspondence highlighting the average cost per hour for
each escort ($33.38) and that the current schedule is projected to equate too
approximately 1,116 hours of security escorts for the month of May 2004. We have also
reviewed the last several months expenditures for security escorts which equate to an
average of five hundred (500+) plus hours each month for the last several months. I
would like to also take this opportunity to remind you to reinforce with members ofthe
Nonnent Security Group that any deviations from this schedule can only be amended if
the Sheriff s Office is appropriately notified in advance of forty-eight (48) hours.
If you require any additional infonnation, please feel free to contact me immediately.
FPT:kc
Cc: Chief Garry Wilson
Toby Long, Finance Direct
Captain Patricia Walsh
Roger Shinn, Central Services
Roger A Shinn - Fwd: Maint. Overtim· port
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Pat Tighe
Shinn, Roger A
3/26/04 10:01AM
Fwd: Maint. Overtime Report
Roger,
We need to discuss these escort details, with the overcrowding and the staff shortages we may not be
able (for obvious security and expenditure reasons) to continue this service,
>>> Willie Russ 03/25/04 03:29PM >>>
Please note March totals are not included in reports.
··'¡::å'geT
'-" "t1IIfIJ
~,..,
"'\{'
. 0
c.-o ~ I'V W .þ. CJ1
oc;,
0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ... ... ... ... ...
y 0 0 0 0 0
.:r 0 0 0 0 0 ()
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
L c:
» :J
z ,-+.
0 '<
~
"T1
-I s:
0
c.... Q)
»
z -.
0 :J
.þ. ,-+.
0 .
-I
"T1 0
m CD
OJ
0 ,-+.
~ Q)
"T1
-I -.
0
"T1 ()
0... m
OJ 0
0
.þ. en
0 ,-+.
-I
0 I'V s: --I s:
-f 11 0 0
,-+ 0
\J c: ::J t\)
- ,-+ :J
t\) - ::r
,-+ ,-+.
-. -f - 0
c.. '< ::::T
-.
3 --I 0 -I -
11 0 '<
CD t\) 0
0 ,-+ .......
t\) ,-+ Q)
..., 0 CD ;0
- -0
0 CD CJ) Q) CD
CD -c Q..
,-+ c: -c
t\) ,-+ 0
-.
- CD
CJ) ..,
CJ) ,-+.
'-"
...,
t ~ ~ ~
0 0 ~
0 ~ 0 0
0.. u ro c: c..
CD Q) ~ ::J Q) ~ CV')
0 ....., (f) 0
0=:: I I 0 --
I c: ~ I -- N
+-' C")
U ro c.. ::J 0 0
~ 0 ....., «
....., ~ ~
- ~ ~ >- >-
"- ~ +-' ~
+-' 0 +-' +-'
CD 0 0 0
ro ro
...fo--I +-' "'C "'C ..c: +-' +-'
"- en c: ~ +-' 0 0
CO ~ N CV') ~ l- I-
::J
a 0 ..0.
...fo--I
en
0 (J)
() L(') ('f)
(J)
a a
- -
CD -r- N...;:t
I"- aa
E -r- "- -
>-('f)
ex:> a
-- (J) "- "-
...fo--I ã>-
"- ..c: "-
CD ...... ......
...;:to
> "--0
...... "-
a O('f)
-0
C "-
. Nã
...fo--I ......
en
c: -r-
-- a 0 0
CO 0 0
0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0
.. .. .. ..
0 0 0 0
0 L() 0 L()
N ~ ~
'-'
.....,
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
CENTRAL SERVICES
r-OGm A. SHINN
DIr-EGOr-
October 9, 2002
Nonnent Security Group
7255 Standard Drive
Hanover, Maryland 21076
Att: Greg Meeks
NOTICE TO PROCEED
Completion date on the project below is: January 2nd ,2004
PROJECT: Upgrades to the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility Security Systems.
As per Purchase Order No. P2213514
aul Julin
Project Manager
772-462-1249
P J/dp
cc: Finance
Purchasing
County Attorney
County Administrator
Project Manager
JOHN D. ßRUHN. Disrricr NO.1· DOUG cO\~ARD. Disrricr No.2· PAULA A. LEWIS. Disrricr Na, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. D,srricr No 4 . CLIFF ßARNES. DisrricT No ':
Caunry Adminisrraror - Douglas M. Andersan
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34'{82 · Phone (772) 462-1432/34
FAX (772) 462-1444 · TDD (772) 462-1428
'-
"ER/~
" ~
"wi
êl1eriff
KEN J. MASCARA
.
>-
Jo..
~~
cO
Member National Sheriffs' Association
Member Florida Sheriffs' Association
4700 West Midway Road, Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
III
'"'"
--
Telephone: (772) 481-1300 · Fax: (772) 489-5851
To:
Jerry Parenteau, Project Manger
Central Services
tfi1
From:
Major F. Patrick Tighe, Director
Department of Detention
St. Lucie County Sheriff s Office
Date:
May 3, 2004
Subject:
Security Systems - Vendor Escorts
On April 20, 2004 a meeting was conducted at the Saint Lucie County jail to discuss the
planned schedule for security escorts with representatives from Norment Security Group,
Inc., St. Lucie County, Central Services Division and the St. Lucie County Sheriffs
Office. During this meeting and in an effort to complete this project, Mr. Gregory Meeks
of Norment Security Group highlighted a schedule that illustrated representatives from
his firm and subcontractors would be working "double shifts" until the completion of the
project. After much discussion all participants agreed that the shift hours would be 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; twenty-four hours per day, seven days per
week.
On Sunday, April 25, 2004 representatives and contractors for Norment Security Group
commenced with this work at 7:00 p.m. The St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office in the
continued cooperation scheduled security escort personnel as projected by the contractor
of record. The contractor adhered to this scheåule for the evening of Sunday, Âpril 25,
2004 only. On, Monday, April 26, 2004 at 7:00 a.m., the Sheriffs Office scheduled and
expended overtime funds on three (3) security escorts as requested with only two (2)
being utilized for the first four (4) hours of the shift. The subcontractor scheduled by the
Norment Security Group did not arrive at the specified time for unknown reasons. From
Monday, April 26, 2004 through Thursday, April 29, 2004 the original schedule of
"double shifts" was not adhered to with contractors and subcontractors only working 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
On, Thursday, April 29, 2004 at a regularly scheduled construction meeting it was
relayed by a representative of the Norment Security Group that the installation schedule
had again changed. I, along with representatives of St. Lucie County voiced our concerns
of the schedule change and/or revision. The original schedule has been
altered/changed/revised at a minimum three times since our meeting six (6) days earlier.
Several factors and or excuses for these revisions were provided by the contractor that
Parenteau, Jerry
Security System - Vendor Escorts
Page 2 of2
'-'
.....,
was dismissed by all parties to have little or no merit. Mr. Gregory Meeks was then
contacted telephonically who was also unaware of the schedule changes and revisions.
At this point Mr. Gregory Meeks spoke privately on the telephone with his staff. The
meeting reconvened after several minutes and again a new schedule of events was
introduced.
As you are aware, the operation of any detention facility is extremely complex to
coordinate the medical, food, mental health, judicial, programming, legal, religious and,
housing requirements as mandated by local, state and federal laws. The additional
responsibility to coordinate, schedule, notify and assign security staff to a St. Lucie
County contractor who is perfonning construction services to critical security systems
within the confines of the facility is extremely staff intensive and requires a considerable
amount of supervisory time to manage properly. Combine this with an overcrowded
(52% over capacity) facility and a contractor who continually revises the construction
schedule is a recipe for failure. It is apparent that the constant revisions in scheduling are
a direct reflection of the lack of supervision, management and overall control that the
contractor of record has with this project.
We have previously forwarded correspondence highlighting the average cost per hour for
each escort ($33.38) and that the current schedule is projected to equate too
approximately 1,116 hours of security escorts for the month of May 2004. We have also
reviewed the last several months expenditures for security escorts which equate to an
average of five hundred (500+) plus hours each month for the last several months. I
would like to also take this opportunity to remind you to reinforce with members of the
Nonnent Security Group that any deviations from this schedule can only be amended if
the Sheriff s Office is appropriately notified in advance of forty-eight (48) hours.
If you require any additional infonnation, please feel free to contact me immediately.
FPT:kc
Cc: Chief Garry Wilson
Toby Long, Finance Direct
Captain Patricia Walsh
Roger Shinn, Central Services
I Roger A Shinn - Fwd: Maint. Overtime' )ort
\w
--~--"._.-
. ...,,¡
Page 1 I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Pat Tighe
Shinn, Roger A
3/26/0410:01AM
Fwd: Maint. Overtime Report
Roger,
We need to discuss these escort details, with the overcrowding and the staff shortages we may not be
able (for obvious security and expenditure reasons) to continue this service.
>>> Willie Russ 03/25/04 03:29PM >>>
Please note March totals are not included in reports.
,.;
V\
.
L
»
z
0
.þ..
"
--I
0
L
»
Z
0
.þ..
0
--I
"
m
OJ
0
.þ..
"
--I
0
"
m
OJ
0
.þ..
0
--I
0 N s: -1
-1 " 0 0
..........
\J c: :J Q)
- ..........
Q) - :J
..........
-. -1 - 0
c.. ....... . '<
" 3 -1 0 --I
CD 0 Q) 0
0 .......... ....
Q) .......... Q)
....., 0 CD
- -0
0 CD (J) Q)
CD ""0 a.
.......... c:
Q)
-" ~
- CD
(J)
(J)
N c..v .þ-. (]"I
0 0 0 0
... ... ... ... ...
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
()
o
c:
::J
,.........
~
s:
Q)
-.
::J
,.........
II
o
CD
,.........
Q)
--
-
()
o
(J)
,.........
s:
o
::J
,.........
-::::r
-
~
CD
-c
o
-,
,.........
t:: v v v
0 0 V
0 s.... 0 0
c.. (.) CO c: c..
0) (1) ~ :J Q.) V M
0 ....., (fJ 0
cr: I I 0 --
I c: s.... I -- N
......., M
(..) CO c.. .......- 0
>. 0 ....., « =' 0
....., s.... s....
- s.... s.... s.... >- >-
L... s.... .......,
......., 0 ......., .......,
0) 0 0 0 -
co co
t:: ......., "'0 "'0 ..c:: ~ .......,
(fJ c: s.... ~ 0 0
CO ~ N M V I-- I--
:J
0
...........,
en
0
() CV)
0
-
0) 'r" N -q-
I"- 0 0
E 'r" -
CV)
0
l.-
II - ...... l.-
t:: a >-
..c I.-
0) ...... ......
-q- a
> I.- '"0
......
a I.-
0 0) CV)
I J.!') '"0
~ C l.-
ce ......
N a
II N
..........., -q- ......
(f)
c: I"- 'r"
J.!')
II - 0
CO 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0
... ... ... ...
0 0 0 0
0 L.O 0 LO
N ~ ~
~
...,
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
CENTRAL SERVICES
P-OGm A. SHINN
DIP-EGOP-
October 9, 2002
Nonnent Security Group
7255 Standard Drive
Hanover, Maryland 21076
Att: Greg Meeks
NOTICE TO PROCEED
Completion date on the project below is: January 2nd ,2004
PROJECT: Upgrades to the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility Security Systems.
As per Purchase Order No. P2213514
aul Julin
Project Manager
772-462-1249
PJldp
cc: Finance
Purchasing
County Attorney
County Administrator
Project Manager
JOHN D, ßRUHN. Districr No.1. DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No.2· PAULA A. LEWIS. Disrricr No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSaN. DisTricr NO.4· CLIFF ßARNES. Disrricr Nc ::
Counry Adminisrrator - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34')82 · Phone (772) 462-1432/34
FAX (772) 462-1444 · TDD (772) 462-1428
\w'
....,
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
CENTRAL SERVICES
p.OGm A. SHINN
DIP.EGOf\
November 21, 2002
Gregory Meeks
Project Manager
Nom1ent Security Group, lnc,
7255 Standard Drive
Hanover, Maryland 21076
RE: St. Lucie County Correctional Facility
Dear Greg:
Attached you will find a new Purchase Order #P231 0997 for above referenced Security
Systems Project. This one will replace the existing Purchase Order you now have for this
project. Please use #P2310997 for future billing.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc& c
PauIJulin ~
Project Manager
PJ/dp
Att:
JOHN D. ßRUHN. Dlsrricr No 1 . DOUG COWARD. DlStrlcr NO.2. PAULA A. LEWIS. DiSTricr No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON D'strlcr No 4 . CLIFF ßARNES D,s" C' ',:
Counry Adminlsrraror - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982 · Phone (772) 462-1432/34
FAX (772) 462-1444 · TDD (772) 462-1428
Board of County Commissioners
~. Lucie Coaaty
23OOVirginiaA"J'e
~~~.~
Fax: (561)462-1104
Date: 09/12/02
~
VE,NQOR COP¥ ~
PURCHASE ORDER
Vendor: 28513
Instructions:
Norment Security Group
7255 Standard Dr
Hanover MD 21076
l
For additional information contact:
. Kimberlee Gagnon
(772) 462-1433
Extended
:~:±:;~;~::;~:~:~:::~:~:~;;,~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:rr::~t:::~:~;~:~:::::::~:::::~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:::::~:~:::~::::t:::~:::~I~:i~:*:::E:~~~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:::~:::::::~:::::::~:::::::::::::::~::::::::;::::::~:~t{:~:~:::::~:~:~:~t:::~:::::::::::~:~:::~:~:::~:::::::;::::~:~::~:1~:~~~:~::~~::~~t:::::::::~:::~:::::::::::r::::::~:::::~:::~~~::~:::;:~:::~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::rŠ:~:~E:
1 EA Security And Access Systern~ ........ ...
Furnish all materials, equiprne~t:í~up~l±~s &
labor to upgrade the St. :Lu¢iè::)CöunFY:/.
Correctional Facility s~cur;j,tYsyst:êtnŠ.)
Contract #C02-07-561
09/30102 $962,000.0000 $1,962,000.OC
Ship The Preceding Items.To:
Central Services/Admin:Lstpation
Phone: (772) 462-1433
3071 Oleander Ave.
Fort Pierce
. " ....
·":.FL
/'
PLEASE SEND INVOICES TO:
St. Lucie County Finance Department
2300 Virginia Ave
Ft Pierce FL 34982-5652
TOTAL:
$1,962,000.00
l
This order subject to all terms and
conditions set forth on the reverse side.
!~.:¡ard of County Commissioners
:"It" Lucie County
~}CC VIrginia Ave
: l Plcrce FL 34982-5652
:- dephone: (561) 462-17CO
~.lX: (561) 462-1704
'-' VENDOR COpy 'WI
D.lle:
11/20/02
PURCHASE ORDER
-rI
This information must appear on
all documents and packages
Norment Security Group
7255 Standard Dr
Hanover MD 21076
. I Instructions:
Ii
I
I,
I
Vendor: 28513
jl
~ l
For additional information contact:
Kimberlee Gagnon
(772) 462-1433
Qty
UIM
Deliver
Unit Price
Extended
Price
1 EA Security And Access Systems
Furnish all materials, equipment, supplies &
labor to upgrade the St. Lucie County
Correctional Facility Security Systems.
Contract #C02-07-561.
09/30/03 $962,000.0000 $1,962,000,00
Ship The Preceding Items To:
Central Services/Administration
Phone: ( 772 ) 462 - 14 3 3
3071 Oleander Ave.
Fort Pierce 349B2
f PLEASE SEND INVOICES TO:
!
1
I
I
I
¡
',-
This order
conditions
St. Lucie County Finance Department
2300 Virginia Ave
Ft Pierce FL 34982-5652
TOTAL:
$1,962,000.00
E:""~
subject to all terms and
set forth on the reverse side.
Purchasing Director
Page
1
~30ard o'f County Commissioners
';t. Lucie County '-'
JOO Virginia Ave
:t r~L 34982-5652
relephone: (561) 462-1700
:ax: (561) 462-1704
..."
RECEIVING COpy
i
I
\.
)ate:
11/20/02
PURCHASE ORDER
---~-_._'-.._-_._-_.
------.-- -~----
--,,------.--
Vendor: 28513
: Instructions:
Norment Security Group
7255 Standard Dr
Hanover MD 21076
For additional information contact:
Kimberlee Gagnon
(772) 462-1433
VIM
Deliver
Unit Price
Extended
Price
1 EA Security And Access Systems
Furnish all materials, equipment, supplies &
labor to upgrade the St. Lucie County
Correctional Facility Security Systems.
Contract #C02-07-561.
R2350949 B 03 316 1940 563000 26001
09/30/03 $774,332.5000
$774,332.5C
CSCNMT
$774,332.50
1 EA
Security And Access Systems
B 03 316 1940
562000 26001
09/30/03 $18-2,667.5000 $1,187,GG7.5C
CSJAMT $~, lQ',96? 5Q
I GL \ \i,$\., o. ~~
,
hip The Preceding Items To:
entral Services/Administration
hone: ( 772 ) 462 - 14 3 3
071 Oleander Ave.
ort Pierce FL 34982, <¡ à
4t ~G,Ol'-' <-.00 ~'" \lo~cq~ \b~\v~ ~-b..,~(.. t..ì,~~) \.ÌÑt..\
-tt:J' S 'iR, 2. ~~~"5' 3T-Ji. i L <) 'ì'1 ~\ \"\\o~ (1L~~"'~L '" 't, <:( \~ ~ \ \ \'c.- t..
tf- ~ ~ 1.23, 3>S-I. J<..:.- b--~ I ì I'-\'i '3( '!.\~~, ~(~_:('_~,. ..yJ,~ .. l'3r, ì~ç:~ \,~..::t
~~ ~ \~ql2..'5"'<·~ -4:'r-- £&I~~\)~ è~~\.u..·Vf<-~ Is-¡.n~-~ \,,,..::.<-.
'itS $ ~ ~\ nS"(j~ ..D--~ I ')"~ '-'\~,\-.)~ [1"'2:c'~""'1~ .A:tiIPS'C~ l,~,-
-# (c .$ Î"1/ 5 'i 3 '=~ .1Y-""" \ ì ') ~"- . ~/~ /¿ lù3 ("t..~~"1~ ~t,~'Jð' ~\\ ~ L
~r¡ $ "n,èÙ'i,"Z.~ ~lo\-lìlDS-\ ~h~O} (ii.:("-h.\~c. ¡ ~F7t:Th \\W;",<-
H<i?' j¡; I Olj]:J.ì ~ì::, ~~ t ì 1co~3 /Ü{2.f!c.:3 ~~\~ SHp4ì'~ \\~ L
#q 1 It..~, g.Y-,7<.. I\^~'1 /J<:>/c'r ¿~k.(Å~ $1¥j~ý:7'?) I,~ '-
PLEASE SEND INVOICES TO: .
-./
St. Lucie County Finance Department
2300 Virginia Ave I
Ft Pierce FL 34982-5652 ' .:}
~/O I (p5; 4 f( V,' I ~ - :r:;,." 10 .:;tþ8j"'T {a. d~....,.. :I If¡ {'t<1,V"':':.:·
/ ~
Ij $ 0/'1, 7fo.7S .:n.-.4I /1 v/JJ).,r ~'Cþ...'c.:y<-.& '(f ")(p...,:>':.
:ndicate itams received and send this
>age to Finance as a payment request. ':\ I ~
~ ("l.. ~ $?) 40(, 7~ .n..:"/2... S/3<JIO"{"2.~Þ-.'~·1<- 5' I.c/I.:oo.'>t) (Ii-
Purchasing Director
TOTAL:
Page
1
'-'
...",
CAJD. -0'7, 5lP1
CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT, made this 23rd day of July, 2002, between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a
Political Subdivision af the State of Florida, hereinafter called the "County", and NORMENT
SECURITY GROP, INC. or his. its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns
hereinafter called the "Contractor".
WITNESSETH:
1.0 Purpose.
That the said Contractor agrees with the said County, for the consideration herein
mentioned, at his, its or their own proper cost and expense to do all the work and furnish all the
materials. equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to carry out this Contract in the manner and
to the full extent as set forth in the proposal and the accompanying plans, specifications.
addenda if any. and drawings, and they are as fully a part of the Contract as if hereto attached or
herein repeated, and under security as set forth in the attached contract bond, and to the
satisfaction of the duly authorized representatives of S1. Lucie County, who shall have at all
times full opportunity to inspect the materials to be furnished and the work to be done under this
Contract.
2.0 General Description or Work.
Upgrades to the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility Security Systems.
3.0 Project Manager.
The Project Manager ~ the County is Paul Julin at Ç72) 462-1249. The Project
Managerfor the Contractor is (\~~ m(!,.C.k~ at ( 10) 7/~ -(p()~ð ~ 3/;/ .lte
parties shall direct all matters arising connection with the performance of thiS Contract, other
than invoices notices, ta the attention of the Project Managers for attempted resolution or action.
The Project Managers shall be responsible for overall resolution or action. The Project
managers shall be responsible for overall coordination and oversight relating to the performance
of this Contract.
4.0 Contract Documents.
The Contract Documents, which comprise the Contract between the County and the
Contractor, are attached hereto and made part hereof and consist of the following:
4.1 This Contract, pages 1 through 13 inclusive.
4.2 Contractor's Bid and Bid Bonds, consisting of pages 00300-1 through 00300-6
and pages 00410-1 through 00410-2, respectively and Trench Safety Act
Compliance Statement, page 00480-1.
4.3 Bid Documents, consisting of:
Invitation to Bid.
_ Instructions to Bidders, pages 00100-1 to 00100-8, inclusive and Bidder's
Check List, page 00110-1.
General Conditions, pages 00700-1 to 00700-31, inclusive.
Special Conditions, pages 00800-1.
Project Specifications
4.4 Project No. 02-57 Sheets CS-1 through ES4.1 prepared by SIMS WILKERSON
ENGINEERING, In c., titled "Upgrades to the S1. Lucie County Correctional
Facility Security Systems"
'-'
"'"
4.5 Addenda No.1 to §, inclusive.
4.6 Public Construction Bond, pages 00610-1 through 00610-3, inclusive, which
shall be provided to the County by the Contractor, along with the return of this
executed Contract. The Contractor shall be responsible for recording the Public
Construction Bond.
4.7 Insurance Certificates, which shall be provided by the Contractor, along with the
return of this executed Contract.
4.8 Any Modifications, including change orders, duly delivered after execution of this
Contract.
4,9 Notice to Proceed duly delivered after execution of this Contract.
Except for duly authorized and executed Modifications including but not limited to change
orders and contract amendments, any conflict between the terms and conditions ofthis Contract
and the terms and conditions of any of the other contract documents shall be interpreted in favor
of this Contract.
5.0 Performance Guaranty.
Contractor guarantees to repair, replace or otherwise make good to the satisfaction of
the County any defect in workmanship or material appearing in the work; and further guarantees
the successful performance of the work for the service intended. Neither inspection nor
payment, including final payment, by thè County shall relieve the Contractor from his or its
obligations to do and complete the work in accordance with this Contract. If the County deems it
inexpedient to require the Contractor to correct deficient or defective work, an equitable
deduction from the contract price shall be made therefore or in the altemative, if the expense
incurred by the County to correct deficient or defective Work exceeds the unpaid balance on this
Contract, the Contractor shall pay the difference to the County. The liability of the Contractor and
its surety or sureties for such payment is joint and several.
6.0 Time of Performance I Delays and Extensions of Time.
The Contractor shall begin work within Ten (10) calendar days after the signing,
execution and delivery of written notice to proceed, and shall guarantee completion of the
Contract within four hundred fifty (450) calendar days from the date of notice to proceed.
Commencement of the Work by the Contractor shall be deemed a waiver of this notice. The
Work shall be canducted in such a manner and with sufficient labor, materials, tools, and
equipment necessary to complete the Work within the time limit set forth in the Contract. In the
event the construction schedule as set forth in the Contract documents is changed, the
Contractor shall notify the County, in writing, of the change in schedule. Such schedule change
shall not, however, extend the time for completion unless approved by the County in writing.
In the sole opinion of the County, should the organization of the Contractor, or its
management, or the manner of carrying on the Work be manifestly incompetent, or inadequate
to do the Work specified within the stated time, then the County shall have the right to take
charge of the Work and finish it and provide the labor, materials and equipment necessary to
complete the Work as planned within the required time and to charge the cost of all such Work
against the Contractor and his, or its Surety shall be held responsible therefore. The Contractor
fully understands and agrees that the County shall not pay for any obligation incurred or
expenditure made by the Contractor prior to the effective date of the notice to proceed described
above, unless the County authorizes such payment in writing.
As the Contractor's only remedy for delay, the County may grant an extension of the
contract time. when a controlling item of Work is delayed by any factors contemplated or not
2
"-'
w
contemplated at the time of the bid. Such extension of time may be allowed for delays occurring
during the contract time period or authorized extension of the contract time. All claims for
extension of time shall be made in writing to the County. Claims for delay due to inclement
weather shall be made by the 10th day of the month following the month of the delay. All other
claims shall be made no more than twenty (20) days after the commencement of the delay.
Claims made beyond these time limits shall be null and void. Requests for extension of time
shall be fully documented and shall include capies of daily logs, letters, shipping orders, delivery
tickets, and other supporting information. In case of a continuing cause of delay only one (1)
claim is necessary, Normal working weeks are based on a five (5) day week, All authorized
extensions of time shall be done by Change Order.
7.0 Delay Damages.
It is mutually agreed between the parties hereto that time is of the essence in the
performance of this Contract. In the event the construction of the Work is not completed within
the time herein specified the County will suffer damages, the amount of which is difficult if not
impossible to ascertain. It is agreed, therefore, that from the compensation otherwise to be paid
to the Contractor, the County may retain the sum of $500.00 per calendar day for each day
thereafter, Sundays and holidays included, that the Work remains uncompleted. This sum shall
represent the damages which the County will have sustained per calendar day from the
inconvenience and expense caused to the County by the delay in the completion of the Work.
This sum is not a penalty, being the liquidated damages the County will have sustained in event
of such default by the Contractor. The County also reserves the right to recover actual damages
for other harm which results from the delay. The Contractor shall be liable for liquidated
damages even if the Contract is terminated by the County for cause or if the Contractor
abandons the Work. The liability of the Contractor and its surety or sureties for liquidated or
actual damages is joint and several.
8.0 Contract Payment.
The County shall pay the Contractor for the performance of this Contract and completion
of the project in accordance with the Contract Documents, subject to adjustment by change
order, the total estimated amount in current funds being: $1.962.000.00
9.0 Payment Schedule
The County shall make payment on account of the Contract as follows:
Once each month progress payments shall be made during the process of construction
in amounts not to exceed ninety percent (90%) of the amount due on the Contract on the basis
of Work completed as certified by the Contractor and approved by the County's Project
Manager, Contractor shall submit a payment application to the County's Project Manager by the
25th day of each month, The application shall be for the dollar amount of the Work complete on
the last day preceding the submission of the application. Payment to the Contractor shall be
made within 20 business days of the County's receipt of the application or if appropriate, within
20 business days of the approval of the application by the County's consulting engineer or
architect and the application is received by the County. The County may reject the application in
writing which shall specify the deficiency and the action necessary'to correct the deficiency.
Payment shall be due 10 days after the County's receipt of a corrected application. All
applications for payment submitted by the Contractor shall reference the County's Contract
number.
Upon completion of the Contract the Contractor shall submit evidence satisfactory to the
County that all payroll material, bills, and other indebtedness incurred by the Contractor in
3
~
..".,
connection with the construction of the project have been paid in full. After the Work has been
inspected and approved and after the Contractor has submitted satisfactory evidence of
payment. the County's Project Manager shall promptly issue a final certificate. Final payment
shall be due within 20 business days after the County's Project Manager issues the final
certificate,
The County shall pay the Contractor through payments issued by the County Finance
Department in accordance with the Florida Prompt Payment Act of the Florida Statutes,
Chapter 218.70, upon receipt of the certified invoice from the County Project Manager. The
parties agree, however, that any payments withheld as liquidated damages or for any other
reason allowed by this Contract, shall not be governed by the Florida Prompt Payment Act.
10.0 Audit.
The Contractor agrees that the County or any of its duly authorized representatives shall,
until the expiration of three years after expenditure of funds under this Contract, have access to
and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the
Contractor involving transactions related to this Contract. The Contractor agrees that
payment(s) made under this Contract shall be subject to reduction for amounts charged thereto
which are found on the basis of audit examination not to constitute allowable costs under this
Contract. The Contractor shall refund by check payable to the County the amount of such
reduction of payments. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and
all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or three years after completion of the project and
issuance of the final certificate, whichever is sooner.
11.0 Public Records.
The Contractor shall allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other
material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the
County in conjunction with this Contract.
12.0 Guarantee.
The Contractor guarantees to repair, replace or otherwise make good to the satisfaction
of the County any defects in warkmanship or material appearing in the work within one year after
the day of the certificate for final performance of the work for the service intended. Contractor
further guarantees the successful performance of the work for the service intended. Neither
inspection nor payment, including final payment by the County shall relieve the Contractor from
his or its obligations to do and complete the work in accordance with this contract. If the County
deems it inexpedient to require the Contractor to correct deficient or defective materials or labor,
an equitable deduction from the contract price shall be made therefore or in the alternative, the
County may sue for damages. This guarantee is in addition to any other warranty available to the
County for the Work including but not limited to manufacturers warranties.
13.0 Contractor Responsibility.
The Contractor is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of the
County. Nothing in this Contract shall be interpreted to establish any relationship other than that
of an independent contractor, between the County and the Contractor, its employees, agents,
subcontractors, or assigns, during or after the performance of this Contract. The Contractor shall
take the whole responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and production of
the Work.
The Contractor shall bear all losses resulting to him, or its. on account of the amount or
character of the Work. or because of the nature of the ground in or on which the Work is done is
4
'-'
..."
different from what was assumed or expected, or because of bad weather, or because of errors
or omissions in his or its bid on the Contract price, or except as otherwise provided in the
Contract Documents because of any other causes whatsoever. Execution of this Contract by the
Contractor is a representation that the Contractor has visited the site, become familiar with the
local conditions under which the Work is to be performed, and correlated personal observations
with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
The Contractor shall protect the entire Work, all materials under the Contract and the
County's property (including machinery and equipment) in, or on, or adjacent to the site of the
Work until final completion and Work, from the action of the elements, acts of other contractors,
or except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, and from any other causes
whatsoever; should any damage occur by reason of any of the foregoing, the Contractor shall
repair at his, or its, own expenses to the satisfaction of the County or its Project Manager.
Neither the County nor its officers, employees or agents assume any responsibility for collection
of indemnities or damages from any person or persons causing injury to the Work of the
Contractor.
At his, or its expense, the Contractor shall take all necessary precautions (including
without limitation) the furnishing of guards, fences, warnings signs, walks, flags, cables and
lights for the safety of and the prevention of injury, loss and damage to persons and property
(including without limitation) in the term persons, members of the public, the County and its
employees and agents, the Project Manager and his employees, Contractor's employees, his or
its subcontractors and their respective employees, other contractors, their subcontractors and
respective employees, on, about or adjacent to the premises where said Work is being
performed, and shall comply with all applicable provisions of safety laws, rules, ordinances,
regulations and orders of duly constituted public authorities and building codes.
The Contractor assumes all risk of loss, damage and destruction to all of his or its
materials, tools appliances and property of every description and that of his or its subcontractors
and of their respective employees or agents, and injury to or death of the Contractor, his or its
employees, subcontractors or their respective employees or agents, including legal fees, court
costs or other legal expenses, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this
Contract.
