Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 21 11Minutes CITIZENS’ BUDGET COMMITTEE Meeting Date: January 21, 2011 Conference Room 3 MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Hensley, Chair Craig Mundt Richard Pancoast Dana McSweeney Ryan Strickland Edward Lounds Patricia “Pat” Ferrick Bill Hammer Ron Knaggs John Culverhouse Jay L. McBee Edith Hepburn Dan Kurek Stephanie Morgan Randy Ezell OTHERS PRESENT: Faye Outlaw Lee Ann Lowery Bill Hoeffner Mike Monahan Don West Jennifer Hill Marie Gouin Mark Satterlee John Ferrick Laurie Waldie Michael Quinn Karen Smith Debbie Brisson Beth Ryder Audrey Jackson Jack Southard Liz Martin Ken Pruitt CALL TO ORDER Mr. Hensley called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. He announced that Commissioner Hutchinson appointed Stephanie Morgan and Commissioner Mowery appointed Craig Mundt to the Committee. ELECT CHAIR & VICE CHAIR Mr. Hensley turned the meeting over to Ms. Outlaw for the election of the Chair. Ballots were passed out to the members. Ms. Ferrick nominated John Culverhouse. Mr. Lounds nominated Mr. Hensley. Ms. Outlaw explained that Mr. Hensley could serve two terms as Chair effective the date the Board adopted a policy that a person can serve only two terms. Ms. Lowery added that if they wanted him to serve longer, it would have to be approved by Citizens’ Budget Committee January 21, 2011 Page 2 the Board. Mr. Lounds moved the nominations cease. The members marked their ballots. Mr. Hensley received eight votes and Mr. Culverhouse received four. Mr. Culverhouse congratulated Mr. Hensley. Mr. Hensley asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Ms. Morgan nominated Mr. Culverhouse. Mr. Lounds nominated Mr. Mundt. Mr. Mundt is currently the Vice Chair. Nominations were closed and the members cast their ballots. Mr. Culverhouse received six votes and Mr. Mundt received five. Mr. Hensley congratulated Mr. Culverhouse. TH APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NOVEMBER 19 MEETING Mr. Knaggs made a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. UPDATE: SMALL BUSINESSES CODE REGULATIONS & PERMITTING INITIATIVE TASK FORCE MEETING – Mark Satterlee Mr. Satterlee is representing the County and Mr. Mundt is representing the Committee on the Task Force. Mr. Satterlee, Planning and Services Director, said he and Mr. Mundt had attended both of the meetings. The first meeting was in early December and the second was in early January. The next meeting is scheduled for February in the Chamber office. They have had good participation and recognize the need to be timely and expect to have a report with recommendations in six months. They have focused on the regulatory environment in the process concerning small businesses hoping to open or expand in the County. Ms. Outlaw asked Mr. Satterlee to put together information about cost for developing and permitting in the County for the meetings. He also listed the different agencies involved. It can be a real obstacle for small businesses to bring their site up to current codes. The Task Force discussed parking codes, landscaping, drainage and aspects of site development. Mr. Pelton thought the County should look at an audit process to be sure the rationale of each regulation was still valid. They discussed the Development Review Committee (DRC) process. The second process is the detailed plan review process and the third is seeking building permits. In the second meeting, the Task Force discussed the affirmative process and how to address the regulatory requirements. They discussed defining thresholds of what constitutes a small business. They discussed a temporary moratorium on non-life safety requirements, deferral of requirements and improving the process. Customer service, staff discretion and waivers were discussed. Mr. Satterlee told the Committee that he covered the expedited review process at the meeting. Spending more time up front makes the plan submittal process quicker. Other topics discussed were why regulations are in place and other agencies involved in the process. In the third meeting, the Task Force will deal with real projects. Staff is putting together a list of code requirements and examining five projects that have gone through the process, Citizens’ Budget Committee January 21, 2011 Page 3 identifying their issues and the outcome. Environmental Resources and Public Works attended the last meeting. Mr. Satterlee plans to bring some of his planning staff to the next meeting to participate. Mr. Mundt said he thought a guideline that would describe the process and a range of costs would help a small business. It would help to know what percent the process would cost above construction expenses. Ms. Ferrick asked if the applicant knows concerns before DRC meetings. Mr. Satterlee answered that there is a pre-application conference with almost all applicants to address as many issues as possible. As projects become better defined, more