Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-21-2010 CITIZENS’ BUDGET COMMITTEE Meeting Date: May 21, 2010 Conference Room 3 Meeting convened at 7:32 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Hensley, Chair Craig Mundt Dana McSweeney Randy Ezell Dan Kurek Edward Lounds Ron Knaggs Richard Pancoast Ryan Strickland Patricia “Pat” Ferrick Bill Hammer Jay L. McBee John Culverhouse Patti Tobin MEMBERS ABSENT: Edith Hepburn OTHERS PRESENT: Faye Outlaw Lee Ann Lowery Marie Gouin Jennifer Hill Debbie Brisson Mark Satterlee Don West Fritz Georges Bill Hoeffner Robert O’Sullivan John Ferrick Joe Smith Beth Ryder Frannie Hutchinson Audrey Jackson Karen Smith Jack Southard Toby Long Mike Monahan Jim David Shane DeWitt Ken Mascara Kathryn Hensley Josh Saad Laurie Waldie Garry Wilson CALL TO ORDER Mr. Hensley called the meeting to order at 7:32 a.m. He introduced the two new members. Ms. Patty Tobin was appointed by Commissioner Coward and Mr. Bill Hammer was appointed by Commissioner Lewis. Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 2 TH APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 16 MEETING Mr. Mundt made a motion to accept the minutes. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. MILLAGE RATES – PAT FERRICK Ms. Ferrick handed out the attached pages and highlighted the points. She made a motion that, “This Board recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that after serious consideration and based on the information presented, that the Citizens’ Budget Committee recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Rollback method to keep the School Resource Officers (SRO) at the same staffing level or above. Furthermore, that funding be restricted so that out of the $11,110,043 generated, that $4.6 million or greater be set aside and used to pay for the SROs for the next three years and the rest that is left be used to retain dedicated County employees.” Mr. Kurek seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Lounds asked if there was a rate she would prefer to be considered. She answered that we need to go rollback and explained the amount that would be generated and what it would cost the homeowners. She feels people should give up things they don’t really need to keep the children protected. Mr. Lounds said the argument would be that there are so many people out of work and foreclosures. Mr. McBee asked how many SROs we have now. The answer was 34. The school population is 38,900+. The population was the same last year. Mr. Long added that last year Port St. Lucie was involved. Ms. Ferrick said she has petitions with 944 signatures supporting rollback to keep the children safe and jobs for County employees. Mr. McBee asked the ratio of SROs to students. Ms. Hensley answered the ratio is not per student, it is per school. In some cases they are sharing. Secondary schools have a resource deputy. Sometimes elementary schools share, sometimes depending on the population. Mr. McBee asked if it had decreased the past year. Ms. Hensley said that since the officers are so well trained, they have been able to pick up the slack, but they are at a breaking point. The kids have a great deal of respect for the guys in green. They go to them and tell them things. She feels that is one reason we have not had a significant incident on our campuses. Mr. Lounds admired Ms. Ferrick’s diligence in putting the information together. He has no problem marking the part for SROs. He wondered if they should not limit the balance to employment only. Ms. Ferrick has had many comments from the public that they would rather see the money tied to something than have the money go for art. She understands Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 3 their position. Mr. Kurek asked the Sheriff for clarification on the number of SROs. Sheriff Mascara answered that there were 49 last year and 34 this year. Port St. Lucie has removed some of the officers they funded. Mr. Kurek asked if Ms. Ferrick had taken that into consideration. Ms. Ferrick asked the Sheriff if he could still cover the goals. He answered yes. Mr. Kurek asked Ms. Outlaw if she had a priority list of jobs to be saved. Ms. Outlaw answered that she does not have a priority list. Her personnel budget is at $30 million, and it is not prioritized by position or areas. Who would be laid off is tied to the programs that are eliminated. Mr. Mundt asked the Sheriff if there was any allowance for SROs in his proposed budget. Sheriff Mascara said they budgeted for 15 positions. They removed the positions that were funded with the one-time funding last year. Mr. Mundt clarified that they needed the money to keep the program as it is currently. Mr. Mundt asked if Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie are totally out of the picture. The Sheriff answered that is correct and added the School Board. Mr. Mundt said he has no problem with the SROs but he would like to give Ms. Outlaw more flexibility with the balance. Ms. Ferrick said they had told the people who signed the petitions that they were going to push very hard to keep employees and keep some programs open and hopefully keep libraries open on Sunday, which is beneficial for people out of work. She is concerned what the County would do with the money. She thinks they need to tie their hands. Ms. Ferrick thinks the Commissioners should know more about the Committee. Ms. Outlaw responded that she would not debate what a member of the Board should know. But she knows what they are doing regarding the budget and operations. If the Board approved any amount of a millage increase, the bottom line of what it would do is decrease the amount that would have to be cut. Invariably, it would go to fund some level of operations that would have a staff person tied to it. She cannot designate good and bad employees. Ms. Ferrick would not object to someone on the Committee making that recommendation, relieving her of the responsibility of contacting all who signed the petitions. Mr. Hensley clarified that saving programs would save employees. They agreed the intent was the same so Ms. Ferrick accepted Mr. Mundt’s suggestion. Mr. Kurek said that he did not think anyone thought Ms. Outlaw would pick good and bad employees. He assumes they will try to save the programs most beneficial to the County, which would in turn save the jobs of the employees who run those programs. Ms. Ferrick changed the wording of her motion to say the programs instead of saying County employees. Mr. Lounds expressed his concern that consideration be given to essential and nonessential services when decisions are made on which programs to cut. He doesn’t care if he has to wait to buy tags or pay taxes, but if he calls 9-1-1, he wants someone to answer the phone and hear a siren coming down the road. He is also concerned about support to essential services. He asked how many had been on a ride-along program with Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 4 the Fire or Sheriff’s Department. Until you do, it is hard to understand. He also suggested visiting 9-1-1. He asked Mr. Southard if visits are allowed. Mr. Southard answered they are. If Mr. Lounds has to wait a day to go to the library, he still wants to hear the siren coming down the road. Mr. Mundt asked about rollback rate on a homesteaded property. Ms. Gouin explained the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 3%, whichever is lower, would be added to a homesteaded property owner’s tax bill. Mr. Hammer said he does not disagree with Ms. Ferrick’s proposed outcome but with his background in education, he thinks it should be broadened to maximize the successful completion of the school curriculum by all students. He gave his opinions on how that could be accomplished. Mr. Hensley directed the conversation to the subject of SROs. Mr. Hammer suggested the SROs be used to oversee the students that are identified as not ready to participate in the regular school environment. Ms. Outlaw told of her experiences in ride-alongs. She wanted to be sure the Committee understood that rollback would not be enough. Unless the revenue was raised $56 million, there will still be some services cut. Mr. Lounds asked for Mr. Furst’s prediction of values for 2012. Ms. Outlaw said that Mr. Furst has not said a figure. He has cautioned her that it will probably not be 5%. Mr. Lounds asked for Ms. Outlaw’s gut feeling. She thinks it will be higher but that is not her area of expertise. Mr. Lounds said we can’t get there with rollback or firing half the people in the County. We’ve got to increase the income and stop spending in other areas. He is not criticizing but wants people to understand that if they fired everybody in the County, they still aren’t there. It has to be services. Ms. Ferrick said there are some solutions down the road. The SROs is a start. Mr. Hensley clarified that the only thing changing in the motion is the last three words changing from dedicated County employees to programs. Mr. Knaggs was bothered by Ms. Outlaw’s last statement. He wonders if the Committee is piecemealing what they need to do when it comes to increasing taxes. Would they lose an opportunity to talk about increasing taxes in the future if they passed this motion? Mr. Hensley said no. It is not in their purview to raise taxes. It is the Board’s job. They can just make recommendations. This is the first. They can come back with others. Mr. Knaggs understands but wonders how many times you can go back. Mr. Hensley believes you should piecemeal because people are not going to swallow it all at once. Ms. Ferrick added that it would cover the SROs for three years. Mr. Knaggs said it is more than that but he was ready to vote for it. He just wanted to express his concern. Mr. Mundt referred to Mr. Lounds comments of setting priorities. He asked Ms. Outlaw if Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 5 she would ask the Committee for their priorities. Ms. Outlaw said she had not planned to. Mr. Mundt thinks they need to come back to that. Mr. Hensley said the motion had been moved and seconded and amended and seconded. He asked for the Committee’s pleasure. The result of the voice vote was 13 yea and one nay. Ms. Ferrick asked for Mr. Lounds help with her next recommendation. She believes the Cooperative Extension needs to go back to being a stand-alone program. She does not think it is compatible with Environmental. She is an environmentalist. She told of her business practices, and used an example to show why she thinks they should be separate. Ms. Ferrick expressed her concern about the golf course and suggested the Committee form breakout groups to study the individual department’s budgets. She gave history of her almost 20 years on the Committee. She believes the Committee has gotten away from what they were formed for. There is a lot of expertise in the room. She feels some of the members have time to examine the budgets. She asked that Mr. Lounds tell about the Agriculture (Ag) Division. Mr. Lounds said the Extension Service of St. Lucie County maintains a great relationship between the University of Florida and St. Lucie County. When we shrink departments for economic purposes, we have a tendency to look at the economics. He worries that the cutbacks will infringe on the benefits from the University of Florida (UF). He knows there was a lot of consideration and input from the departments. They are teaching 15,000- 16,000 students through the 4-H program. He hopes that will not be fractured. He is concerned about what the ag community thinks when they read of cuts in the newspaper. There is a lot of doubt in Gainesville about what St. Lucie County is going to do. Most of the agents are funded 50/50 or 60/40 between UF and St. Lucie County. There was some paring down that needed to be done. It is a professionally functioning department that brings a lot of outside information and money to this County. Part of the problem is that a lot of folks don’t know where it is. His concern is fracturing the relationship with UF with more cuts and more misunderstandings and less transparency. Ms. Outlaw responded that he made some good points and she took them to heart. All of the realignments have been difficult and painful. The consolidation came to be because of the recommendations of a number of individuals. The unique arrangement with UF is probably an area she may have done differently. She would have reached out to that side of the arrangement to help them understand. It is a lesson learned. If the Board were to change the realignment and make Ag a stand-alone department, in her opinion, they would not pick back up the funding for the personnel. She does not see any benefit for it being its own department. The funding is gone and she does not see it coming back. The relationship with UF is valuable and she will work toward that but she cannot make a commitment that there will not be any further cutbacks. She is not looking at any now, but there is a long way to go to $56 million. Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Hensley asked if UF funds the program, how Ms. Outlaw can cut the positions. Ms. Outlaw said UF does not fully fund the positions. Several of the positions were 100% funded from the General Fund. Several were split. The 60% or 40% was taken from the General Fund. Mr. Kurek asked about Martin County and Indian River County. Ms. Outlaw explained that at one time we were providing services to Martin County but she has not been contacted about them looking at consolidating. Mr. Kurek thinks they should look into it. UF might be happy to see the three Counties, maybe four with Okeechobee, get together, reduce everybody’s budget and maintain the needed service. Ms. Ferrick said Ms. Hutchinson has been on the Agriculture Board. Ms. Hutchinson said she had been on the Board, but Ms. Hensley is currently on the Board. Ms. Hensley said they have had conversations with UF. There will be a stronger working relationship because some players have changed. They are looking into fee for service for some products and there has been discussion on regionalizing some agents. She has pages of job descriptions that she needs to review. The movement is to try to regionalize the services and do fee for service for certain components. Mr. Kurek asked for clarification of fee for service. Ms. Hensley said it is not facilities. It is more, such as training on how to handle citrus for packing houses. The owners of packing houses have been approached to pay a fee. The services are being studied to see if there should be compensation. Mr. Kurek said agriculture is one of the vital industries in all three counties. He thinks the Committee or the Board needs to support this because the Ag Division is providing a service to keep us all safe. He thinks user fees are a good idea and should be pursued vigorously. Mr. Hensley said it would be the Ag Board’s responsibility. Mr. Lounds added that when UF funds 40% or 60% of the agent’s salary and the agent is assigned to a multi-county area, UF will allow you to charge user fees to cover costs for training sessions but not enough to make a profit. There was discussion on how things work with UF. Mr. Lounds said the Ag Advisory Committee is looking at the department to give Ms. Outlaw more information. He thinks they did not give her enough information before she made decisions. They do not disagree on the total change. Some changes needed to be made. Some would have happened anyway. Agriculture is an important area. They are protective to be sure it moves forward. Mr. Mundt thinks they can provide the services even though they are consolidated. He does not think splitting them out would enhance the programs or funding. He thinks they should give Ms. Outlaw the opportunity to operate under the reorganization for a period of time. If the agriculture folks come with complaints, they can take another look next year. It has not been implemented long enough to provide all the answers. He thinks it should be given an opportunity. Mr. Hensley asked if anyone wanted to make a motion on the subject. None was made. Mr. Knaggs started discussion on the golf course. He agrees with Mr. Lounds’ opinion on Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 7 losing money on needs not wants. He does not think the golf course is a need. They have consistently lost money. He thinks to put more money into it is going in the wrong direction. Mr. Kurek said before making a decision there needed to be research into the cost of maintaining the land without the golf course. There will be requirements by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and other alphabet groups. He was here when the golf course was built. The reason was because they had to continually monitor the land, water it and keep it covered with grass. Covered with grass and continually watered describes a golf course except for holes and flags. If it costs the same to maintain the land without anything there, maybe it is a wash. If it costs more, the golf course is a good deal because we are required to maintain the site for many years because of what is under the ground. Ms. Outlaw asked Ms. Brisson, the Parks and Recreation Director, to speak on the greens replacement. It was funded out of Parks Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) money that could not be used for anything except Parks and recreation facilities. Ms. Brisson said the Golf Course Enterprise Fund, except rent to the Airport, has been sustainable. The number of rounds dropped this year due to the condition of the greens. They average over 50,000 rounds per year. Regarding the environmental measures, there are no measurable amounts of methane gas at the surface. They are experiencing a measureable amount of landfill gases under the surface which is affecting the ability to grow the grass. You have to have good greens to golf. We have an investment and requirements there. They have done a lot of research. They have worked with UF and United States Golf Association (USGA). If they are going to be in this business, they need to try to make it sustainable. Recurring expenses need to be covered by recurring revenues. The best hope is through the renovation of the greens. If you close a landfill now, you have to cap it with a PVC cap. That did not occur when this landfill was done. The plan now is to install that cap that will prevent the landfill gases from penetrating the root system of the greens. A test pilot done two years ago has worked beautifully. They have talked to other courses that have been successful. Camp, Dresser, McKee (CDM), the consultants to the landfill, believes it is the fix as well. The question was how to fund. The Parks MSTU fund is not part of the General Fund and the money has to be used only for capital improvement expenses in Parks and Recreation. They were successful in getting funding from FEMA and other grants to help with other projects to free up the money. The goal is to bring the golf course back into a sustainable operation. They could have considerable expenses there to maintain the land because it was a Class 1 landfill before. Mr. Kurek asked if the bond issue was paid off. Ms. Gouin answered that it was. Mr. Lounds asked if the baseball stadium is breaking even. He thinks they need to look at the Enterprise Funds if they are losing money. Ms. Outlaw said the stadium is not bringing in enough money to cover the costs. Historically, it has not. It is a policy issue that will be discussed with the Board at Strategic Planning. Mr. Lounds said they need to stop the bleeding. He feels the team needs to come up with more money. Ms. Outlaw said it will be tough because they have a long-term agreement on how proceeds are split. Contractually, the Board is tied to the agreement until 2016. Mr. Strickland added the contract with the Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 8 County is until 2016 and the agreement with Digital Domain is the same. Mr. Knaggs said according to the audit report, all Enterprise Funds lost money except South Hutchinson Utilities. Ms. Outlaw agreed. They have been operating on reserves. UPDATE ON REALIGNMENT – Faye Outlaw Please see attached handout. Ms. Outlaw summarized the report that was provided to the Board. She will give continual reports on savings as we move through the realignment. Mr. Knaggs asked if he could see a slide with the amounts backed out of the $56 million. Ms. Outlaw said a great deal of that will be done in Strategic Planning. She will include it in the monthly updates. Ms. Ferrick asked for clearer copies. Ms. Outlaw asked staff to handle. UPDATE ON FY 2010/2011 BUDGET REQUESTS – Marie Gouin Ms. Gouin handed out the attached General Fund/Fine Forfeiture Funding Breakdown. She explained the headings of the columns. Mr. Long commented that the Inmate Medical costs will never be part of the Sheriff’s budget. It is a statutory requirement that the Board must pay. He feels it is an unfair comparison. Ms. Gouin explained that is why it is broke out and labeled Additional Support. Ms. Outlaw agreed to work on how that is shown on future reports. Ms. Ferrick thinks it should be added that the additional support is statutory required so anyone reading the form would understand. Mr. Knaggs asked if all the items were mandated. Ms. Gouin answered that they are. Mr. Lounds asked if the State of Florida regulates the fees at Lawnwood or any other hospital. He asked if they can negotiate the fees. Ms. Outlaw said they are trying. Some counties do have a negotiated rate. Ms. Hutchinson saw a report showing how much of the County’s budget is required versus how much the Board has discretion on how to spend. She thinks that information would be helpful for the Committee. Ms. Outlaw said they are working on that for Strategic Planning. Ms. Ferrick said the hospital charges are outrageous and gave examples from her recent stay. Mr. Mundt said he can assure the Committee that County staff and the Sheriff’s Department have the issue as high priority and they are working hard. The problem is the hospital will not negotiate. Mr. Kurek added that they didn’t in the 80s, they didn’t in the 90s and still won’t. OTHER ISSUES Mr. Lounds said the Committee has discussed for two or three years having tonnage fees for the port. He thinks the Committee should come up with a motion to investigate the usage of tonnage fees for the port on dry weight, liquid weight and gaseous fluid. He would like to see that earmarked for infrastructure to the port, be it water, sewer, electrical, Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 9 roads, docking, whatever is needed. They are trying to improve the roads. Ms. Tobin asked if anyone has any idea how much is coming in. Mr. Lounds said Mr. Anderson was on a committee of Port Authorities around the State. Mr. Lounds thinks Melbourn and Port Manatee’s fees and tonnage should be investigated. Ms. Outlaw asked staff if research had been done. Mr. Lounds said tonnage is increasing. This port does well with small transport boats. Mr. Culverhouse asked if there was any taxing fee structure at the present time. Mr. Mundt thinks it is the only port in the State that doesn’t charge. He would like to add the money could not be spent any other place in County or City. They want the money spent in the Port. Ms. Tobin believes the Port Master Plan defines the boundaries. The motion was made by Mr. Lounds to investigate the feasibility of a tonnage fee for goods imported and exported from the Port of Ft. Pierce. Fees would be assessed on dry weight, liquid solution, and cubic feet of gaseous products. The collected fee would be used for the improvement of the infrastructure of the Port—transportation, dockage, water/sewer/reuse water, etc. The fees would not be used outside the Port of Ft. Pierce area for capital improvements elsewhere in the County or the City of Ft. Pierce. It was seconded by Mr. Knaggs. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Lounds started discussion on boat ramp user fees. He handed out the attached mentioning a meter fee. He doesn’t think that is the way to go, but he does not want someone collecting at each boat ramp. A member of Planning & Zoning (P&Z) suggested a hang tag. The point is that the boat ramps need improvement. We do fishing tournaments and have good ramps generally but they need to be expanded. He wonders if it is conceivable to get the City to buy in and help maintain their ramps. He thinks there are 13,000 boats registered in St. Lucie County. It is time they pay for themselves. He feels it is time for the Committee and the Board to go after user fees. Mr. Mundt thinks it is a good idea that needs some study. Temporary passes for fishing tournaments were discussed. Mr. Mundt suggested the motion be shortened to: A motion to collect a user fee for the use of the boat ramps in St. Lucie County and the recommendation will be turned over to staff for research. The motion was seconded. Mr. Knaggs asked who enforces it. It was agreed that it would be Code Enforcement. Ms. Hutchinson said it should be surveyed to see how many ramps are in the City and how many are County. If the normal County users went to the City, the City could say it was dumped on them. It was agreed that they should go to the City first. Mr. Lounds thinks people who play tennis or soccer should not have to pay for needed improvements to boat ramps. There was discussion on studying the issue. Ms. Ferrick asked about checking with the Tax Collector’s office about using placards. The motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Ferrick thinks the Committee needs to go back to looking at budgets individually and thinks the members should give Mr. Hensley a list at the next meeting of the budgets they would like to review. UPDATE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING Ms. Outlaw showed a draft agenda for Strategic Planning. It was scheduled to have Citizens’ Budget Committee May 21, 2010 Page 10 presentations on fiscal sustainability plans for Mosquito Control District, Transit MSTU and Utility Enterprise Fund on Wednesday. Thursday is to be a full day starting with the Airport and Digital Domain Sports Complex. They are going to talk about the $56 million needed for the General Fund. The morning will focus on the BOCC operations. The afternoon session will focus on the Constitutionals and other agencies. The closing session is designed to be an overview and attempt to get a policy discussion and direction from the th Board. They have a June 7 session planned. She wants to prepare the Committee that what they will see the next week will be gagging. It is drastic in terms of programs being eliminated or cut back. They need to be prepared that it is going to be incredibly painful. She needs to know if they want designated seats. Mr. Hensley said there are a few members that will be available to attend. Ms. Outlaw said they are finalizing the packets. They hope to have them ready for distribution on Monday. The members do not have to sign up to attend the meetings. Ms. Outlaw said staff will do presentations on proposed plans. She will do the presentation on the General Fund and Fine and Forfeiture. The Board will have discussion on what they can support and not support. There will be a series of sessions. She thinks it will take weeks. It gets more drastic in the second part of the plan. The Committee members may be asked for input but it is not an open forum. Mr. Lounds said their part is advisory. He realizes the Board doesn’t have to follow the recommendations. Ms. Outlaw said the first phase is a $25 million reduction. They are doing it in steps because of the gravity of it. Some things are recommended to be done in FY 2011. Some of it will be done in FY 2012. They need to get direction from the Board. She had to step back with staff because it was too painful. She expects the same reaction from the Board. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hensley thanked the Committee and adjourned the meeting at 9:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Brenda Marlin The next CBC regular meeting will be held on Friday, June 18, 2010, at 7:30 a.m., in Conference Room #3, at the St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex.