Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Minutes 07-08-2010BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BUDGET WORKSESSION 2010 Date: July 8, 2010 Convened: 9:00 a.m. Adjourned: 4:35 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Charles Grande, Doug Coward, Paula A. Lewis, Chris Craft, Chris Dzadovsky Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Marie Gouin, OMB Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk The County Administrator made opening remarks and proceeded to provide the Board with an overview of the proposed budget. The County Administrator advised the Board the proposed 2010/2011 budget is $557,142,278. This is 14.6% less than the amended budget of $652,364,010 for 2009/2010. The proposed budget $95,221,732 under the current amended budget. This budget is based on a 12% reduction of property values. The actual reduction in property values is 10.82% as provided by the Property Appraiser and the new figures will be coming back during the presentation and how it will provide additional tax revenue. There is no millage increase in the proposed budget. The millage rate is 6.4612. There are no salary increases proposed in the budget, no cost of living increases, no new positions or new capital in the budget. The proposed budget does include a 3 million dollar increase for inmate medical costs this year, a 17,500 increase for closed captioning for SLCTV and the proposed budget is built to achieve a sustainable budget for 2012. The County Administrator addressed the re-alignment of 18 departments to 9 and the change in positions and salary reductions. There have been 13 staff layoffs since February. The new FTE count is 621 full time and 76 part-time which brings the county to 1999 staffing levels, with an additional 45 employees being laid off in October, bringing the staff levels to 1992. She advised the Board that also reflected in this budget is the shifting of line items from operating in order to reduce the operating budget, the Board approved shifting the line items and designating fund balance dollars for those items such as Torrey Pines and operating funding for the non-profits. The additional savings from the reduction savings are going to be allocated toward the FY 12 budget stabilization fund. Operations are down by 9.09% and looking at the General Fund, it is down by 8.31% and there would have been a lower reduction had they not had to include the 3 million dollar increase. The state mandated agencies overall those budgets are down by 11.69%; the Constitutional Officers budgets are down by 3.07%. The budget includes non sustainable measures which are a significant fund balance and this is one time money. 46% of the budget is fund balance money totals $255.9 million. The two sources are $ 557.9 million or 54% derived from incoming revenues from all sources and the one time money of 46% giving us the total proposed budget of $557 million proposed budget. The County Administrator provided a breakdown of what portion of the budget is derived by ad-valorem tax revenue which is 20% or $111.8 million and continued with the various funding areas provided by the General Fund. She advised the Board 60% of the general fund budget is statutorily mandated. The BOCC operations are 20% of the general fund and fine and forfeiture fund and this can be very critical. The additional revenue due to adjustment of property values, CRA values, the Insurance Fund reserves and Emergency Reserves/Fund Balance Funding and TPO General Fund dollars. The County Administrator advised the Board the result of the property value adjustment would be $1,137,196 in property taxes for the General/Fine & Forfeiture Fund plus an additional $178,307 for the MSTUs. She also addressed the CRA payments and are projected to total of $3.8 million. This results in a $412,000 reduction in CRA payments from the General/Fine & Forfeiture Fund. The Emergency Reserves Fund Balance Policies during the Strategic Planning Session the Board changed the policy to reflect 5% of all funds would exclude those that had at least 2 million dollars in their reserve fund and they would take it out of the operating budget when calculating. Based on the new policy we need to have $14.3 million in the reserve fund balance, today we have 17.6 million. The difference is $3.3. Million. Her recommendation during strategic planning was to look at the cost savings from the change in the policy and allocate 2.7 million of the 3.3 to contingency. The Board has not signed off on this recommendation. Com. Dzadovsky stated more than likely they would use the 2.7 million to help fill in the hole in 2012. The County Administrator stated this would be at the Board's discretion. Com. Coward stated the contingency fund typically had a million and he does not recall spending the full amount. The County Administrator stated they have never expended the full million but have come close. Com. Coward stated it would be his instinct not to increase the contingency fund by 2.7 million and prefer it be placed in the budget stabilization fund. He stated he is not advocating it be part of our operating budget but would like to have the 2.7 million in reserve for 2012 as one time money. Com. Grande questioned what her recommendation was for the difference between the 3.3 and the 2.7 million. Com. Lewis stated she would prefer to wait until they get to the end of the sessions and see where they are. Com. Coward stated if the 2.7 is ear marked for contingency, it would not count toward the shortfall because it is being placed in a category. His preference is to keep the contingency at 1 million and push any dollars shown to be a saving towards the 56 million gap and get an update showing the 56 million is being reduced by all these amounts. He would like to see the 2.3 million put towards closing the gap. The County Administrator addressed the Health Insurance Reserves, they now have $15.5 million in reserves, with 7.7 million is restricted. They have a Safe Harbor Surplus recommending a 60 day of coverage in the fund 2 million, she doubled it recommends keeping 4 million and has allocated 568,707 for the clinic, leaving 3,000,000 in an unrestricted fund balance. The County Administrator advised the Board in her discussions with the Clerk of Court, he recommended redistributing 5 million, and she is not comfortable with this amount and would prefer to only redistribute the 3 million to the following areas based on their FY 09 contributions. BOCC- GF & Fine & Forfeiture $1,109,750 BOCC-Other Funds 819,219 The Clerk of Court 564,385 Tax Collector 230,872 Property Appraiser 195,487 Supervisor of Elections 54,138 Medical Examiner 26,149 Total $3,000,000 Com. Craft recommended the entities that will be receiving funds from the Insurance Reserves should be able to return the money to the Board since they are unrestricted and it is part of their budget. The Management and Budget Director stated the Finance side can be returned to the Board, however, the courthouse side cannot, and it must stay on the courtside since they are funded by the state. Com. Coward questioned why there was such a difference in the recommendation between the Clerk of 5 million and the County Administrator of 3 million and stated he would like to have further discussion on this issue. The Management and Budget Director stated she believes the claims will stabilize however should they increase they may need to increase the amount. The County Administrator stated they will have this discussion on the 3 million she proposed and the 5 million proposed by the Clerk on the 13tH The County Administrator advised the Board of the one-time dollars which will be pending Board direction. Property Value Adjustment CRA Funding Emergency Reserves/Fund Balance Funding Insurance Fund Reserves TPO General Fund Dollars Total The County Administrator provided the following conclusions: The proposed 2010/2011 budget is balanced. While the budget is balanced, it is not sustainable $1,137,195 412,000 3,344,347 1,109,750 45, 219 $6,048,511 Forty -six percent of the budget is one-time money of $255,894,508 Of which, $78,358,624 is general fund/fine & forfeiture dollars The general fund/fine & forfeiture operating budget as is well known Is facing a huge projected operating deficit in FY 12. The projected FY12 deficit will be offset through cost savings from additional reduction measures supported by the Board to be taken in FY 11. The resultant cost savings will be allocated for the FY 12 budget stabilization fund. After FY11, the Board's ability to accumulate significant cost savings will be extremely limited. 3 To reach a sustainable budget position by the end of the FY 12, the Board must take additional significant cost reduction measures, enhance ongoing revenues or a combination of the two. These additional measures must be taken in short order and not be unduly delayed. Com. Coward questioned what the sustainable budget they were looking to be was and what they actually needed to provide the services. The County Administrator stated she would think $100 million would be the sustainable budget however, she stated the Board has not established what the minimum services would be. If they were to do this and work in what it would cost, then she may be able to provide the figures. Com. Coward stated in terms of service provision, he would like to know what the cost would be to provide minimum level of service and still provide public health and safety. Com. Lewis stated she felt the Board will determine what level of service is acceptable. Com. Craft stated he believed they were getting close to being comfortable with what level of service can be provided. Com. Coward stated staff will be making recommendations as to what a sustainable budget would be and they would know what would be the cost of the minimum level of services that could be provided and if the revenues do not cover it then they will need to know where to go. They are not cutting fat at this point they are cutting muscle. DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS Board of County Commissioners The Board of County Commissioners Budget reflects a decrease of 5.1% or $56,620. This constitutes a reduction in operations of $43,000. County Attorney/Acquisitions The County Attorney requested separating his budget from the Criminal Justice budget. He advised the Board his department budget is being reduced by 8.9% and does not include further proposed reduction the Board is looking to achieve. They are recommending a reduction in staff in the Acquisitions department. There is also a reduction in professional services. At this time he has less staff than he had 20 years ago. Criminal Justice Division This budget reflects an increase of 1.5% due to the mental health court grant revenue. This year's grant will be coming in soon. Com. Coward addressed the calculation with the low inmate population in the two pods versus the continued staffing of the pods. He believes there is a net loss and he believes this is a discussion they need to have. The Criminal Justice Coordinator addressed the Mental Health Court and the Pretrial program where there are indirect cost savings. Com. Craft stated he believed these were issues outside of what the Criminal justice Coordinator would handle. Com. Coward pointed out the fact that the population in the pods does affect other budgets. 4 He stated the operating expenses of one pod is 2.5 million dollars and if you get federal prisoners and bring in 1.5 million you are still at a loss of a million dollars net because you continue to operate a facility that is more expensive to operate than what you get in and this is the discussion they need to have. Com. Craft stated in looking at the Sheriff's budget, you can see a $650,000 in the total cost in the detention cost of the budget and you should see a reduction in overtime if the jail population is lower. The Pretrial Program cost is $782,000; the Mental Health Court there is a grant but New Horizons is provided $546,000 by the Board for this program. Com. Coward addressed the decrease in the jail population and stated he would like to see a business plan for the one pod. The Criminal Justice Coordinator addressed the success of the programs that have helped decrease the jail population. Com. Craft addressed the fact the jail has many moving parts. He reminded those present there are various separations that must take place, for example the separation of males and females, felons and misdemeanors, juveniles etc. Com. Coward recommended following up this discussion with the Sheriff. Com. Craft addressed the first appearance attorney's position at the jail and the fact this was a position required by the State. He requested the Board's input on whether they should continue to fund this position at a full level or if there is a share level from the PD's office since it was now the responsibility of the Public Defender's office to provide the attorney. He stated he was informed the Public Defender had stated if the Board could not continue to fund the position, she would then not have an attorney at the jail. He believes she does not have that choice as far as he is concerned. Com. Dzadovsky advised the Board he had a discussion with the Public Defender and she advised him she was willing to compromise on this issue and would breakout the time frame and take a percentage of meet the request. Com. Craft stated he was happy with this. He believes there should be some reimbursement and uses it for a part time position to help with the interviewing so that they could present more information to the judge at first appearance. Com. Lewis stated she would be interested in seeing the figures broken out. The County Administrator stated the Public Defender would be attending the budget meeting on Monday. The Criminal Justice Coordinator advised the Board the Drug Lab has produced total revenues of $61,519.00 for the third quarter. Statutory Agencies The County Administrator advised the Board that not all state agencies were able to meet the 10% cut she recommended. There needs to be some flexibility on they look at the budgets. The court technology fund, being set by statute a $2.00 recording fee established in FY 04/05. The revenue being distributed was based on how many computer they had. It has declined in revenue and each of the agencies has built up technology or IT staff and now there is a deficit. She has taken funds from the fine and forfeiture fund to cover that deficit. Legally the county is required to pay. The County Attorney stated the Clerk has his own funding source and he is limited by the amount he receives, the other fees received we allocate to the various organizations. He believes the county is still required to pay for these items and is checking with the Association of Counties on this issue to see how they are handling it on their end. We can only collect what the state requires us to collect unlike in the past the county was able to set the fees, but now we cannot. The Board has the ability to question their IT requirements and ask follow up questions, but that is all they are able to do. These are constitutional officers elected by the public and the county has to fund their reasonable IT needs. The shortfall identified is $287,792 and the County Administrator stated she has covered it in the budget. 19th Judicial The Chief Judge, the Honorable Yagucci, addressed the Board and stated they have cut their budget and has shifted judges around where needed. Com. Craft thanked Judge Yagucci for his efforts in providing the judges where needed. Court Administration The Court Administrator stated they have 4 people in their IT staff to cover 6 courthouses. They have reduced their budget by almost 24% and stated they are at "bare bones"; however he felt they could operate on the budget submitted. The requested budget is $570,826 for FY 2011. The recommended budget is $570,826. The Court Administrator submitted a requested budget reflecting a reduction of $179,518 or 23.92%. The State recommendation provides that Counties are exempt from the 1.5% annual increase in funding for court-related expenditures for fiscal year 2011. Counties will be required to maintain current level (FY 2010) of funding. Threshold Issues: Court Technology Fund • This budget funds the court related functions per F.S. 29.008. • For FY 2010-2011, the Recording Revenues are projected to continue to drop. The Recording Revenue History reflects the following: FY 11$272,114 projection, -10.11% FY 10 $302,715 projection, -18.40% FY 09 $370,993.70 actual, -31.70% FY 08 $543,193 actual, -47.85% FY 07 $1,041,566 actual, -30% FY 06 $1,488,004.20 actual, -6.90% FY 2004-2005 $1,598,262 actual • At this collection rate, this fund cannot sustain recurring expenses such as Information Technology staff, etc. • As the Board has not subsidized this fund in the past, an additional reduction of $107,433 to the agency's budget is necessary to cover their share of the deficit. Alternative to this budget reduction is a subsidy transfer from the Fine and Forfeiture Fund in this amount. In order to present a balanced budget to the Board, a subsidy transfer was made from the Fine and Forfeiture Fund in the deficit amount. 6 Guardian Ad Litem The requested budget was $157,319; the recommended budget is $157,319. This budget reflects a 5.7% reduction. They advised the County Administrator they could not reach the 10% requested reduction. Ms. Elizabeth McKenzie addressed the Board on this budget request. She advised the Board they are a volunteer based program. Com. Coward addressed the rent this office is paying at their St. Lucie West location. Ms. McKenzie advised the Board they have a 10 year lease and are paying $24.00 per square foot in rental space. Com. Coward questioned if they were able to get out of this lease. The County Administrator advised the Board she believed the lease agreement did not contain an "out clause" in it. Com. Dzadovsky requested a policy be established that each lease or contract has an "out clause". The County Administrator stated they were presently working on this. Com. Coward requested the County Attorney review the lease. Com. Dzadovsy requested staff check and see how much it would cost to buy out the lease agreement. Com. Coward stated he would like for the Board to give a policy direction for the County Attorney to review the lease agreement. The County Administrator stated she would follow up with the County Attorney. Medical Examiner The Medical Examiner submitted a requested budget reflecting a reduction of $25,503 or 4.9% decrease. The Medical Examiner reduced his budget by 10% and this was offset by an increase due to an adjustment to the County's share of the budget based on the workload for 2009. The County's share of the budget is calculated by using a ratio of the number of autopsies performed in each County to the ration of deaths in the county from the previous year's workload. Com. Craft stated they needed to look at the other counties contribution towards the health care benefits. State Attorney This budget reflects a 10% reduction or $85,875. The FY 11 budget includes $136,968 for Victim Service Department. Threshold Issues: Court Technology Fund • This budget funds the court related functions per F.S. 29.008. • For FY2010-2011, the Recording Revenues are projected to continue to drop. • At the collection rate, this fund cannot sustain recurring expenses such as Information Technology staff, etc. 7 • As the Board has not subsidized this fund in the past, an additional reduction of $93,573 to the agency's budget is necessary to cover their share of the deficit. Alternative to this budget reduction is a subsidy transfer from the Fine and Forfeiture Fund in this amount. In order to present a balanced budget to the Board, a subsidy transfer was made from the Fine & Forfeiture Fund in the deficit amount. External Agencies TPO-there will not be a budget review for this department, the position funding is no longer needed and will be coming back into the General Fund. Economic Development Council The County Administrator recommended a reduction of $25,000 for this agency, providing the funding at $200,000. Mr. Pelton, Economic Development Director advised the Board the private sector contributions are down and the State is not funding any incentives for Economic Development. It was the consensus of the Board to approve the funding at $200,000. Soil and Conservation The Board funds one position at $59,000 salary and benefits. This is the total funding for this operation. It was the consensus of the Board to approve the funding at $59,000. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Tax Collector -fee based operations- no budget review Property Appraiser -fee based operations- no budget review Sheriff The Sheriff's requested budget is $62,479,301 and the recommended budget is $62,479,301. This does not include the funding for the SRO's 1.62 million. Com. Coward reminded the County Administrator that the 1.62 million was a SRO supplemental fund provided by the Board last year and questioned if the 1.5 million provided by the Sheriff's office is in their budget. The County Administrator advised the Board the Sheriff's portion of the SRO's (1.5 million) in incorporated in his budget request. The Sheriff stated the 62, 479,301 does include the sheriff's portion of the SRO funding of 1. 5 million and does not include the 1.62 supplement. The Sheriff advised the Board he had heard that Port St. Lucie was going to place the one officer back into the High Schools. He advised the Board the reduced budget would provide 2 deputies being assigned to the High Schools, one to Dale Cassins and one to Delaware Avenue. This means 80% of the schools will not be covered by a SRO. The Sheriff stated they were making payment of $875,000 ($125,000 each month) towards the end of the fiscal year and if this was coupled with the budget reduction, this would amount to a 5.42% reduction of the budget for the next year not including the reduction of the SRO. They are seeking increase of Federal Inmates to the jail and he believes it will increase once the 8 Federal Court is completed. Also they are looking at working with ICE (Immigration) to see if they meet the criteria to house those arrested. If so, he requested those funds be used to backfill what they have lost in the SRD's. Com. Coward addressed the use of the facility as a whole. The Sheriff stated they needed to use the whole facility due to classifications. Com. Coward questioned if there was a net affect. The Sheriff addressed Com. Coward's question and stated he would like to fill the empty beds with Federal inmates or with ICE inmates; he is looking for ICE to pay as much if not more than the Federal inmates. Com. Craft questioned what the cost of operating a pod was and what is the minimum number of inmates we would need to have from the Feds in order to fund a pod. The Finance Director stated they would need to do a calculation in order to provide the figure. They are hoping to negotiate a contract at a higher rate with ICE due to the fact there are different issues with illegal aliens than with legal inmates. Com. Craft addressed the overtime figure. The Finance Director stated last year the overtime was just over 1.4 million. Com. Craft stated he would like to see the actual from last year's budget and today's budget. The Sheriff stated there is difficulty in the overtime due to having to schedule a deputy for hospital duty. You cannot take a scheduled person off of a post to have him do hospital duty, so you have to bring in one on overtime. Com. Dzadovsky questioned if they had any unfilled positions still funded in the budget. The Finance Director stated there were four management additional management positions deleted from the budget. They have 266.5 deputies at the detention center. 234 .5 are detention certified 32 civilian staff 216 law enforcement deputies 173 certified 39 civilian staff Com. Dzadovsky asked if there was any indication of downsizing due to retirement or attrition in his department. The Sheriff stated they had discontinued 4 management positions in this budget year. The calls for service continue to increase. Last year they answered over 17,000 calls for the City of Ft. Pierce and 10,000 for the City of Port St. Lucie. Com. Coward addressed having a discussion in the future regarding the possible reduction in operating at the jail, not in personnel but in energy conservation efforts. The Sheriff requested having a discussion on the SRO program and how they could secure a funding source for the program in the future. 9 Com. Coward stated the question of funding should be addressed with the City of Port St. Lucie, the School Board and the City of Ft. Pierce as to what they intend to do. The Board continues to fund their portion and does not believe the county should be responsible for programs by default. Com. Dzadovsky stated they should investigate obtaining more money from the state for Law Enforcement/SRO program. The County Administrator advised the Board she was supporting the revised budget provided by the Sheriff. The County Administrator requested discussion on the Law Enforcement MSTU. There is a deficit in the MSTU for the upcoming year. The 27% of the $11 million budget for the Road Patrol equals 2.9 million dollars and this will fund only part of the Road Patrol. There will be an $861,000 deficit. The County Administrator addressed the agreement between the City of Port St. Lucie's City Manager and the County. The County Attorney walked the Board through the negotiated settlement with the two cities and the options available. He stated they could go back to the cities and see what they can do. Legally he believes they could win if they go to court. The compromise was a political compromise at that time. He advised the Board if they wish to make it a county wide millage they would need to go back to the city and have them get the city residents consent by ordinance. The County cannot impose an MSTU without the city's consent by ordinance. The County Administrator stated the options are to either increase the millage rate on the MSTU or reduce the Sheriff's budget. It was the recommendation of the Board to draft a letter from the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners in combination with the Sheriff to the Cities and the School Board regarding the School Resource Officers funding. Com. Craft recommended they include St. Lucie Village into this discussion of the SRO program. Clerk of the Circuit Court The Clerk of Court addressed the Board on his budget reduction of 4.03% and stated he is aware the County Administrator requested an additional $113,151 in reduction or 10%. He stated there would be service slowdowns and changes as to how functions are performed at the same time they will do it. If this is the will of the Board to follow the County Administrator's recommendation, he will do so. Com. Grande asked what the County Administrator's recommendation would be. The County Administrator stated she would still recommend the further reduction to equal 10% and asked for the Board's support. Com. Craft addressed the additional recommendations made for the Board's consideration as far as furloughs and asked how he would be able to deal with such a program. The Clerk stated all options are on the table, the courtside will have a reduction of 15% due to state funding and at this point he does not have anything off the table, but has options. They will need to look at the operations of the courtside. He advised the Board they are now on the budget cycle starting July 15t. He has received some funds from the state for the foreclosure operations of the courtside. 10 The Clerk stated he is doing his very best to handle the situation and he thinks if they are working on a partnership concept he is hoping to do his part in the partnership. They will be down to the bare minimum of service level. He reduced his staff by 7 in 2007 and the additional cut will be 4 to 5 full time employees in that area. They will be looking at a 46% reduction in staff in the last 3 to 5 years. Com. Dzadovsky thanked the Clerk for his efforts. It was the consensus of the Board to support the additional reduction to equal the 10%. Supervisor of Elections The Supervisor of Elections addressed the Board and advised them she has decided to close the St. Lucie West office which will help her reach the 10% requested. The meeting was adjourned. 11