issues come up. The more time they spend up front, the more issues are resolved prior to submittal. Ms. Ferrick asked if their Committee would be provided with the information given at the meetings. Mr. Satterlee answered that they could. Mr. Hammer said he has heard that the up-front costs are a deterrent. He thinks they should work with other agencies to relieve costs to promote development. Mr. Lounds likes the idea of a guideline or map for the small business owners. He does not look at HealthChem or Tropicana as small businesses. He thinks the customer service side would improve the relationship between private industry and the County. Mr. Satterlee said they have been working on a manual to get the information in one place. He mentioned HealthChem and Tropicana as examples of going through the process, not as examples of small businesses. Mr. Knaggs asked about 30% being the percentage that would be added to construction costs. Mr. Mundt said it is a ballpark figure that was thrown out that includes engineering costs, consultant costs and stormwater management costs. Stormwater management costs for his project was $25,000-$26,000. Mr. Satterlee added that it is a combination of fees and applications. Each agency has its permits and fees. Mr. Knaggs understands that these are things that weren’t considered before walking through the door. Mr. Mundt explained that a business owner may go to a contractor and ask the cost of adding 3,000 square feet. He may not realize the additional costs that will be added as he goes through the process. Some examples are impact fees and a sprinkler system. Each expert points out an item that has a cost. Mr. Satterlee said they try to identify those things in the pre-application meetings as much as possible. Mr. Knaggs asked if there would be any benefit to having one person at the County that everybody in the application process could go to for direction. Maybe that would be the job of the manual. Mr. Satterlee said they have considered that position as part of the process. Citizens’ Budget Committee January 21, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Lounds compared the charges of other agencies to the items listed on the County tax bill. They include South Florida Water Management District, the Fire District and others lumped into County taxes. He thinks getting folks channeled in the right direction is a very important aspect of what they are trying to do to help. Mr. Culverhouse asked what sorts of fees, regulations or code requirements St. Lucie County has compared to Martin and Indian River. Mr. Satterlee said, in his experience, they are similar. They have the same rules to deal with. It may be structured different. He does not think the costs are much different. His view is that the savings are the time savings. Knowing the time frame is meaningful. The impact fees are sometimes an issue. Port St. Lucie is not always good about telling people that there are County impact fees. Mr. Mundt shared that he expected the County impact fees, but did not know the Fire District would get $2,600 for his project. Mr. Hensley asked about the five projects selected for the next meeting. Mr. Satterlee explained they picked five that have come through the process recently. He thinks they will identify the bulk of the issues that need to be addressed. The Task Force has also discussed bringing in a small business owner to talk about their experience. The Chamber of Commerce is involved. Mr. Satterlee gave the names of some of the members of the task force. He believes there is a good cross section of people that are familiar with the process. Mr. Hensley said it is understandable why it can’t be done in a month. He hopes six months is enough time. Mr. Satterlee believes they can have some recommendations by that time. Mr. Mundt will keep the Committee informed. REALIGNMENT UPDATE – Faye Outlaw Ms. Outlaw referred to a copy of an agenda item that the Board had approved the previous Tuesday (see attached). It was the final report on the realignment of County operations. The Board adopted the resolution that approved the final organizational structure of the County. She highlighted Attachment A that showed the Organizational Chart prior to the reorganization and Exhibit A which shows the breakdown of the new departments. The realignment resulted in about a $2.1 million savings in the General Fund. There was about a $1.6 million savings in the other funds. So the total was about $3.7 million. Mr. Lounds asked about golf course details from a report attached to the prior minutes. Ms. Outlaw explained that the golf course had a running loan to the General Fund. Part of the agreement with HealthChem was in exchange for writing down the rent payment that HealthChem would have to pay the County, we could write off an equivalent amount of the debt that the golf course owed the General Fund. The deficit on the sheet is the gap between the revenues, which were