14.0 Indemnity.
Contractor agrees to pay of behalf of, protect, defend, reimburse, indemnify and hold the
County, its agents, employees, elected officers and representatives and each of them,
(hereinafter collectively and for the purposes ofthis paragraph, referred to as "County'), free and
harmless at all times from and against any and all claims, liability, expenses, losses, costs, fines
and damages, including attorney's fees, and causes of action of every kind and character
against County by reason of any damage to property or the environment, or bodily injury
(including death) incurred or sustained by any party hereto, or of any party acquiring any interest
hereunder, any agent or employee of any party hereto or of any party acquiring an interest
hereunder, and any third or other party whomsoever, or any governmental agency, arising out of
or in incident to or in connection with Contractor's performance under this Contract, the condition
of the premises, Contractor's acts, or omissions or operations hereunder, or the performance,
non-performance or purported performance of the Contractor of any breach of the terms of this
Contract; provided however that Contractor shall not be responsible to County for damages
resulting out of bodily injury or damages to property which Contractor can establish as being
attributable to the sole negligence of County, its respective agents, servants, employees or
officers.h
5
~
...,
Contractor further agrees to pay on behalf of and hold harmless and indemnify County
for any fines, citations, court judgments, insurance claims, restoration costs or other liability
resulting from its activities on the project, whether or not Contractor was negligent or even
knawledgeable of any events precipitating a claim or arising as a result of any situation involving
Contractor's activities.
Said indemnification by Contractor shall be extended to include all deliverers, suppliers,
furnishers of material or anyone acting for, on behalf of, or at the request of Contractor.
Contractor recognizes the broad nature of this indemnification and hold harmless clause and
voluntarily makes this covenant. In conformance with Section 725.06 Florida Statutes, the
specific consideration given for the promises of the Contractor set forth with regard to this
indemnification and hold harmless clause is $10.00 in hand paid by the County to the Contractor
as a portion of the contract price, receipt thereof is hereby acknowledged and the adequacy of
which the Contractor accepts as completely fulfilling the obligations of the County under the
requirement of Section 725.06, Florida Statutes. This indemnification and hold harmless
survives acceptance of the Work. This clause of the Contract will extend beyond the term ofthe
Agreement for a period of ten (10) years after the date of the acceptance of the Work by the
COUNTY.
15.0 Inspection.
The project will be inspected by the County's Project Manager or the County's Project
Representative and will be rejected if it is not in conformity with the Contract provisions.
Rejected work will be immediately corrected by the Contractor. When the work is substantially
completed, the Contractor shall notify the County in writing that the work shall be ready for final
inspection on a definite date, at least three (3) calendar days thereafter, which shall be stated in
such notice.
16.0 Public Construction Bond.
The Contractor shall, upon execution and return of this Contract to the County, furnish to
the County a public construction bond using the attached form or incorporating all of the terms
and conditions set forth in the form and covering the faithful performance of this Contract and
the payment of all obligations arising hereunder in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of
the Contract amount. The liability of the Contractor and its surety or sureties for the faithful
performance of this Contract and the payment of all obligations arising hereunder is joint and
several. The Contractor shall record the public construction in the Official Records for St. Lucie
County and provide the County with a copy of the recorded bond.
The public construction required hereunder shall meet the following minimum standards:
16.1 The surety issuing the bond must be licensed to do business in the State of
Florida, hold a certificate of authorization to write surety in the State, hold a currently
valid certificate of authority issued by the United States Department of the Treasury, and
otherwise be in compliance with the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code.
16.2 The attorney-in-fact must provide a certified copy of his or her power of attorney
to sign the bond.
16.3 The name, address and telephone number of the surety and its agent must be
listed on the bond.
16.4 For contracts up to $499,999.99 the surety shall have twice the minimum surplus
and capital required by the Florida Insurance Code at the time the bid is issued for the
Work, otherwise the surety shall have the following minimum ratings:
6
'-"
....,
Contract Amount
Best Key RatinQ
$500,000 to $2,499,999.99
Over $2,500,000
Class XII A or better
Class XIV or better
17.0 Insurance.
The Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this Contract insurance of the
types and subject to the limits set forth below. The Contractor shall also provide the County with
evidence of this insurance in the form of Certificates of Insurance which shall be subject to the
County's approval for adequacy. The County shall be a Named Additional Insured on policies of
Commercial General Liability and Commercial Auto Liability with respect to all claims arising out
of the operations or work performed under this Contract. The County shall be given thirty (30)
days notice of changes and cancellations or non-renewal of any policies. If sub-contractors are
used by the contractor, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all its sub-
contractors comply with all the insurance requirements contained herein relating to such
subcontractors.
All insurance companies providing insurance under this Contract shall be licensed or
authorized to do business in the State of Florida. These companies shall have a general policy
holders rating of A or better and a financial rating of X or better according to the latest edition of
Best's Key Rating Guide, published by AM. Best Company.
Any deductibles or self insured retention must be declared to and approved by the
County. At the option of the County, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles
or self insured retention with respect to the County, its elected and appointed officials,
employees, volunteers and agents, or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Except as otherwise stated, the amounts and types of insurance shall conform to the
following minimum requirements:
17.1 Worker's ComDensation: The Contractor shall provide and maintain during the
life of this Contract, at his, its or their own expense, Worker's Compensation insurance
coverage to apply for all employees for Florida statutory limits. Coverage B, Employers
Liability, shall be written for a minimum liability of $1,000,000 by accident-each accident,
$1,000,000 by disease-each employee, $1,000,000 by disease-policy limit.
17.2 Commercial General Liabilitv: The Contractor shall provide and maintain during
the life of this Contract, at his, its or their own expense, Commercial General Liability
insurance on an occurrence basis for a minimum combined single limit of $1 ,000,000.00
per accurrence and $3,000,000 per job aggregate, for claims of bodily injury including
death, property damage and personal injury, The coverages of Owners and Contractors
Protective, Contractual Liability and the coverage of XCU shall be included. The
Contractual Liability coverage shall be specifically endorsed to include indemnity and
hold harmless requirements set forth in paragraph 13 of this Contract.
17.3 Commercial Auto Liabilitv: The Contractor shall provide and maintain during the
life of this Contract, at his, its or their own expense, Business Commercial Auto Liability
for claims of bodily injury and property damage for minimum limits of $1,00,000.00
combined single limit.
7
'-"
.."
17.4 Other Insurance Provisions: The General Liability and Auto Liability policies shall
contain or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
17.4,1 The County, its Officers, Officials, Employees, Agents, and Volunteers
are to be covered as additional insured for any and all liability arising out of the
Contractor's performance of this Contract, or out of automobiles owned, leased,
hired, or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on scope of protection offered to the County, its Officers, Officials,
Employees, Agents, and Volunteers.
17.4.2 The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the County, its Officers, Officials, Employees, Agents and Volunteers.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County, its Officers, Officials,
Employees, Agents, or Volunteers shall be in excess of the Contractor's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
17.4.3 Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policy shall not
effect coverage provided to the County, its Officers, Officials, Employees,
Agents, or Volunteers.
17.4.4 The Contractors insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of
insurer's liability.
18.0 Default; Termination.
18.1 Far Cause: If either party fails to fulfill its obligations under this Contract in a
timely and proper manner, the other party shall have the right to terminate this Contract
by giving written notice of any deficiency and by allowing the party in default seven (7)
calendar days to correct the deficiency. If the defaulting party fails to correct the
deficiency within the seven calendar day period, this Contract shall terminate at the
expiration of that time period.
With regard to the Contractor, the following items shall be considered a default under this
Contract:
18.1.1 If the Contractor should be adjudged bankrupt, ar if he, or it, should make
a general assignment for the benefit of his, or its, creditors, or if a receiver should
be appointed on account of his, or its, insolvency.
18.1.2 If the Contractor should refuse or fail, except in cases for which an
extension of time is provided, to supply enough properly skilled workmen or
proper material to meet the project schedule or if the Contractor should fail to
make prompt payment for materials, or labor or other services entering into the
Work.
18.1.3 If the Contractor disregards laws, ordinances, or the instructions of the
Project Manager or otherwise be guilty of a substantial violation of the provisions
of the Contract.
18.1.4 Fails to perform any of the terms of this Contract or performs work which
fails to conform to the requirements of this Contract.
8
'-'
....,
In the event of termination, the County may take possession of the premises and all
materials. tools, and appliances, thereon and finish the Work by whatever method it may deem
expedient. In such cases, the Contractor shall only be entitled to receive payment for Work
satisfactorily completed prior to the termination date. The County may take possession of and
use any materials, plant, tools, equipment, and property of any kind furnished by Contractor to
complete the Work. If the expense incurred by the County to finish the Work exceeds the unpaid
balance on this Contract, the Contractor shall pay the difference to the County. The expense
incurred by the County as herein provided, and the damage incurred through the Contractors
default, shall be certified by the Project Manager. The Contractor shall be responsible for both
liquidated damages attributable to delay and for excess completion costs, The liability of the
Contractor and its surety or sureties for such damages and costs is joint and several. The
obligations of the Contractor and his surety with respect to the warranty and maintenance bond
shall remain in full force and effect for the portion of the Work completed by the Contractor and
shall not expire until the expiration of the prescribed time period measured from the final
acceptance of the project in its entirety. These clauses shall survive the termination of this
Contract. If the County m,akes a determination pursuant to this Contract to hold the Contractor in
default and terminate the Contract for cause and it is subsequently determined that any such
determination was improper, unwarranted, or wrongful, then any such termination shall be
deemed for all purposes as a termination without cause as described below. The Contractor
agrees that it shall be entitled to no damages, allowances or expenses of any kind other than as
provided in this Agreement in connection with such termination.
18.2 Without Cause: Either party may terminate the Contract without cause at any
time upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the other party. Upon such
termination. the Contractor waives any claims for damages from the termination without
cause, including loss of anticipated profits, and as the sole right and remedy of the
Contractor, the County shall compensate the Contractor for all authorized Work
satisfactorily and responsibly completed through the termination date. In the event of
termination by the Contractor without cause, the following shall apply: (1) all bonds shall
remain fully in force to insure the County's ability to construct the project for the Contract
amount; (2) the County shall have the right to, at its option, solicit bids for the completion
of the unfinished portion of the Work, or to negotiate with the number two bidder under
the original bid; and (3) the Contractor and his surety shall be jointly and severally
responsible for all costs over the original Contract amount incurred by the County in
completion of the project, in addition to construction costs, such costs may include
engineering, advertising, and administrative expenses incurred with the solicitations of
bids for the completion af the unfinished portion of the Work. In the event of termination
without cause by either party, the obligations of the Contractor and his surety with
respect to the warranty and maintenance bond shall remain in full force and effect for the
portion of the Work completed by the Contractor and shall not expire until the expiration
of the prescribed time period measured from the final acceptance of the project in its
entirety. These clauses shall survive the termination of this Contract.
19.0 Non-Discrimination.
Contractor covenants and agrees that the Contractor shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of the Contract with
the respect to hiring, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or any matter directly
or indirectly related to employment because of age, sex, or physical handicaps (except where
based on a bona fide occupational qualification); or because of marital status, race, color,
religion, national origin or ancestry.
9
'-'
,.."
20.0 Verification of Employment Status.
The County will not intentionally award contracts to any c.ontractor who knowingly
employs unauthorized alien workers, constituting a violation of the employment provisions of the
Immigratian and Nationality Act ("INA"), The Count shall consider the employment by the
Contractor of unauthorized aliens a violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1324a(e) [Section 274A(e) of
the INA]. The Contractor agrees that such violation by the Contractor shall be grounds for the
unilateral cancellation of this Contract by the County,
21.0 Florida Produced Lumber.
Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of Section 255.20, Florida Statues,
(2001) and as may be amended from time to time.
22.0 Asbestos-Free Materials.
Contractor shall not use any asbestos or asbestos-based fiber materials in the Work to
be performed under this Contract.
23.0 Assignment
The County reserves the right to freely assign this Contract. The Contractor, however,
shall not assign this Contract to any other persons or firm without first obtaining County's written
approval.
24.0 Attorney's Fees and Costs.
In the event of any dispute concerning the terms and conditions of this Contract or in the
event of any action by any party to this Contract to judicially interpret ar enforce this Contract or
any provision hereof, or in any dispute arising in any manner from this Contract, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs, fees and expenses, including but not
limited to, witness fees, expert fees, consultant fees, attorney, paralegal and legal assistant fees,
costs and expenses and other professional fees, costs and expenses, whether suit be brought
or not, and whether any settlement shall be entered in any declaratory action, at trial or on
appeal. The liability of the Contractor and its surety or sureties for such fees and costs is joint
and several.
25.0 Notices.
All notices, requests, consents, and other communications required or permitted under
this Contract shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand
delivered by messenger or courier service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or
certified mail (postage prepaid) receipt requested and addressed to:
As To County:
St. Lucie County Administrator
Administration Annex
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
With Copies To:
St. Lucie County Attorney
Administration Annex
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
As to Contractor:
Norment Security Group, Inc.
7255 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
or to such other address as any party may designate by notice complying with the terms of this
Section. Each such notice shall be deemed delivered (a) on the date delivered if by personal
10
'-'
..."
delivery, (b) on the date upon which the return receipt is signed or delivery is refused or the
notice is designated by the postal authorities as not deliverable, as the case may be, if mailed.
26.0 Non-Waiver.
The rights of the parties under this Contract shall be cumulative and the failure of either
party to exercise properly any rights given hereunder shall not operate to forfeit any of the said
rights.
27.0 Conflict of Interest.
The Contractor represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest,'
either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services
required hereunder, as provided for in Florida Statues 112.311 (2001), and as maybe amended.
The Contractor further represents that no persons having interest shall be employed for said
performance.
The Contractor shall promptly notify the County in writing by certified mail of all potential
conflicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association,
interest, or other circumstances which may influence or appear to influence the Contractor's
judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify
the prospective business association, interest or circumstance, the nature of the work the
Contractor may undertake and request ari opinion of the County as to whether the association,
interest, or circumstance would, in the opinion of the County, constitute a conflict of interest if
entered into by the Contractor. The County agrees to notify the Contractor of its opinion by
certified mail within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification by the Contractor. If, in the opinion of
the County, the prospective business association, interest or circumstance would not constitute
a conflict of interest by the Contractor, the County shall state in the notification and the
Contractor shall, at his/her option, enter into said association, interest, or circumstance and it
shall be deemed not in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the County by the
Contractor under the terms of this Contract.
28.0 Dispute Resolution.
Any disputes relating to interpretation of the terms of this Contact or a question of fact or
arising under this Contract shall be resolved through good faith efforts upon the part of the
Contractor and the County or its Project Manager. At all times, the Contractor shall carry on the
work and maintain its progress schedule in accordance with the requirements of the Contract
and the determination of the County or its representatives, pending resolution of the dispute. Any
dispute which is not resolved by mutual agreement shall be decided by the County Administrator
who shall reduce the decision to writing. The decision of the County shall be final and conclusive·
unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, so
grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith, or not be supported by substantial evidence.
29.0 Mediation.
Prior to initiating any litigation concerning this Contract, the parties agree to submit the
disputed issue or issues to a mediator for non-binding mediation. The parties shall agree on a
mediator chosen from a list of certified mediators available from the Clerk of Court for St. Lucie
County. The fee of the mediator shall be shared equally by the parties. To the extent allowed by
law, the mediation process shall be confidential and the results of the mediation or any testimony
or argument introduced at the mediation shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent
proceeding concerning the disputed issue.
11
~
...,;
30.0 Subcontractors.
In the event Contractor requires the services of any subcontractor or professional
associate in connection with the Work to be performed under this Contract, the Contractor shall
secure the written approval of the County Project Manager before engaging such subcontractor
or professional associate.
31.0 Products or Materials with Recycled Content.
Contractor is required to procure products or materials with recycled content with respect
to Work performed or products supplied under the contract when those products or materials are
available at reasonable prices. A decision to not procure such items must be based on a
determination that such procurement:
31.1 Is not available within a reasonable period of time; or
31.2 Fails to meet the performance standards set forth in the applicable specifications
or fails to meet the reasonable performance standards of the agency.
Contractor shall provide the County with a written statement indicating what recycled
products were used or supplied. If a decision was made not to use recycled products,
Contractor shall provide County with a written statement indicating the basis for the decision
using the above criteria.
32.0 Indemnity of Florida East Coast Railway Company and Insurance
Requirement.
If the Work performed under this Contract requires a permit from Florida East Coast
Railway Company ("FEC"), the Contractor by execution and delivery hereof, agrees that it shall
and will at all times hereafter, defend and save harmless FEC from and against all judgments,
and all loss, claims, damages, costs, charges, and expenses ("Costs") which it may suffer,
sustain, or in any wise be subjected to on account of or occasioned by the operations of the
Contractor, or any of the subcontractors, or both, whether directly or indirectly under, or pursuant
to, this construction contract, including any such Costs arising from the death, bodily injury of, as
follows:
Of any person, including without limitation upon the generality of the foregoing
description, employees and officers of Florida East Coast Railway Company, employees and
officers of material men, employees and officers of the Contractor, employees and officers of all
subcontractors, and from loss, damage, injury and loss of use of any real or personal property
(a) in which Florida East Coast Railway Company has any ownership interest, and (b) personal
property in the custody of Florida East Coast Railway Company under any transportation
contracts; including without limitation upon the generality of the two foregoing enumerations, all
railroad equipment commonly described as rolling stock and the contents of the same.
In furtherance of its obligation to indemnify, defend and save harmless, Contractor shall
procure and keep in effect comprehensive general liability insurance in the limits of
$2,000,000.00 each occurrence for bodily injury or death and $2,000,000.00 property damage
each occurrence, covering all obligations of Contractor to indemnify the Railway by Contractual
Assumed Liability Endorsement. Alternatively, Contractor may procure and keep in effect during
the life of this construction contract, as aforesaid Railroad Protective Liability Policies insuring
the Railway directly as insured against losses and damages with the limits specified in this
paragraph.
In addition to the above, Contractor shall, at its cost and expenses, maintain a
12
.......
'WI
Workman's Compensation Insurance Policy as required in the State of Florida.
All such insurance, directly or indirectly for the benefit of the Railway, shall be in a form
satisfactory to Railway's Manager of Insurance and issued by a càsualty companylinsurance
company authorized to do business in the State of Florida that has a "Best's' rating of A or A+
and a financial category size of Class XII or higher.
33.0 Interpretation; Venue.
This Contract constitutes the entire Contract between the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior verbal or written Contracts between the parties
with respect thereto. This Contract may only be amended as written document, properly
authorized, executed and delivered by both parties hereto. This Contract shall be interpreted as
a whole unit and section headings are for convenience only, All interpretations shall be governed
by the laws of the State of Florida. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal
action regarding this Contract, venue shall be in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for St. Lucie
County, Florida, for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida for any claims
which are justiciable in federal court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has affixed
his, its, or their names, or name, and, seal the date aforesaid.
" .. ..'.........\: .
. ; . : ~.~""...,... -,
'..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
BY: .JJ."Jç~ e,,-~_J .
CHAIR{VIAN
NORMENT SECURITY GROUP, INC.
~NSS
J
ITN~0
-
eSt. Lucie County Bid No. 02-057, Upgrades to the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility Security System)
[Agenda Request Item # C-5-C, Approved July 23, 2002)
13
,-"
-. ...,.
.....------
~~Jr~~\J!~:~~~~~;; '~.~;~~~y:.-..=".~..':,:}~~~~~~~~i;~~~!~:7.,~::~~~.~:?;~~~~~;~ .~~~ ~~~:=
!'RODUCER 11111 CU'TFlCAlE IS !SaIlED AI A .Anlll 01' INI'OIUIA'1Iaf 0«,., MD CCIIfER$
MARS H NO AIOHTI UPCIII1II£ CEII'TFlCAlE IlCU)Ðt 01lltll TIUIf 'IIIOIE PROYÐED II 11IE
600 RENAISSANCE CENlER, SUllE 2100 'OLleY. 11111 ŒIt1FICA'Ii 001. NOT _NO, EXTEND Oft ALTER 'THE COYERAoCIE
DETROIT,MI 48243 ,lFFOIIDEO 11'/'111" 'OUCIElOUCltIlEO IIIU...
COMPANIES AFFORDINO COVERAGE
CCMF' IHY
i26Oõ7 ~0190-a203
A
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
Nonnen
NSlJRED
CCMF' JNV
B AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE CO.
NORMENT SECURlìY GROUP INC,
3224 MOBILE HIGHWAY
MONTGOMERY, AL 3et08
<:eMF' JNV
C NA1l0NAL UNION FIRE INS, CO.
000IF' JNV
D NlA
~=01~!6~;3i:F:~73i~~~~~!:~~7'~Z~ ;'o·~~~~:~~~~'f~:t':~~~:~~~t>~~~_~.:e~"\~~~~~t:f·~
'THIS IS TO CERT1FY TH,( '·F'Q.Joes CF INSJRN/Œ DeSCR/BIÐ HERSH HAIlE BEEN ISSUE) TO 'TI-E INSJRED N/MED HERE" FOR THE PQ. C'f PERlOO INDICATED,
NClTV.nHSTANDlNG NN R!OJIRSIÆNT, TERM CR COIOI11Q11 OF NN OON'IRICT OR ~ DOOJMENT 'NTH RES'ECrTO v.H~ TIE œmF1CJ\I'E MM II!: ISSJEI OR MM
!'ERr"'N. THE INSJRMlCE AFFCRDED IIYTJoIE F'OUoes DESCR/æo HERBN IS SU8.ECT' TO A.l1HE TERMS OCNDI'T1C11S ~ EXa.U901S a: &J~ F'OLIOES llr.ITS ~(7N¡
MMHA\IE ŒEN REDUCED IIYPI'IO a.J\lMS
UIIITS
co 'M'E OF IUURNlCE 'OuçyNlUIlIER pouçy E FFE C1IV'E PQ.lCY EXPIlATIOI
LTR OATE (llII/ODNY) DATE llIIJDDNY)
Œ:NERAl. UABIUlY
A X ca..MERCA. GENeùIl. UlIBIllTY GL03486405 04101102 0410 1/03
a.~MSM.ICE ŒJ OCOJ"-
ONNER'S .. CCNT1IACTCR'S FORCT
/lUTOII œu; UAIIIUTY
A X 1NY NJ'TO BAP3<i18&404 04'01102 04101/03
A A.L ONNED AUTOS BAP3486421 04lO11C2 0410 1/03
S>lECULED AUTœ
HII~eo NJ'Tœ
NO'I-<MNED 1oJJT0IJ
QAA,I(] E UAIItUTY
JNV NJ'TO
EXC£U UAIIUtY
C X UMeREU."FCRM BEB7196B2 11 /28(01 11J21!{02
aTHER 'THAN UMBREtl" FCRM
W K
E. PLCTltRS" L WIIUTY
B 3486403 (AI 0111« StatllS) 04101/02 04101/03
A THe PP\OF'!'JET~ INa. 3486409 (MA Only) 04101/02 04101/03
F' AFmIeISÐIS 0J'I'1\IE
a:F1c:;;RS IRE: exa.
$
PROOUCfS-CQlP/CPAGG $
$
$
$
$
S
GEN8VJ. KiGtEGA.TE
!'ERSONA. .. .IOVIN..\JRY
CQlIII"'ED SNQ.E UNIT
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
500,000
5,000
1,000,000
s
I!OIÄ Y IN.uRY
(P- p...m}
$
IIODI. YINJJRY
(1). aa:Idort1
$
1'R0I'ER1'Y DMAGE
.ouTO ON!. Y - E" ACOOENT
OTHER THAN AUTOO'<lY:
EACH ACCDEIIIT $
$
S
S
S
AGGREGATE
EACH OCCUR"-ENœ
¡\GGR~AlE
S
El Ot~Q.ICY UNIT S
EL OtæA$éJCH EMF>lOYæ $
$
10,000,000
10,000,000
~-~~~
......,.,.",...,...~-=-~,(""",:-O.~..... ,#:, ;..
~~'?iM.<V""'~_V
500,000
500,000
500,000
DEI aI P TION Of gp ERA TIOIIIII.CCATIONaNE ItICLU/'" ECUi. 11£111 ..-cra IIAY E IUIIJE CT TO D£DUC1a.ES OR R£TEN! T10IIII
CER1lFICATE HOLDER IS NAMED AS ADDmONALlNSURED FOR GENERAL LlABIUìY ONLY BUT ONLY AS RESPEClS UABlLlìY ARISING FROM
THE OPERA1l0NS OF THE INSURED. 'M>RKERS' COMPENSA110N DOES NOT APPLY TO MONOPOUSl1C STATES (ND, OH, WA...~, AND Wf),
PUERTO RICO OR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. PHY. eMG.: COMP - $1 ,000 TRACTORS, S250 ALL OiHERS; COLL - $1 ,000 TRACTORS, ~ All
OTHERS,
~: :=-:~~~-.~~~'=~~:~~~;~::;;'T:::~-=::~~-~··~0~ ~ ~
5T, WCIE COUNìY
23CO VlRGINA AVENUE
FORT PIERCE, FL 34982-5652
INOUJI AHf 01 TM 'aJœ. __D _IN If CMICILL!D .!!'OII! ne !ICI"!\A1ICtI þj\TI! _CP,
.,.. __.. _011_ CCM!IIA<I! WI!. INI!WOI TO ....L --2A þj\vs ~N ocma! TO_
Œl<T1I'1a<n NO.DØ ......, _ IUI' 'AII.LIII! TO ...... __ NCma _L _ NO ClUGIII11CN at
UMUn'OI'IHrIO/CI __'NUlIII AFFDlUllHaCXM!MaE. m;-..0tI _RHT.Q'IYI&
Mat Uat. ftc'
~ John C Hurley
~~~
_. ..".^..'...;;.¡~..-:.....~. '.'~~::-:":;;"~. _~ ~A~~~ ~
;;0 ." C-¡
CD ....·0
(J .......D
OCDZ
ï Z
0. Z rrl
CDS:::
c.3;:r:
..0"0
DCD ,
a:J.., :3:
......... D
I',) Z
I',) '.
.......,....J
DOC':)
1'..:1 CO,
~ rrl
--.J ;;0
o --.J ;:0:::
CO CO
.. 0
.þ. 0 ."
CO ::0
~
Iz1 ;:r:
o rrl
O'
"" C':)
I--i
~ ::0
tn CJ
--.J C
0.."
-!
-C
DC':)
GlO
rrl c:
:::0
-!
r-<
~ I
~
Co')
:D
'-1
"7'
:=¡
Suite 370, Owings Hills. Maryland 21117 r--
c.
Ç)
....-f
1'1
CJ
o
c:
Z
~
-<
'-'
...,
Bond No. 017-007-947
or
SECTION 00610
PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION BOND
Norment Security Liberty Mutual
BY THIS BOND, We Group, Inc., as Principal and ~ce ,a corpgratj,o,(kaJiPurety,
are bound to the ST. LUCIE COUNTY, herein called·C . the sum of $~~ent of
which we bind ourselves, our heIrs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns, Jointly and
s~verally.
THE CONDITION OF THIS BOND is that If Principal:
August
1. Performs the Contract dated 8 , 2002 between Principal and County for the
Upgrades to the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility Security Systems, located within SI. Lucie
County, Florida, the Contract being made a part of this bond reference, at the times and In the manner
prescribed In the Contract.
2. Promptly makes payments to all claimants, as defined in Section 255.05(1), Florida
Statues, supplying Principal with labor, materials, or supplies. used directly or indirectly by Principal in
the prosecution of the work provided for In the Contract; and
3. Pays County all losses, damages including but not limited to delay damages.
expenses, costs, and attorney's fees, Including appellate proceedings, that County sustains because of
a default by Principal under the Contract; and
4, Performs the guarantee of aU work and materials furnished under the Contract for the
time specified in the Contract, then this bond Is void; otherwise It remains in full force.
This bond is subject to the provisions of Section 255.05, Florida Statutes. Any changes in or under the
Contract Documents and compliance or noncompliance with any formalities connected wIth the
Contract or the changes does not affect Surety's obligation under this bond.
Principal agrees to record this bond in the Official Records for St. Lucie County before the
commencement of the work subject of this bond.
DATED ON: August 9 , 20~
PRINCIPAL :
Norment Security Group, Inc.
Maryland 21076
--..
~
~
....,
OR BOOK 1570 PAGE 112
..
Claims against this bond are subject to the notice and lime provisions set forth in Section 255.05,
Florida Statutes. .
CERTIFICATES AS TO CORPORATE PRINCIPAL
I, tV(....{l¡Jv, certify that I am the Secretary of the Corporation named as Principal in the within
~~I}¡d; ,1~at"\)c.ÞI"'4h A At"1o(.J who signed the said bond on behalf of the Principal. was then
,q1fø1"¡O'Cj - t'~Sf.~ld Corporation; that I know his signature, and hIs signature hereto Is genuine; and that
"""'~~"'¡JØ~~S duly signed, sealed, and attested for and In behalf of said Corporation by authority of Its
,..'\ ~ dy.
~.~~ ~r '.
.., c·".,.,,"'.-. . ,.... .~:.ot.....',~
:::~ r -.. .~- ^ ð.";;:: .:-~...... '.' ,
'" "... ~,v.nf~.~ _;,;'", , .,.
i ~: ~~~., L~oralè Seal)
- w - ."....":(1 '"' t;;;7" ._
~~.v ! ..,l.. _. 1 .....~_
·S......,·· 'Ii -. ._.'
~·t~{-:g ;T5'~~J' "",-:"':
.J ':'.......A,........ Må:rirfan .';:~' ,.,'.:,...
~ ~·r" J~~~~ .. ,.')";J!I'~
_..~~,,~:ð[¡.~t ~.o .~id~re)
~ .... .-: .~. I..IfIH""', .._.~.; .
.·,.1;j" .."I ~':ht"'¡II\I'\, J:;',... .," .
;f-~.'{!r'·::J !?,efort"m~;;a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified and acting, personally appeared
Debò~:~'fBroWrto me well known, who being by me first duly sworn upon oath, says that he is the Attomey-ln~Fact,
Libe~ilif6tuafi>r the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and that he has been authorized ~y
InsuraQcê _ to execute the foregoing bond on behalf of the Contractor named therein In favor of St. Lucie
Compatiy County, Florida.
,.......' -
--_.--.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
(Attach Power of Attorney)
I1ù¡
. '
.","
" ,
*'..,.
Bid No. 02.057
34
'-'
..,,¡'
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NOT VAUD UNLESS IT IS PRINTED ON RED BACKGROUND.
918784
This Power of A-ttorney limits the acts of those named herein, and they have no authority to bind the Company except In the manner Bnd to the
extent ¡ereln stated.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: OR BOOK 1570 PAGE 113
That Uberty Mutual Insurance Company (the ·Company"), a Massachusetts mutual insurance company. pursuant to and by authority 01 the By-law and
Authorization hereinafter set lorth, does hereby name, constitute and appoint MARY ANNIrtARBUf:¡Y,BRADLEYT. SENN, MICHAEL A. WALTER,
TERRY D. REYNOLDS, DEBQRAH B. BROWN, DIANA L. PARKER, ALL OF mE CITY OF COLUMBIA, STATE OF MARYLAND
...... ..................................................................., -. ........................ ........ .............. ..... ......... ..... .................. ... ...~.'............... .............. .......... ...~'... .-............ ................ ... .............
, each individually if there be more than one named. its true and lawful attorney-in-f¡iC\ to make; execute. sea~acknowledge and deliver. for and on Its behalf as
surety and as its act and deed. any and.all Undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other suretyobligationsinthe penal sum not exceeding
lWENTV·FIVE MILLION AND D()/10D····....·.....·....~DOLLARS($ 25,000,000.00...··..... ) each, and the execution of such
undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations, in pursuance 01 these preænts, shall be as binding upon the Company as if they had been
duly signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the Company in their own proper' persons.
>.
ID
"C
en
en
Q
c:
iii
::2
.a
>-
c
m
_C
-0
~I-
>-(J)
( W
EE
Oa.
=0
<M
-..
O~
..."0
QC
~ID
°e
Q.ID
.!!10
.co
- ..
_0'1
Oc
>-(
:t:Q
"O~
.-...
-41
~.a
( o
.c~
_N
e~
...N
-M
-Q)
C,
00
u...
o~
1-,..
-
ëii
&.
41
"0.
.xII)
c(
m.!!
.aC
.;-f!
.- cu
"0::2
eCl
uQ)
-::2
0-
...cu
Q>
--
-m
~::2
.'C
c-
mil)
oe
~~
cuo
-41
0_
Cm
.~
Q)-
DIll)
IDCU
CI~
~.!
0'=
E .
GI
...-
om
-...
'C»
:=U
CUC
>GI
-...
0'"
zg
That this power Is made and executed pursuant to and by authority 01 the lollowing By-law and Authorization:
ARTICLE XVI - Execution of Contracts: Section 5, Surety Bonds and Undertakings,
Any officer or other official 01 the company authorized for that purpose in writing by the chairman or the president, and subject to such limitations as
the chairman or the president may prescribe, shall appoint such attomeys-in-fact, as may be necessary to act in behalf 01 the company to make,
execute, seal. acknowledge and deliver as surety any and all undertakings. bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations. Such attorneys-in-
lact, subject 10 the limitations set forth in their respective powers of attorney, shall have lull power to bind the company by their signature and
execution 01 any such instruments and to attach thereto the seal of the company, When so executed such instruments shall be as binding as if
signed by the president and attested by the secretary,
By the following instrument the chairman or the president has authorized the officer or other official named therein to appoint attorneys-in-fact
Pursuant to Article XVI, Section 5 of the By-laws, Timothy C, Mulloy, an official of Uberty Mutual Insurance Company, is hereby authorized to appoint
such attorneys-in-Iact as may be necessary to act in behalf of the company 10 make, execute, seal. acknawledge and deUver as surety any and all
undertakings. bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations. All Powers of Attorney attested 10 or executed by Timothy C, Mulloy in his capacity
as an officer or official 01 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, whether before, on or after the date of this Authorization. including without limitation
Powers 01 Attorney attested to or executed as Assistant Secretary of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, are hereby ratified and approved,
That the By-law and the Authorization set lorth above are true copies thereof and are now in full force and effect,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power 01 Attorney has been subscribed by an authorized officer or official of the Company and the corporate seal 01 Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company has been affixed thereto in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsytvania this ?Oth day 01 np~pmhPr 2(1() 1
UBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
BY~ 0. -^À~
Timo C, Muf~ssistant Secre ry ~
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 5S
COUNTY OF MaNTGOMERY
On Ihis-Æm!L day 01 December .' 2001 ,befor6' me, a Notary Public. personally came Timothv C, Mullov. to me known, and
acknowledged that he is an official öfUberty Mutual Insurance Company; that he knows theS~at of said corporation; 8i1dthal he executed the above Power of
Attorney and affixed the corporate $æI of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company thereto IVith the authority and at the direction of S< id corporation.
'~'~.".'."'..'" /! -1-11.. . .'.
",,¡:' ...~
_." ~<;;i'-, .' ..ubik: ...... ..... ..
~ Y.'vsv\..\jÇl' ~ . ;:...~:; ';....,. . ..' ,
I. the undersigned. Assisla rf ¡tv rty Mutual Insurance Company, do hereby cer1jfy.~~~1 power of attorney of which the foregoing is a full, true and corract
copy, Is In fulllorce and effect on e of this certificate; and 1 do further certify thai ~'~?f'ÒllÌdârwtpe~ th4Ïsaid power of attomey was one of the officers Of officials
specially authoñzed by the chairman or the president 10 appoint attomeys.ln-ra~~~J~~~J.~¡,~¿~-IaWS of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
This certificate and the above power of attDmey may be signed by f. acs~ ~ ~:.;¡~.·.·,.111. ." .~' ~. r by aUlhor1ty of the foRowlng vote of the board of
directors 01 Uberty Mutuallnsuranœ Company at a meeting duly cal .: . ..__ ?~e ~~'1~~:~.."./
VOTED that the facsimile or mechanicaJly reproduced -iY.r, aluf.~~1:..~.t~~~~Wherever appearing upon a œrtifoed copy of any power of
attorney issued by the company in connection wtth surety ~~~7~:~.:.f!'~;'. "11h .the same force and effact as 1hough manually affixed.
INTESTIMONYWHEREOF,lhaVehereunI0subscribedmynameand"'~~~~~~~~~ 9th day 01 August , 200Z
"_~<"""I--;r- ... \\.."~
.#~;.::"...~~:,~~l '1!~"~~~\\ . ...' ~ '/'" /,/
~. '~,~p .. }-. , .P.~
_.'/'.,:r-.:,., . ~iW F. x, Hee, Assistant Secretary
..___.___.~...n__ ___" ,_.____'___
". ~.
:',.>.-:
CERTIFICATE
~ M
. '~'-----
~, .
,_.:~A~Be-autifu L:H òrú~J~
_ _ .. (11 "1;.[<" - ~ Z:)u{íf~
ø~:'l";¡?~ .aft Fffi ,If! " ø/' !!if
,_/ "!L/ $"....~ 'X.- t'n<,/<-í, $: ..~ .,~ .# ':;,
'( " -,L
.'
'U nivers1
--'-;';¡;";;~f(!(:turers ojVérdc{¡! B!iñi:li''&~t,
Professional Installation &}
Wood Blinds· Vertical Blin¡
Luminette® . Custom Shutt!;
fREE Shop-At-Home Sèr:j
- BROWARD",-J,
3920 NW 49th Street],
Tamarác '1
. .-,
Bro1l"ard: (954) £186-7875 .~£~
Boca:, (9¡:;4).1~1.-:1~;6~ºc,>~.)
Crime in Martin and St. Lucie counties
Auto thefts were down for most agencies, except the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office and
Port St. Lucie, according to data released Tuesday by the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement. The numberof murders nearly doubled in Fort Pierce, but were down in all
other age.ncies.
STAFF GRAPHIC
. : ~':"
- \
_." _0
.--------
'-'
-...I
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
04-109
Board of County Com
, s~rs
ounty Administrator
FROM:
Douglas M. Anderson,
DATE:
June 15, 2004
St. Lucie County Jail - Informative Materials
RE:
The Citizens' Budget Development Committee along with members of County staff and the
Sheriff's Office toured the State-owned Martin Juvenile Justice Maximum Security Facility
last May to determine whether or not this facility could be used to house St. Lucie County
Inmates.
Attached is an e-mail received today from Ed Lounds, Citizens' Budget Development
Committee Member, with his current understanding of the situation.
Also attached are Public Safety Coordinating Council Ad-Hoc Meeting minutes discussing
alternative housing of inmates ideas, and comments on the tour of the Martin Correctional
Facility.
A May 8, 2003 memorandum from Pat Ferrick, Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Member, is also attached, offering her comments.
This morning I contacted Senator Pruitt's office and they confirmed that the $3,500,000 to
construct utility lines to Martin Juvenile Justice Maximum Security Facility has not been
funded in the upcoming State budget and is not occupied. I have also discussed this with
Martin County Sheriff, Robert Crowder. There is also a Department of Corrections
Maximum Security Facility located next door operating off of well water.
DMNab 04-109
c: Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Citizens' Budget Development Committee
Public Safety Coordinating Council
Attachments
¡.Douglas Anderson - Re: Fwd: Flori
tate youth offender prison inMartin County
Page 1 I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Anne Bowers
Anderson, Douglas
Tue, Jun 15, 2004 7:42 AM
Re: Fwd: Florida State youth offender prison in Martin County
>>> Douglas Anderson 6/15/2004 7:41 :36 AM >>>
»> <Elounds@aol.com> 6/14/2004 9:13:15 PM »>
Doug, The Citizen Budget Review Committee, along with members of the County administration, Ray
Wazny, Central Services, and the Sheriffs office toured the State Juvenile prison facilities in Martin
County. That facility is west of the State prison on State Road 609 and the county line. The Youthful
Offender Prison would be a great and wonderful facility to use if we could over come one slight problem,
That problem is the State never got the potable water permits or lines nor the sewer lines run or
connected to the prison from State Road 609. Martin County was not going to run the lines without the
states agreement to pay for the installation.
Senator Pruitt tried to get the fees and cost for the lines into this years budget and was refused along with
some bitter feelings from the Senate President.
That facility has been complete for 18 months and never used. A true waste of tax monies.
The Citizens Budget Review Committee has been working with the jail population problem since the TENT
CITY issue went into effect with Sheriff Knowles,
The Commissioners all get the minute of the CBRC meetings and the Safety Council meetings so they
should all be up to speed on the issues, as I'm sure they all read the minutes.
Let me know if I can be of further help with this project.
ED Lounds
Ed Lounds
Brandt Consolidated
elounds@aol.com
'-'
'wi
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
AD HOC COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
May 16, 2003
Convened: 8:00 A.M.
Adjourned: 10:08 A.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ed Lounds called the Meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room #3,2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
2. ROLL CALL
Roll call was not taken
Members Present: Major Pat Tighe, St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office
Dorothy Belcher, Senior Adm. Dept. of Correction Probation & Parole
Judge Philip Yacucci
Mitchell Hilburn. SLC Bail Bonds Association
Commissioner Paula Lewis
Ed Lounds, Citizens' Budget Committee
Sylvie Kramer, Citizens' Budget Committee
Tom Willis, Court Administrator
Pat Ferrick, Citizens' Budget Committee
David Phoebus, State Attorney's Office
Members Absent: Judge Cynthia Angelos
Diamond Litty, Public Defender
Commissioner John Bruhn
JoAnne Holman, Clerk of Circuit Court (Out of town)
Keith Pickering, Bar Association
Others Present: Ja'net Pentz, Aide to Commissioner John Bruhn
Karen Countryman, S1. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
J. Russ, S1. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
Ray Wazny, S1. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
Chairman Lounds stated that the Committee needed to elect a vice chairman, so that if he
was unable to attend someone could carry on. He stated he would entertain names or
nominations for vice chairman. Dave Phoebus stated that since it is the Sheriffs jail he
thought that the Sheriffs representative should be the vice chairman. Major Tighe stated he
would have no objections, but since it is the Sheriff's jail, it may be more objective if
someone else would volunteer. Tom Willis stated that he would volunteer to be the vice
chairman. Chairman Lounds stated all in favor of Tom Willis as the vice chairman. All
stated aye, motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lounds announced that Tom Willis was
now the vice chairman.
'-'
....,¡
3. PRESENTATION OF IDEAS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman Lounds stated the Committee was created to look at jail bloating or overcrowding,
He stated that Major Tighe had obtained books on jail bloating which gives ideas on
monitoring, fast tracking, and notice to appear and magistrates that are permanently at the
jail to hold and to address first time offenders. He stated that there is a lot of information in
the book and amazingly there are about four places that St. Lucie County is mentioned.
Chairman Lounds stated when the Committee talks about social services and the mental
health patients we need to consider instead of putting them in jail and holding them getting
them to New Horizons. He stated that this is a State deal and the State is pushing all of that
funding back on the Counties. Chairman Lounds stated in talking with and understanding
some problems that are occurring at New Horizons the majority of the folks that the
Department tries to go to New Horizons occur early evening and at night. He stated that the
night shift at New Horizons is different then the day shift at New Horizons. Chairman Lounds
stated there is a problem at New Horizons. He stated that as the Committee reads through
this book they will need to think about how we will pay for these services. Chairman Lounds
stated that the cheapest way is to put a person in jail, and we are faced with a lot of
expenses on that right now. He stated with that in mind he would like to look at the second
sheet and get comments from the Committee members. Discussion ensued on the absent
of the ability to track data and unified information. Mr. Phoebus explained what the State
Attorney's office is doing to track data and can do to speed up the pre-trial felons. Chairman
Lounds stated that each of the Committee members needs to look at their own departments
and see how we can speed up the system. He stated this is a composite of about four or
five ideas that came from reading the book that Major Tighe just gave to Committee
meetings. Chairman Lounds stated that there are also things that have been missed in the
book that have been brought from other Committee meetings. He stated that one is the
Sheriffs Department working with the municipalities and seeing if they can be charged for
notices to appear. Chairman Lounds stated that there are things such as that, which would
help to defray some of the cost of these. He stated that this segment and those ideas are
not in the packet, but are things that this Committee needs to look at, because part of the
Committee is from the Citizen's Budget and we have to be attuned to what they will cost us,
Chairman Lounds read word for word from the document given to Committee members titled
Jail Population Committee (please see attached copy). He asked for comments from the
Committee and discussion ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated as a recommendation the Committee should look at what to do with
overcrowding, and asked the Committee if it would be possible to have a goal of 10 to 12%
to reduce the jail population. He asked the Committee if they could look at ways at cutting
back overcrowding by 10 to 12%. Chairman Lounds asked if this would be realistic. Major
Tighe stated that he thought if this panel did nothing else, they needed to at least set a
mission statement that they will at least attempt to do that. He stated if the panel does not
reach the goal, but does stop the population from rising then it will have been a success.
Discussion ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated that the Committee now has a mission goal to reduce the jail
population by 23%.
Chairman Lounds stated when the Administration goes to the County Commission, the
questions that are going to come from the County Commission are; are you looking at
monitoring, are you looking at ways to reduce population and what are you doing and how
are you doing it. He stated that the Committee needs to be able to give Mr. Waznyand Mr.
'-'
~
Anderson the information that says yes, we are looking at that and yes, we are addressing
that and yes we are working on that, but it is not the short term fix to get us through.
Chairman Lounds stated that overcrowding is long term and forever. He asked Mr. Wazny if
he would be able to use this information in the Board's packet and how much more
information would he need. Mr. Wazny stated that he would take the minutes from several
meetings that have discussed the jail overcrowding issues because it is something they
have asked for.
Chairman Lounds asked Major Tighe if he had brought his ideas on funding from the
Sheriffs Department. He stated that he had brought the 5220 program and the goals. Major
Tighe stated that if the County could help, knowing that the jail population is based off of the
County population and the County being in the best seat to provide projected numbers for
what the population will be then maybe some County statistics need to come to this
Committee. Chairman Lounds commented on the unwritten seven day rule. Tom Willis
stated that he has been with the Courts since 1988 and has never heard this. Discussion
ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated that a lot of discussion will come out through this Committee that all
of these things mesh and make the system what it is today. He stated the problem is still
two fold and have to be able to tell the Board of County Commission that the Committee has
a goal to reduce overcrowding. Chairman Lounds stated the other part the Committee has
got to be able to do is get this information to the public. He stated if the public does not
understand what they are doing, then they have not done anything. David Phoebus stated
that the Committee needed to invite the press. Chairman Lounds asked where the press
was. He stated that somewhere along the line, if through the County, they can get the
information out that all of this plays a part in overcrowding and that the Committeeis trying to
control our tax dollars. David Phoebus asked if this was a published meeting. Chairman
Lounds stated yes. Mr. Phoebus stated if it was published then the press just does not care.
Major Tighe stated that he would try to supply this panel with better statistics, that it would
not take individual cases, but would show the clumps of individuals or classes that are
caught in the system. Discussion ensued. Chairman Lounds asked if we could identify what
portion of the County that an inmate comes from. He stated that he would be interested in
the unincorporated area, City of Fort Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie and would like to
know what impact those three have on the jail population and variety or class. Discussion
ensued. Mr. Phoebus stated that he would be able to print the persons name, date of arrest,
class of arrest and zip code, which would give Mr. Willis the information, to figure out if there
are things that can be done internally in the Court System to speed things up.
Major Tighe asked Mitch Hilburn if they are getting enough information and access at the 8t.
Lucie County Jail. Mr. Hilbum stated that they would like to be able to get access to the
status of the people that are incarcerated and bondable, but have not been bonded. He
stated that they do not know how many people are held that could be bonded on felonies
that are still there. Mr. Hilburn stated if they could get that information then it would certainly
be important to the bail bondsman. Major Tighe asked what list they would want. Mr.
Hilburn stated that he would want a list of everyone in the jail. Major Tighe stated he wòuld
have it posted at the jail, so that it would be available to everyone.
Chairman Lounds gave each of the Committee members an opportunity to ask questions
and give comments.
'-'
....,
Chairman Lounds asked Mr. Wazny if he had any questions or comments that he would
need from the Committee in order to prepare the packets for the Board of County
Commissioners. He asked Mr. Wazny if he had what he needed. Mr. Wazny stated that yes
he had what he needed and Missy would get the minutes typed up from this meeting which
will also be included in the packets. Chairman Lounds asked Mr. Wazny what his opinion
was that the recommendation was from this Committee to the Board of County Commission.
Mr. Wazny stated that based upon the discussion here, he feels the Committee direction is
that two pods are essential and the recommendation is to find money to not only put the two
pods in, but to also see if we would be able to put in the dorm and do the interior
refurbishment. He stated that in the meantime the Committee would focus on working on
things that can be done administratively to reduce the jail population.
Chairman Lounds stated that for the next meeting he would like for each of the Committee
members to bring from their areas items to be put on the agenda for the next meeting, so
that we can proceed with this. He stated that if the Committee is going to do this they have
got to stay focused on the end result, which it to make the goal of bringing the jail population
down.
4. COMMENTS ON TOUR OF MARTIN COUNTY FACILITIES
Chairman Lounds stated the committee met Major Tighe and went through some of the
facilities in Martin County. He stated that Pat Ferrick sent out a letter to most of the
Committee members covering what she saw and felt (please see attached copy). Chairman
Lounds stated that everyone should have a copy of Ms. Ferrick's comments that echo what
was there and also a copy of the recommendations that came from that meeting and
discussion as the committee toured not only the facility at Martin County Youthful
Correctional, but also looked at their dormitory. He stated they all should have two
handouts; one has a line and a space that should cover the ideas of housing prisoners in
other counties, as well as some of the pros and cons for what it would cost. Chairman
Lounds asked that everyone please look it over for a minute. He stated the idea behind it is
to give the corrections temporary relief until the pods are built to bring the numbers back
down into a manageable point. He stated one of the things that we need to bear in mind is
the economics of all of this, through this jail population reduction. Chairman Lounds stated
that they need to think about what we can do with not only the numbers, but also with some
economics in mind. He stated the thought process of the Martin County Facility was that it
was the closest, just across the county line; some of the issues that Mrs. Ferrick brought are
also in the general summary ofthe Committee's thoughts as when well as they traveled and
looked. Chairman Lounds asked Committee members to please look over Pat's notes,
because they were thorough and covered a lot of the pros and cons with it. He stated that
one of the things that comes to mind as a tax payer is, why he is paying all this money for a
state facility and there is no one in it. Chairman Lounds stated that he thinks this is a sign of
things to come from the State. He asked is anyone had questions on Pat's letter. Chairman
Lounds asked if anyone had comments on the list of thoughts and ideas on jail population
from the jail population committee. Pat Ferrick stated that she did, and that it was stated in
her letter. She commented on the Martin County facility and was amazed at the amount of
money that has been spent on that facility and is still being spent on the facility. Ms. Ferrick
commented that no one is using it, but it was a beautiful facility.
Chairman Lounds asked Major Tighe to comment briefly on the feeling from corrections as
to what it would take to go to Martin County. Major Tighe stated the first thing would be the
lack of water. He stated supposedly the facility was built acting on a Federal grant where the
'-"
...",¡
money had to be spent and now Martin County is refusing to supply water to it. Major Tighe
stated that Indian Town plans to supply the water in FY 2004 sometime. He said the builder
stated that St. Lucie County could at approximately $3 million cost supply water to the
facility, which would be out of the question. Major Tighe went on to explain other reasons
why this facility would not work to help with the overcrowding of the 8t. Lucie County jail.
Chairman Lounds stated that for these reason this takes it out of the realm of us putting
prisoners there to temporarily overcome or long-term overcome, what we would like to do.
He stated they went to the Martin County Sheriffs Office and facility to look at the
dormitories that they had built, which are minimum-security dormitories. Chairman Lounds
stated that it was a nice facility and the Sheriffs Department would consider doing
something like this, as a temporary relief for trustees, minimum-security people and
weekend folks to get more bed space in the jail. He stated that what we need to keep in
mind is that it is not necessarily total numbers, but having jail space in the right categories of
people to give us the relief. Chairman Lounds stated that It may not be the trustees creating
the overcrowding, it is the harden criminals, the felons, and such that we have to have space
for. He stated one of the things that was floating around in the discussions while we were at
the dormitory facility in Martin County was that if we spent the time, money and effort to build
that, we could do that same amount of effort to get the pods up and running. Chairman
Lounds stated the ultimate goal, is to get the pods up and running. He said this Committee
needs to decide whether we would advise the Board of County Commissioners to look at a
dormitory effect as well as pods, or move forward as rapidly as we could with pod
develo me
Sylvie Kramer stated if we do the dormitory style, and the trustees and non-violent felons are
moved to it, then the space that they are going to free up in the existing jail would that need
to be remodeled. Major Tighe stated that is correct. He stated that they have an estimate
on it somewhere around $650,000. Major Tighe stated the dormitory would cost
approximately $860,000 to build outside the confines of the current Rock Road facility and it
would be another $650,000 to refurbish the existing dormitory that they are in and harden for
medium secure prisoners, which they have an over abundance of.
Chairman Lounds asked Major Tighe in his consideration, and in the knowledge that he
brings from a history of corrections, would this be a temporary fix for what we are trying to do
or is it a separate issue for what we are trying to do and get two pods through the County
Commission with information and get up and go with it? Major Tighe stated the he would
have to answer this in two parts. He stated that they look at the dormitory style as an
intermediate solution prior to the pods coming on. He stated they are overcrowded today
with 250 inmates and therefore look at it as an intermediate solution. Major Tighe stated
when looking at the cost of $860,000 and $650,000 to refurbish the inside, he thinks it is
cost prohibited. Major Tighe stated that the Committee should make recommendations on
these three short-term solutions, so we at least have intermediate notes to bring to the
Public Safety Meeting on the 29th and then we can look at new ideas today.
Chairman Lounds asked the Committee members to look on the first handout and see the
three reconsiderations.
Major Tighe stated the 81. Lucie County Sheriffs Office contacted 17 county jails, which
were Lafayette County, Taylor County, Hardee County, Lake County, Glades County, Pasco
County, Highlands County, DeSoto County, Marion County, Polk County, Indian River
County, Hillsborough County, Collier County, Okeechobee County, Martin County, Leon
County and Alchua County to see if they had any additional space for us to house additional
~
'-'
prisoners there. He stated that only 4 jails that we contacted said that they had space. Major
Tighe identified each of the four counties with space and explained reasons why each of
them would not be feasible. He stated there are also statutory issues to house St. Lucie
County prisoners outside of this jurisdiction and there would be jurisdictional issues to have
staff work outside the jurisdiction. Major Tighe stated that this is not a solution for short
term. Chairman Lounds asked for comments from the Committee. Ms. Kramer stated that
the cost would be exorbitant, but there are some statutory issues, that it does not make a
difference. Major Tighe stated the statutory issues are not inoperable, there are some
issues, but it is really the cost and the distance.
Ms. Kramer commented that she has been around a long time, and we have been
discussing this for a long time and feels that the issue keeps getting side-stepped when
ultimately we need the pods, She stated at some point we are going to have to stop the
dancing and get down to business.
Major Tighe stated the soonest we could have the first pod would be May 2004. Ms Kramer
asked if we could struggle through with this. Major Tighe answered probably not, which is
why after we look at these three solutions and vote on whether or not we are going to go with
one or all three, we will have something documented for the Public Safety Coordinating
Council on the 29th, then we will start looking at some new solutions. He stated that he has
some new solutions and Ed has asked the Committee members to bring their new solutions.
Sylvie Kramer stated that she thinks we can struggle through by looking at them, but thought
that the mentally ill should be put where they belong. MajorTighe stated that the mentally ill
is taking a shift since the last time we met; the State has basically cut the budget on all drug
and alcohol rehabs and mental ill. He stated that New Horizons is going to be coming back
to the County, because they have already come to the Sheriffs Office with their hand out,
asking for money. Chairman Lounds stated that this is a sign of the times for all the social
services coming out of the State of Florida, which we will get into in looking at the ways we
can lower the population. Major Tighe stated the importance of that is that the Sheriffs
Office jail will be the largest mental health provider in the County, which is not what it is
meant for. He stated that everyone at the table needed to know that.
Pat Ferrick asked if the Committee voted on the short-term solutions contained in the
document would it alleviate the situation until the jail pods would be complete in 2004. Major
Tighe stated that he did not think that the three solutions were feasible at all because they
are all cost prohibited.
Judge Yacucci stated that one thing that is not provided for by statute for misdemeanor
cases is community control, electronic monitoring, that sort of thing. He asked if anyone has
ever looked at the possibility of when people are serving sentences, even if it's a
misdemeanor case, if we did some kind of community control that is not really statutorily
authorized, but if we did it for a short time, nobody is going to really challenge it, certainly the
defense is not going to challenge it because they are not sitting in jail. Judge Yacucci stated
there may be a way that we can figure out something, even if it would mean spending money
on some electronic monitoring equipment to where we could select the best possible
candidates for that, which may be the way to eliminate some of the percentage that would
otherwise be serving two or three month sentences at the jail, and that way we may be able
to reduce the population a little bit that way.
Major Tighe stated that he did not believe that anybody from the Sheriffs Office had looked
'-
...."
into that. He stated when you talk about electronic monitoring, that this is the most restrictive
of all, house arrest. Major Tighe stated there is pre-trial release, which we monitor by
telephone and other means, He stated there is day reporting. This is where the person can
be released, pre-trial release, and has to report daily and they can also be sentenced to day
reporting, but electronic monitoring and other forms with electronic monitoring combined with
a bail bond is the most stringent of all and the most staff intensive. Major Tighe stated that
he has heard electronic monitoring mentioned at County Commission meetings and other
places. He stated to remember that he comes from a place, Broward County where they
have 7,000 people released from jail. They have 5,000 people in custody and 7,000 on the
street. He stated it is very staff intensive and these people have to be watched 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year. Major Tighe stated that you will also run the risk of someone violating,
which make it a public safety issue. Judge Yacucci stated that is true, but what we are
talking about is trying to find a one or two year solution to reduce enough, yet get where we
need to go. He stated that it does not have to be electronic monitoring and maybe it can be
a call in situation everyday. Judge Yacucci stated we would be taking some chances, but
we are going to be taking some chances anyv.¡ay if we do not do something, because
basically the judges are going to have to make some decisions, for example this person is
less of a risk than this person is, so we can reduce the bond or we can give probation
instead of extra jail time. He stated we may have to look at something like this. Discussion
ensued on whether or not this would help the overcrowding and if the pre-trial
misdemeanors are the ones crowding the jails. Major Tighe stated that he looked at pre-trial
and did a statistical analysis on what Broward County does to pre-trial. He stated they have
650 out and what St. Lucie County statically could do, based on the population would
probably be 165 defendants that could be released on a pre-trial release type basis. Mitch
Hilburn asked if it would be a publicly funded pre-trial. Major Tighe stated yes. He stated
that everyone is looking at the Sheriff's Office to do the pre-trial or the electronic monitoring
but it would take the Judges and the State Attorney first to agree that these people would get
release, not the Sheriffs Office. Major Tighe stated that it would then take the County to say
who would do it. He stated they would need to decide who would run the program if it would
be the County running or a private firm. Major Tighe stated that either way the County would
have to fund it. Discussion ensued.
Chairman Lounds stated he would like to focus on the first question. He asked if the
Committee would like to make a recommendation to the County Commission that we house
our prisoners in other areas, build a dormitory for short term or proceed with the pods.
Chairman Lounds stated this was the three questions facing the Committee right now. Ms.
Kramer stated that they need to proceed with the new pods, but at the same time wanted to
know what should be done until they are built. Chairman Lounds stated that if the
Committee makes the decision to recommend they build a dormitory for relief and proceed
with the pods and/or try to house in other areas and proceed with the building of the pods.
He stated that they also have some other recommendations that may help with
overcrowding, which is really what this Committee was asked to do. Chairman Lounds
stated that Major Tighe has some books to pass out to Committee members. He stated that
in the books are some outstanding ideas. Chairman Lounds stated that before they discuss
the other issue he would like to address the questions. He asked if the Committee would
like to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the County house prisoners
in other prisons outside the County. Mr. Phoebus stated that before they answer that
question he would like to have some questions answered. He stated that this was his first
meeting and wanted to know what all of the options were before making a recommendation.
Mr. Phoebus asked if the dormitories would be the cheapest thing that could be done to
house minimum security people. Major Tighe stated yes the cheapest and most cost
....,
'-
efficient. He stated that the previous SjJerÓõüS8ëì'-them in tents, but they have
deteriorated. Discussion ensued regaJding the cheapest antI\most feasible solution to
housing the minimum security inma!.eš.' Majo/Tighe explained i~e other alternatives that
have been looked into as a short term fix, but'have long term implication. Ms. Ferrick asked
if the dorms and the pods could be wor¡{ed on at the same tirhe. Major Tighe stated
operationally yes, Chairman Lounds ~lked if they would still go through the $650,000
conversion to make the facility that we now have available for meäium security. Major Tighe
stated yes and we would be talking alMost $2 million rather thc.ín $860,000 because there
would be a dormitory and refurbishiì/inside. He stated thatJt'Íe cost benefit to the County is
prohibitive. Discussion ensued. Mr Wazny stated that thé County staff and Sheriff's staff
are working on a presentation to th Board of Countyßbmmissioners and hope to have a
complete package by Tuesday of\ next week s9-"tnat they have a week to digest the
recommendation to construct two jai~Rods. Jje-s(ated this would provide the Commission a
week before the hearing on the 2yth of KräyTo ask staff any questions if they have any and to
work out any additional information that the Board may want so that a decision can be made
on the 27'h. Mr. Wazny stated that just as Major Tighe has stated there really is no
intermediate solution economically. He stated there is a modular building for low risk
inmates and the big problem at the jail is the medium and high risk felons. Mr. Wazny stated
that the tent facilities will not fix the felon problem and the only thing that will fix it is the
construction of the jail pods. which is the way we need to go. He stated that once the felon
problem is resolved then we can look at ways to expand space for the medium and lower
risk. Mr. Wazny stated there is no intermediate solution unless there are other ideas that will
be presented today.
Chairman Lounds asked if it was the recommendation from the Committee to not advise the
County Commission or the Sheriffs Department to house prisoners in another County
facility. Committee members concurred that they did not want to recommend to the County
Commission to house inmates in another County.
Chairman Lounds asked if the Committee wanted to recommend to the Commission to
utilize the Juvenile facility in Martin County. Committee members concurred no; they did not
want to recommend to the County Commission to utilize the Martin County Juvenile facility.
Chairman Lounds asked if the Committee wanted to recommend building a dormitory style
building. Tom Willis commented the Committee needed to be careful how it will present the
options to the Commission because they could opt to build a dormitory and one pod instead
of two pods. He stated that it needs to be clear that without the second pod being used to
house Federal inmates we will not have the funds available to pay for the first pod nor
support staff for the second pod. Discussion ensued on the best recommendation to be
presented to the County Commission. Mr. Lounds stated that for the May 25th meeting this
Committee needs to be able to give the Administration firm, supportative recommendations.
Ms. Kramer stated the Committee needs to continue. We cannot wait, and if we do, it will
just cost more, so we need to recommend the two pods and continue to look at bettering the
system between the Courts and the other agencies. Judge Yacucci stated that he thought
the Committee should be strong and go for two pods and a dorm and then the Commission
would have the option of asking for other altematives. Mr. Phoebus commented on the short
term fix of fast tracking and explained that it did not have significant impact on what they did.,·
He asked Major Tighe at what percent the jail was over today. Major Tighe stated the jail
was 23% over. Mr. Phoebus stated that if nothing is done and the Feds come in and claim
critical then the Judge can come in with a temporary order and say okay you have 30 days to
get them out and we will really be in a jam because if we do not do it, they will. Major Tighe
'-'
'-
stated that worse then that, they could have an untimely death, which will cost more than the
pods ever thought about being. T A Wyner, Chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union
stated that to her knowledge there is no threat of a lawsuit or pending lawsuit. She stated
"Jim Green is her personal attorney and friend, and their concern is the same as the
Committees, to find remedies that will possibly take out multiple misdemeanors one year
sentences because there are people that are in our jail that are serving more than a year for
misdemeanors that are stacked one on top of the other." Ms. Wyner stated that they have
no intention of bringing a suit at this time, but are happy to see that the Committee is talking
about it. She stated they have no intention of bringing a suit and does not know what the
people in the Committee are talking about.
Chairman Lounds asked Mr. Wazny how much help he would need from this Committee on
the 27'h presentation. Mr. Wazny stated the presentation to the Board is essentially a three
page report which would be backed up by tabbed charts and minutes of this meeting and
past meetings. He stated if the Committee would like to present something to the Board of
County Commissioners that would be great, but Board direction to staff was to provide
complete information as to where we are on the Federal program, Citizen's Budget
Committee recommendation and the recommendations of this Committee in tab form and
provided to the Board with a target date of Tuesday of next week. Mr. Wazny stated that it
may be appropriate for the Committee Chair to speak to the Board on the consensus of the
Committee. Ms. Ferrick stated that she thought the Committee should give a strong
recommendation from this Board to proceed with all three and the refurbishing, and then put
it in the County Commissions lap, and let them make the decision. Discussion ensued.
It was moved by Pat Ferrick, seconded by David Phoebus, to recommend to the County
Commission to proceed with two pods, build a dorm and refurbish the facility for medium
security inmates. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chairman Lounds
reminded Committee members that they all need to be able to stand tall and take part of the
beating. He stated if they come out of it and they do not do it then shame on them.
Pat Ferrick asked how much one law suit would cost the County. Chairman Lounds asked
Attorney Heather Young if she could get this information. Attorney Young stated yes, she
would look into it. Ms. Ferrick stated that this information should be provided for the
Commission because one law suit may cost more than the $17 million. Major Tighe stated it
would be easy to say, what is life worth. Chairman Lounds asked Attorney Young if she
could get case history, which would give Ray an idea of what some of these law suits have
looked like.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, Chairman Ed Lounds adjourned the meeting at 10:08
a.m.
,~e;~CtfUIIY SUbrn~
IlW&J~ /}Çj&~~
Melissa W. Stiadle
'-
....,
From:
Subject:
Major Tighel Assistant County Administrator Ray
Wazny
Patricia A. Ferrick 772-46] -3612
Jail constructionlbloating
To:
jl
"
5/8/03
. The ad hoc committee for the Safety Council toured facilities,
at the request of St. Lucie County Sheriff I\1ascara. To look at
all options available to help aìleviate the bloating at S1. Lucie
County jail. We also toured Martin County's dormitory
faciliry.
I
One ,~facility ,"ve toured 'was an $18,000,000 million dollar
building constructed for the Juvenile Justice system to house 8-
1 0 cIassifi~ation Juveniles. Th~s faéility lvas unoccupied
because no funding was allocated for staffing. This is a state of
, the art facility, including operating monitoring systems.
- We learned that due to a problem with water in the area an
additional $3,000,000, would be needed to run water to this
facility. We also learned that even though there was no money
to run the facility a -7,000 sq!lare foot class:r:oom ,"vas to be
cQ.nstructed for % million dollars, using grant money already
allocated.
Major Tighe and Captain Walsh, and other staff were ,"vith us
1
in order to answer questions.
We learned that it ,vould take 22 staff personal per shift to
man this facility total staff *88, these would have to be
overtime staff, as this facility if it could be used ,"vould be
temporary, and utilized only until our own jail pods ,"vould
come on line.
'-
....,
We learned that our, deputte-.s-pYoh1rbly-wo~ave to be
deputized in 1\~artinCounty, as this facility is locateâ--in, Martin
Co u n ty ../ /' .' "'.........,
.~.. .....
--- -- -, "
/r ~,
My personal recomri:Iendation would be that this facility is toð
costly, and our own'facility could be rèady prior to ,vater being \\
installed to this facility. \
i
/'
/
---------
The contractor Ed Parker tòld, us the dormitory facility in
Martin County cost $860,000, dollars to construct 3 years ago.
St. Lucie County Jail has a bloating problem, ,vhich in the
I
. foreseeable future could become a major liability to St. Lucie
County.
After exploring all options available I have the following
ßuggestions based on presentations by Sheriff Mascara, and
; staff from previous meetings.
The Citizens Budget Committee on April 18, after receiving the
foHowing information madC-.-, a motion by William Casey
seconded by Patricia Ferrick to" construct tbe 2 pods necessary
bà'sed on the follo,ving. Two 280-prisoner pods, at an
estimated $8, million dollars each. The fund to pay for the
construction of these pods will come from two separate
sources. Using correctional impact fees ,vill finance the first
pod. The refinancing of the 1994 refunding sales tax revenue
bonds ,viII finance the second pod.
1. That ,ve declare a state of emergency and fast track
construction for the follo,ving.
'J
'-
...,
ï
2. 2 pods as requ~sted by Sheriff Mascara and staff to elevate
bloating and possible repercussions at the St. Lucie County
jail facility.
3. That we at the same time based on cost factprs of up to an
additional million dollars consJ:{uct a donùitory to house
",' .
trustees, and others as allo,yable under the penal system.
Interest rates are lo'\v at this time.
4. By doing all of the above ,ve could stay ahead of the
. '
projected curve, and utilize one of our pods to generate
income to offset costs by renting them to the house federal
prisoners.
Based o,n information provided by Major Tighe a~d Captain
. \'" alstI 'the following suggestions are also made.
Have a sit down meeting 'with the chief judge, and other
judges. . To discuss the followìng amending the current
rulings that included the 7-day rule; this could mean 140, less
;'prisoners being housed.
1. Look at raising the current impact fees and raising them to
help offset costs of building,,'.le,v facilities.
2. Look at charging a per deem cost for the ~veekend
. 'prisoners make sure that all ,veekend prisoners have
medical insurance.
3. Revisit ,vhy we do not send substance abuse prisoners to
Ne,v Horizons instead of the jail this for a short term ,vould
help alleviate bloating.
;2
...,
'-
JaB Population Committee
The Jail Population Committee was formulated by unanimous vote of the St.
Lucie County Public Safety Committee on . The PSCC also
named Mr. Edward Lounds Chairman of said committee, This committee was
commissioned to review'aDd analyze solutidns to the prisoner population growth
and the current over capacity conditions. The current prisoner capacity at the St.
Lucie County Jail is 883 and the average daily population for the month of April
2003 was 1080 prisoners.
The following is an analysis of short term and long term alternatives to assist
in alleviating the overcrowded conditions currently experienced at the St. Lucie
County Jail.
Short Term Solutions and Recommendations
1) House Prisoners in other County Correctional Facilities
Thè St. Lucie County, Sheriffs Office staff have solicited several Florida
counties to request a contractual agreement to house .the overflow of prisoners at
the respective facilities. The following are the results of the inquiry:
a,) Seventeen (17) Florida County Jails contacted. ( Lafayette, Taylor,
Hardee, Lake, Pasco, Glades, Marion, Highlands, DeSoto, Polk, Hillsboro,
Collier, Indian River, Okeechobee, Martin, Leon and Alachua)
b.) Only four (4) County Jails contacted have prisoner space available.
.c.) Lafayette County has 13 beds available, $35. Per day plus medical
costs. Facility is 289 miles.~way.
,d.) Taylor County has 50 beds available, $35. Per day plus medical
_, costs. Facility is 328 miles away.
e.) Hardee County has 20 beds available, $35. Per day plus medical
costs. Facility is 110 miles away.
f.) Lake County has 192 beds available at no cost. We must supply staff
to operate. Facility is 150 miles away.
g.) Statutory issues exist to house St. Lucie County prisoners outside
the jurisdictional boundaries.
Recommendation
....,
'-
2) House Prisoners in the vacant Department of Juvenile Justice
Facility located in Martin County.
On Thursday, May 8,2003, several members of this comrpittee toured this
facility and the following ¡sa summary of thaj ~ite visit:
-"
~
a) The facility was constructed for maximum security juvenile
prisoners. Constructed to house 260 prisoners.
b) The facility was designed with the correctional.'direct supervision'
philosophy. The philosophy óf design is extremely staff intensive
with a staff ratio of less than 15:1. St. 4ucie County Sheriff's Office
staff estimate that this facility would require a minimum of 22
correctional staff for the hoùsing areas per shift. This number
combined with support staff; external perimeter security staff,
transportation staff, first ' ervisors and managers equates to
. well over 100 total s to properly d effectively operate.
c) The facility curre Y h,as no access to ater and sewage. Plans to
~nstall this re Ired commodity are tenta 'vely scheduled for July
- ·?004.
d) The build r Mr. Edward Parker of Biltmo e Construction) stated that
St. Luc' C unty could provide this se ce at a cost of
appr . imat Iy $3 million dollars. .
e) Sta tory is ues exist to house pri ners outside of the jurisdiction.
f) St tutory iss es exist for the ority of St. Lucie County Sheriff's
Office per'sonn to con operations outside jurisdictional
boundaries.
Recommendation
DO
o
,..J) ,
bV
B.~'
...""
'-
Intermediate Solutions and Recommendations
1) Construct a Dormitory Style Building
'. \
This possible solutioll was raised as an intermediate measure to displace
, '
approximately 100 minimum custody prisoners from cell block A 1 B and house in
a dormitory style building outside of the existing A-Wing but within the security
envelope of the existing jail site.
On Thursday, May 8,2003, severc;¡\ members of this ~ommittee toured a 96
. bed dormitory style building located on the grounds of the Martin County Sheriffs
Office. The following are a summary of the findings:
a) The contractor, Mr. Edward 'Þ.arker stated that this facility was built
in 1999 at a cost of approximately $860,000. Dollars.
b) The facility could be utilized for minimum security prisoners only.
c), The facility contained no lavatory facilities for security staff
ßssigned
d} Construction of this facility could be completed in less than 4
'months.
Recommendation
-
,
,
...,
~
~
......
. Executive Summary
)1
'"
,',
\
. ""'...
....,
.....,
'-'
Jail Population Committee
Recommendations to alleviate crowding:
jl
\ .
-"
1) Jail Population Data Reports:
The committee requires more specific da~a from the S1. Lucie County
Sheriffs Office, Department of Detention. ;
~
, '\ \
Experts tell us that there are two key factors that determine the
average daily population:
a) The number of admissions (new:arrests)
. b) The length of confinement for each arrest
I . .
- The committee requests that monthly reports be compiled highlighting:
a) the average daily population
b) the number of admissions, daily
c) the average daily admissions, mo.nthly
d) the percentage of total population pre-trial male felons
e) the percentage of total population pre-trial female felons
f) the percentage of total population sentenced male felons
g) the percentage of total population sentenced female felons
h) the percentage of total population pre-trial male misdemeanants
i) the percentage of total population sentenced male misdemeanants
j) the percentage of total population pre-trial female misdemeanants
k) the percentage of total population sentenced female misdemeanants
I) the percentage of population of male/female felony violation of
probation
m) the percentage of population of male/female misdemeanor violation of
probation
...
As we move forward with the evaluation of these statistics we may also
need to review the average length of confinement for each of these specific
categories and the overall length of confinement for all categories combined.
~
"-'
2) New Arrests:
Mentally III: Are the mentally ill being diverted to the jail out of
convenience or are they appropriately transported to a hospital or mental health
facility (New Horizons)?
\
Myers Act (Public.Jnebriatesllntoxicatiòn): Are these individuals
transported to the appropdate detoxification facility or are they brought to the jail?
Notice to Appear: Are law enforcement agencies issuing these citations?
Excerpted from 'Alleviating Jail Crowding' (pages 32-33)
In 1991, Jefferson County, Kentucky enhanced the Notice to Appear
process and witnessed a notable de~rease in the number of individuals jailed
who pose little or no risk to society and who have a high probability of appearing
in court. The six most frequently cited offenses are shoplifting, public intoxication,
criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, operating a vehicle on a suspended or
revoked license and unlav¡ful possession of less than eight ounces of marijuana.
3) ',Monitoring/Expediting Detention Cases: (page 40)
Is there a possibility that the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office could create
a new position, as was done in Jackson County, Missouri, called the Inmate
Population Control Officer? This individual could continuously monitor and review
inmate case folders for those that can be diverted from the jail or for individuals
whose case can be expedited in some manner.
.-
4) Providing Accesf:> to Inmates: (page 40)
"
". Can the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office review. the process that we
currently utilize to provide access and interview space to the public defenders,
mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, probation officers,
defense attorney's and bail bondsman?
There are several relatively cheap alternatives that could possibly enhance
the current practices and in the long term reduce the length of confinement and
overall population: .
a) Expand interview space or operating hours for professional staff to
interview clients
b) Provide inmates with additional "free" telephone access within the first
24 to 36 hours of arrest.
c) Enhance video interview capabilities for the public defenders, defense
attorney's.
'-'
w
5) Prosecution- Intake and Screening Practices (page 41)
The prosecutor's office in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin screen charges of
all new arrests within 1 working day of the arrest. The Milwaykee County
prosecutor's office generç¿lIy reaches a char@ing decision within 24 hours after
the arrest on weekdays and 36 hours on weekends.
The Multnomah County, Oregon prosecutor's screens cases within 1 day
of arrest and provides discovery information to the defense counsel at the initial
appearance to help speed case processing. Although th~ prosecutor has 5
judicial days to make a charging decision for incarcerated defendants, an
attempt is made to have the lower-level felony and misdemeanor cases
disposed of in 2 or 3 days.
\
Is it possible to work toward and create an 'Early Screening Process' in
St. Lucie County?
I
6} Expedition of Detention Cases (page 43)
Salt Lake County, Utah established an acce.lerated cé!lendar for jail cases,
setting a time. standard of 10 days between ~harge fiiiñg and preliminary hearing
and 45 days between hearing and trial.
By placing jail cases on an accelerated calendar, Bexar County, Texas
_ was able to reduce the time to indictment from 90-120 days to 60 days bringing a
sizeable drop in the average length of confinement and thus the average daily
population of the jail system.
What is the process. and timeline in S1. Lucie County?
'''.
Can we look at alternatives to expedite detentism cases?
7) Case Management Practices (page 44) (also on page 55)
On page 44, it relates that S1. Lucie County, Florida created a fast track
court that reduced the time for plea agreements from several months to less than
4 weeks.
Are we still conducting this program? If not, why not?
'-'
...""
8) Judiciary- BOl!d Review Hearings (page 55)
Excerpted from 'Alleviating Jail Crowding' , (page 55)
"Judges can reduce the length of confinement of defendants who at first
are unable to post bail by scheduling bond review hearings s.everal days after the
defendants enter jail. -.. ) I
The Volusia County, Florida court regularly holds "jail arraignment"
hearings for defendants who have been incarcerated 3 to 5 days after their initial
appearance and who might qualify for case disposition or bond reduction..."
Can we discuss the possibility of instituting a program similar to Volusia
County, Florida? .
9) Case Management (pages 55-57)'
Washoe County, Nevada instituted an Early Case Resolution program
which' hC\s resulted in cases being resolved in 4 days instead of 2 weeks (page
55). I ' ,
Fairfax County, Virginia instituted the "Rocket Docket". The cou rt
disposed of 96.5% of all criminal cases within 120 days, resulting in less time for
defendants in jail (page 56).
..
The concept of rocket docket was applied specifically to the processing
of domestic violence cases in Oakland County, Michigan. Arraignments occur
within 5 days, instead of the 40 days it took prior to the program, and cases are
now tried in 13 days, instead of 113,
In Broward County, Florida thE~Judiciary instituted a specialty court called
Strike Force. Retired judges from across the state were hired to preside over the
. court. Cases that have been postponed are pulled from the dockets of sitting
judges and assigned to the Strike Force judges. Strike Force judges can hear
assigned cases immediately. In the first 4 months of Strike Force operation, more
than 300 cases were disposed of.
,
Jefferson County, Alabama implemented a Rocket Docket procedure. In
the first of 2 special sessions, Jefferson County criminal, civil and family court
judges disposed of more than 600 cases in pretrial hearings. As a result of the
procedure, the jail population was brought to well within the jail's legal
capacity, from 1,442 to 1,000 inmates.
We need to discuss in-depth the possibilities of instituting like practices in
81. Lucie County, Florida.
"
'-'
'will
..
St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office:
2000
Actual
2001
Actual
2002
Actual
2003
Actual
2004
Budget
2005
Request
Judicial 1.399,084 1,692,893 1,777.668 1,899.600 2,027,285 2,285,290
Law Enforcement 18,107,363 18,346,793 19,266,675 20,696,309 22,150,753 24,790,419
Corrections/Detentions 12,602,365 12,847,965 12,921.120 13.801,009 15,205,933 16,450,007
New Jail Pods 4.562,259
Subtotal 32,108,812 32,887,651 33,965,463 36,396,918 39,383,971 48,087,975
Excess Fees (73,242) (74,857) (75,582) (109,631)
Federal Prisoner Revenue (3,102,500)
Total 32,035,570 32,812,794 33,889,881 36,287,287 39,383,971 44,985,475
2% 3% 7% 9% 14%
/
¿ ,
/ .
. J
"w'
...",
2004-2005
BUDGET REQUEST
~€.R/¡;.
e;, ~
en
-\
.
>-
I-
~
«(j 0
C/E CO
'-'
...".,
.,
}/;
A~"
. "'," ,,_ ",,_EBlt~~. ,
"". 4, LUC¡ '?¿-A
'., ~·~,.W'"
...~.'"(,;}'
,~~~
~berí~f
KEN J. MASCARA
.
Telephone: (772) 462-3200 . Fax: (772) 489-5851
4700 West Midway Road· Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
May 3, 2004
The Honorable Paula Lewis, Chair
St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County, Florida
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Chairwoman Lewis:
It is my pleasure to present my budget for the fiscal year 2004-2005. This budget reflects
the expenditures associated with the opening and operation in fiscal year 2004-2005 of the
new jail dormitories that the Commission recently approved.
I have included in the budget document a breakdown of revenue sources that will be used
to fund the Sheriffs Office operations. Please note the non-tax sources used to help defray
the increased costs. In consultation with your staff we have included the housing of two
hundred federal inmates for a portion of the year. We believe we will have the beds
available to house these federal inmates, and we will be fully staffed in the new facility.
The U.S. Marshals Service will not sign an agreement with the St. Lucie County to house
their inmates until the new jail facility is near completion. The Marshals Service has
verbally assured us that they are eager to house inmates at the St. Lucie County jail as
soon as space is available.
During the first three years of my administration have been focused on increasing wages at
the Sheriff's Office to a level that is fair and competitive. Our recent success to date in
attracting quality individuals to begin to fill the fifty-two new positions at the jail was only
possible because of this three-year effort.
As our county continues to grow at a record pace, I pledge to continue to work with the
County Commission and its staff to address growth issues as they arise.
Other than the increases due to staffing and operational cost of the new jail dormitories,
items that have driven up the costs in the budget are increases in health care (both
employee and inmate). retirement, workers compensation insurance, automobile insurance,
and liability insurance. These are increases that all governments are faced with and over
which they have essentially no control.
'-'
....,
The Honorable Paula Lewis
May 3, 2004
Page 2
As in previous years, I look forward to working with the County Commission and county
staff as we move through the budget process,
Sincerely,
ds
'-"
""'"
St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office Budget Certificate 2004-2005
As required by Chapter 30.49(2)(a), I hereby certify that the proposed expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 are reasonable and necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office. Further, the functional distribution is
as follows:
16 Judicial 2,285,290
21 Law Enforcement 24,790,419
23 Detention 16,450,007
23 Detention (New Jail Pods) 4,562,259
Total Budget Expenditures
48,087,975
Miscellaneous Revenue
-117,000
Final Adjusted Budget Expenditures
From ad valorum
47,970,975
tJ1t~
·'C'. '-~'. _..~....,'-' ',,'- ....... ~-,.. .....~
.:".',....,..",.~:....."';¡;;;,....... ,..........t,,~,
1F51¡ ~g~rq¿f.&¿
Respectfully submitted,
Ken J. Mascara, Sheriff
3
'-'
ItJ
2004-2005 St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office Proposed Expenditures
Pursuant to FS 30.49(2)(a)
Salary of the Sheriff
$126,687
Salaries of deputies and assistants (inel. benefits)
35,432,908
Expenses, other than salaries
11,415,692
Equipment
690,688
Investigations
72,000
Reserve for Contingencies
350.000
Total:
$48,087,975
Expenditures budgeted in the Special Revenue Fund
(grants, joint ventures, etc.)
3,646,898
4
'-"
2004-2005 BUDGETED REVENUES
Ad Va10rum Tax Revenue
Impact Fee Revenue
Federal Prisoner Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
5/3/2004
""'"
44,622,975
245,500
3,102,500
47,970,975
line
#
5/3/2004
'-'
~
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
Proposed
2004-2005
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40~
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
16000 Judicial
512000-Sa1aries
513000-0ther (LIS Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA Mandatory
526000-Bene fi ts
534000-Contracted Services
540410-Meals - Per Diem
541200-postage
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Ins.
546000-Tech Maintenance Contracts
546425-Radio Accessories
547000-Printing & Binding
549420-Camputer Supplies & Access.
549445-Repairs & Maintenance
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
5 52100-Ba t te des
552490-Equipment under $750
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554100-Educational/Seminars
554150-Tuition Rei~Dursement
564410-Capitõl Outlay - Vehicles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
1,178,864
11,006
3,060
18, 960
27,000
76,811
17,964
621,986
263,000
200
50
25,652
o
100
100
200
500
500
3,500
1,650
3,500
15,000
500
500
4,000
o
10,688
1,955,650
318,952
10,688
Personnel Services - Judicial
Operating - Judicial
Capital Outlay - Judicial
TOTAL JUDICIAL
2,285,290
21000 Law Enforcement
511100-Executive Salary:Sheriff
512000-Salaries (subtotal)
513000-0ther (LIS Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive Pay
Holiday Pay
514000-0vertime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA Mandatary
526000-Benefits
531000-Professional Services
531430-Atty Fee/Professianal Fees
531490-Accreditation Costs
126,687
10,980,108
211,401
24,480
143,520
188,516
473,000
753,220
176,156
5,328,193
70,000
10,000
5,000
line
#
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
5/3/2004
~
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
534000-Contractural Services
535000-Investigations
540000-Travel and Per Diem
5404l0-Meals - Per Diem
540420-Private Vehicle Allowance
540440-Airlines, Lodging & Tolls
54l000-Communications
5411 OO-Telephone
541150-Cellular Phones
541200-postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
544410-Leased Vehicles
545410-Auto Fleet Insurance
545420-Bonding, Liab , Prop Ins.
546000-Tech. Maintenance Contracts
546410-Auto Repair and Maintenance
546420-Radia - Install/Removal
546425-Radio Accessories
546430-Radio Rep. , Maint (Contrct)
546440-0ffice Equipment Rep & Maint
547000-Printing and Binding
547420-Copier Supplies
549100-Advertising
549410-Auto - Other Charges
549413-Towing
549415-paint and Lettering
549420-Computer Supplies
549430-polygraph
549435-Crime Lab
549445-Repair & Maintenance
549450-Physical Examinations
549453-Automated Services
549460-Aviation
549470-Marine Repair, Maint, Dack
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552100-Batteries
552410-ruel and Lubricants
552420-Ammunition
552430-Fingerprinting Supplies
552433-Phota Supplies
552440-0ther Investigative Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $750
552590-Photo Equipment
552700-Rentwear
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554000-Books, Pub1, Subscr , Member
554100-Educationa1 Seminars
554150-Tuition Reimbursement
554500-Newspapers
554900-Training Equip & Supplies
564410-Capital Outlay - Vehicles
.....,
propased
2004-2005
60,000
72,000
2,000
500
500
2,000
72,000
120,000
110,000
20,000
140,000
48,513
80,000
352,671
349,932
200,000
255,000
2,000
3,000
250
1,000
30,000
25,000
8,000
20,000
100
8,000
40,000
10,000
106,433
50,000
18,000
157,300
288,465
58,708
40,000
70,000
20,000
810,000
50,000
3,000
9,000
500
90,000
1,200
5,000
75,000
15,000
15,000
45,000
15,000
1,000
15,000
625,000
line
#
'-'
"""
Proposed
2004-2005
109
110
III
112
113
111
1 14
1 15
1 16
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125 --¡
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
5/312004
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
564450-Capital Outlay - Motarcycles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
571000-Debt Service
573000-Transfer ta aOCC/Computers
5BIOOO-Interfund Transfers
599999/CONTINGENCY-L/E
o
o
241,456
36,271
1,206,339
200,000
PERSONNEL SERVICES
OPERATING - L/E
CAPITAL ASSET - LIE
CONTINGENCY - L/E
- L/E
TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
23000 Detention
512000-Salaries
513000-0ther (L/S Vac/Sick/Long)
Master Deputy Pay
Incentive pay
Holiday Pay
5HOOO-overtime
521000-FICA
521100-FICA MM
526000-Benefits
531000-Professional Services
531410-Hospital/Physicians-Inmate
531490-Accreditation Costs (Detention)
534000-Contractural Svcs/Off Equip
540000-Travel & Per Diem
540410-Meals - Per Diem
540415-Prisoner Transport
540417-Prisoner Transport-Dept Veh.
540440-Airline, Lodging & TalIs
541100-Telephone
541150-Cellular Phones
541200-Postage
543000-Utilities
544000-Rentals and Leases
545410-Auto Fleet Insurance
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prap Insur.
546000-Tech. Maintenance Contracts
546420-Radio Install/Removal
546430-Radio Repair & Maint (Cantr)
546440-0ffice Equipment R & M
547000-Printing and Binding
547420-Copier Supplies
549100-Advertising
549410-Auto - Other Charges
549415-painting and Lettering
549420-Computer Supplies
IB,405,2Bl
5,560,13B
625,000
200,000
24,790,419
7,153,297
64,470
15,300
63,600
266,757
300,000
4B7,532
114,020
3,790,516
20,000
2,409,640
3,000
20,000
1,000
1,000
152,000
o
2,500
o
5,000
2,500
275,000
B,OOO
o
113,573
o
500
1,000
500
5,000
B,OOO
3,000
o
o
11,000
line
#
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
5/3/2004
'-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
549445-Repair and Maintenance
549447-Jail - Other
55l000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552l00-Batteries
552430-fingerprinting Supplies
552433-Photo Supplies
552490-Equipment Under $750
552600-Jail Food
5526l0-Jail Supplies
552620-Jail Paper Goods
552630-Jail Laundry
552640-Jail Janitorial Supplies
552750-Uniforms
552755-Uniform Accessories
554000-Books, Publications' Mag.
554l00-Educational/Seminars
554150-Tuition Reimb.
554900-Training Supplies
564000-Capital Outlay
564410-Capital Outlay - Vehicles
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
599999/CONTINGENCY-CORR
PERSONNEL SERVICES - DETEN
OPERATING - DETEN
CAPITAL OUTLAY - DETEN
CONTINGENCY - DETEN
TOTAL DETENTION
PERSONNEL SERVICES - SHERIfF'S OfFICE
OPERATING - SHERIFF'S OFfICE
CAPITAL OUTLAY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CONTINGENCY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
TOTAL SHERIfF'S OFFICE BUDGET REQUEST
.....,
Proposed
2004-2005
25,000
3,000
11,000
4,500
600
1,000
1,000
10,000
775,200
75,000
15,000
5,000
40,000
60,000
6,000
1,000
15,000
1,500
2,500
o
o
o
100,000
12,255,493
4,094,513
o
100,000
16,450,006
32,616,424
9,973,603
635,688
300,000
43,525,715
'-'
.."
GENERAL BUDGET COMPARISON
PERSONNEL SERVICES - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
OPERATING - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CAPITAL OUTLAY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CONTRINGENCY - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
2003-2004
BUDGET
31,110,452
8,295,519
516,876
300,ODO
TOTAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET
MINUS MISCELLANEAOUS REVENUE
TOTAL AD VALORUM TAX BUDGET REQUEST
40,222,847
-117,000
40,105,847
TOTAL PERCENT INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS YR:
8.24%
5/3/2004
2004-2005
REQUESTED BUDGET
32,616,424
9,973,603
635, 688
300,000
43,525,715
-117,000
43,408,715
line
#
"-'
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST 2004-2005
ACCOUNT TITLE
'-1."
Proposed
2004-2005
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
5/3/2004
Jail Population Increase & New Pod Costs
512000-Salaries
Holiday Pay
521000-FICA
521100-FICA MM
526000-Benefits
531410-Hospital/Physicians-Inmate
540415-Prisoner Transport
541150-Cellular Phanes
541200-postage
54 3000-Uti li ties
544000-Rentals and Leases
545420-Bonding, Liab & Prop Insur.
547420-Copier Supplies
549420-Computer Supplies
551000-0ffice Supplies
552000-0perating Supplies
552490-Equipment Under S~50
552600-Jail Food
552610-Jail Supplies
552630-Jail Laundry
552640-Jail Janltorial Supplies
554100-Educatianal/Seminars
554900-Training Supplies
564490-Capital Outlay - Other Equip
599999/CONTINGENCY-CORR
PERSONNEL SERVICES - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
OPERATING - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
CAPITAL OUTLAY - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
CONTINGENCY - INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
TOTAL REQUEST FOR INCREASED POPULATION/NEW PODS
GRAND TOTAL PERSONNEL SE~VICES:
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY:
GRAND TOTAL CONTINGENCY:
GRAND TOTAL OF BUDGET REQUEST:
SHERIF"S TOTAL OFFICE BUDGET
MINUS MISCELLANEAOUS REVENUES
TOTAL AD VALORU~ BUDGET REQUEST
1,730,436
66,555
111,413
26,056
1,008,710
804,360
16,000
3,000
1,000
97,000
22,000
62,798
9,000
2,000
5,000
63/500
75,000
295,431
6,000
3,000
30/000
16,500
2,500
55,000
50/000
2,943,170
1/514/089
55,000
50/000
4,562,259
35,559,595
11,487,692
690,688
350,000
48,087,975
48,087,975
-11 7,000
47,970,975