dropping because of the condition of the greens, and expenses. Ms. Brisson informed the group that the golf course was experiencing a shortfall because of the condition of the greens. They were watching the number of rounds decrease. They had to decide if they should have a greater dependency on the General Citizens’ Budget Committee January 21, 2011 Page 5 Fund or address the issue. They went to the Board to have the greens renovated. The number of rounds was back up in November. There was some bad weather in December and January. It appears the project caused the desired result. Ms. Outlaw asked staff if the running loan from the golf course to the General Fund is part of the operating shortfall on the report. The report shows the difference in the operating expenses at the golf course and the operating revenues. What the golf course owes the General Fund is not part of the $639,000. Mr. Lounds believes they should stop the bleeding at the golf course. Ms. Outlaw believes we are about there. Since they replaced the greens, the numbers look pretty good. The weather will affect the numbers at times. There has been a realignment to bring expenses down. She thinks this year, at a minimum; they will break even in terms of revenue and expenses. Mr. Lounds said if the greens and tees are not comparable, people will go elsewhere to play. Revenue would be lost because people are not coming back. The course must be maintained. Mr. Lounds repeated that we need to quit bleeding. Ms. Outlaw said the $600,000 was last year and she agreed. The project is complete. Ms. Brisson agreed and said they are seeing people come back. They are advertising the new greens. They are getting lots of phone calls and interest. In addition to the condition of the greens, they have to be competitive with the fees. They are extremely competitive and feel they have a superior course. The greens had not been replaced in a long time. The course is 20 years old. It was time. They are excited about the opportunity. Mr. Lounds asked if there is an ongoing expense budgeted to keep them up. Ms. Brisson answered it is in the golf course budget. The course was built on an old landfill. They not only replaced the grass, they investigated and modeled the renovation after a similar situation. They put in a PVC liner. The liners are now required if you top a landfill. Ms. Outlaw added that we have seen a change in the tone of the emails from caustic to complimentary. Mr. Hammer said in the budget process the bottom line is always if there are funds available to pay the cost of the budget. A couple things stand out in his mind. He wonders how well we are using the resources of Workforce Skills Development. According to the media report, we have 74% of the students qualifying for free or reduced lunches. There is some work going into parenting skills. His question is if the upgrade of skills is being addressed in a coordinated way through the agencies and educational facilities to get the most out of it as soon as possible. He would like to know more about it. Ms. Outlaw said the County does not oversee the school district or Workforce Solutions. Mr. Hammer thinks they should look at all the pieces out there and get the most through coordination. Mr. Hensley asked Ms. Brisson if the golf course made money before the greens were deteriorating. Ms. Brisson answered that it was breaking even. The real trouble began about three or four years ago. They have done testing to find out the exact problem. A test green was done before the entire course. She is proud of the course compared to others. Other municipalities typically don’t reach the breakeven point. Mr. Lounds added that it doesn’t take long to lose a customer, but it takes a long time to get them back. Mr. Strickland added that he had visited the course, Mr. Baum and his staff. It is far Citizens’ Budget Committee January 21, 2011 Page 6 superior to other courses in that area. He agreed with Mr. Lounds that $639,000+ is a lot to miss, but hopefully they will breakeven in 2011. Mr. Lounds said the Code Division projected a $700,000 deficit but had $300,000. He wonders why the Code Division is losing money with the lack of building. Ms. Outlaw answered because the construction industry has fallen off so significantly, there is not the same level of revenue. The last three years they have been using their reserves at a rate of $500,000 to $700,000. There had been two layoffs trying to balance the operations with the revenues. If there had not been a third layoff, they would have completely depleted the operating reserves. She would not be able to look at another layoff. It would have to be contracted out. The County cannot provide a decent level of service with any less staff. Mr. Lounds asked if they do cross training. She said they do, starting at the front counter. They have cut staff so significantly, the tech positions serve in all three disciplines: building, zoning and planning. Mr. Hammer said housing is a related issue. There is an overabundance. He questions how to make that unique. He thinks insurance is killing people. Energy efficiency and storm readiness are attractive. He thinks they should work with the insurance and construction industries to focus on future development. PREPARATION FOR FY12 BUDGET PROCESS – Marie Gouin Ms. Gouin reviewed the Budget Dates (see attached). The guidelines are the same. The County Administrator will review any exceptions. No new positions, no reclassifications, no new equipment and no new capital are to be funded by the General Fund. Increases in operating are not allowed. Travel is only allowed if it is required to maintain a certification. They are thinking of changing Strategic Planning from April to June. The County will not st have preliminary property value numbers until June 1. Ms. Outlaw added that she and the Property Appraiser, Mr. Pruitt, had a meeting on his plan for giving estimates of property values. Before, they had been given an indication of where the values would be. Mr. Pruitt will give the numbers according to the statute. She does not want to have Strategic Planning in April and have to redo budgets. Since 2013 is going to be so critical, she feels they should go into Strategic Planning with a factual projection on the values. They will also have all the budgets submitted at the time. This will enable them to discuss and get policy direction on what they can support to help balance the 2013 budget. Based on fund balance numbers, she thinks 2012 will be okay. Another critical piece of information needed for Strategic Planning is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). We always get it the end of March or early April. She asked the Committee to be as flexible as they have been. They previously agreed to roll their April meeting into Strategic Planning. A motion was made and Mr. Culverhouse seconded it to schedule the th April meeting on the normal third Friday, April 15. It was unanimously approved. They will decide later about the June meeting. OTHER ISSUES Citizens’ Budget Committee January 21, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Hensley said that he does not think it is necessary for the minutes to note when a member arrives late or leaves early. He does want it noted if there is not a quorum for a vote. The Committee agreed. Ms. Morgan had questions about the presentation in the November meeting. She wanted the cost of the renovation and asked about employees not having to clock out to go to the clinic. Ms. Outlaw said to start the clinic they plan to allow an employee that injured their finger or needed to pick up a prescription to go to the clinic without using sick leave time. It is an incentive to use the clinic. Ms. Morgan feels that would be workers comp. She understood that if they were not feeling well they could go to the clinic and get paid for the time. Ms. Outlaw said it is set up that way. Clinic visits are supposed to be 20-30 minutes so they are allowing employees to go to the clinic and back to work without charging the time. It will be monitored. If it appears there is abuse, rules will be made. She did not want a leave slip for 15 minutes. They are trying for the highest utilization rate. That will cause the highest savings. If employees are sitting at the clinic for an hour or two, that is a different scenario. They are waiting for experience to know. There are models where the employees do not use sick time and they have good utilization rates. Ms. Ferrick asked about employees calling ahead so they didn’t have to wait. Ms. Outlaw said they would take that into consideration. Mr. Hammer gave his experience and suggestion about prescriptions. Ms. Outlaw thanked them for the suggestions. We do not yet have a date for opening. Time will be needed to plan when the construction is done. Mr. Kurek asked if an agreement had been signed with CareHere. There had been discussion on piggybacking on Port St. Lucie’s contract. Port St. Lucie is out to bid. Ms. Outlaw said we have a contract and will start with CareHere. We will monitor progress and operations. We will bring back recommendations to the Board and reports to the Committee. Mr. Kurek suggested Mr. Hoeffner or Mr. Teegardin talk to the people at Port St. Lucie. Ms. Outlaw answered that they have. Mr. Mundt asked when the contract expires. When does the service begin and end? Ms. Outlaw announced a Joint Meeting between the two Cities, the County and the School Board at the Port St. Lucie Community Center at 9:00 a.m. on February 2, 2011. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hensley thanked the Committee and staff for their attendance and adjourned the meeting at 8:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Brenda Marlin The next CBC regular meeting will be held on Friday, February 18, 2011, at 7:30 a.m., in Conference Room #3, at the St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex.