05-07-2007, 06:45 PM
PULLED FROM THE PUBLIC ACCESS MAIL. THIS SHOULD ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BUDGET.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are still looking at the budget but these are the preliminary thoughts. I will ask Jeff or Gail to add any additional comments.
His request is for $82,952,061. Last year's budget was $73, 805,281. This is a variance of $9,146,780 or 12.39% However, recall that his budget last year was based upon the receipt and expenditure of INS funds. He has fallen short of the receipt of the revenue and has yet to show a reduced expense. If you subtract about a million of revenue and therefore a supposed expense out of last years budget than the real increase is 14.33%
He is seeking 28 new positions, for an additional expense of $1.83M for personnel and equipment. Ten of these positions have supposedly been "ordered" by the judges as new bailiff positions. I find this curious and interesting but I am not persuaded. I am just a bit curious as to how the judges can order the County to budget for this expense unilaterally. Steve Demarsh and I have talked and he is looking into the matter. The other 18 positions are scattered hither and yon for various positions such as an additional corrections officer for the Venice jail, records, property, etc. We have just received a staffing study for the jail and courts. We will be analyzing this in conjunction with the work of the Criminal Justice Commission. That Commission has identified a huge impact on the jails operating costs resulting from the City of Sarasota Camping ordinance. There are three solutions. Continue to absorb those costs, the sheriff can in fact refuse to house a large proportion of these individuals under state law requiring the City to seek other recourse or try to divert revenues from the jailor develop revenues for the City to produce an outcome that is more meaningful to the individuals involved, the County and the City. That discussion has yet to occur. Another oft used reason for the need for new positions is that at any one time there are 20 to 30 vacant positions and that new positions are the way to bridge that gap to stay "fully" staffed. Te problem with this approach is that it creates a never ending spiral and supporting argument as an operation always has 5-10% of its positions vacant - so each year that argument could be used to ask for 20-30 more people. This uses the budget as an alternative to recruitment practices that focus on the acquisition of trained up people or as an alternative to dissecting and reinvent minimize time away from the job. Our needs an theirs may vary but we want to understand this better.
CAUTION - AS I READ THE ANALYSIS SO FAR WE STILL HAVE TO RECONCILE THE PERSONNEL COST NUMBERS BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF WHAT THESE POSITIONS (NEW AND OLD) SHOULD COST DO NOT EQUATE TO THE REQUEST. THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL.
He does show about $750,000 in increased costs due to FRS and health care.
$3.75M of the request is for things like salary adjustments for existing positions. These personnel costs are 5.96% above last years budget for personnel. Remember that there is now a collective bargaining unit that is looking at the surrounding counties and cities. Still an almost 6% increase seems high when ours is closer to 3.5%
He does have some equipment replacement and maintenance issues and technology issues. We will have to parse these out further, for example looking to see if software licenses that we already buy can cover their needs, but they are small in comparison only being about $400,000 of the request.
Could you fill us in on issues ahead of time
All mail to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the Public Record laws of Florida
All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.
>>> Shirley Wittine 05/16/05 12:06 PM >>>
I've scheduled the following meetings with Sheriff Balkwill and Maj. Rossi regarding the budget:
May 23
1:30 Dave Mills
2:00 Nora Patterson
2:30 Jon Thaxton
3:00 Paul Mercier
June 1
3:30 Shannon Staub
The meetings are scheduled a half hour apart, but the Sheriff thinks they will only need about 15 minutes. That gives us a little bit of wiggle room.
Please let me know if there are any problems with this schedule.
Thanks,
Shirley
Shirley E. Wittine, Executive Assistant
Sarasota County Government
Board of County Commissioners Office
1660 Ringling Boulevard
Sarasota, FL 34236
(941) 861-5390
fax: (941) 861-5987
-----------------------------------------------------------
Close Reply to Sender Reply All
Print View
From: James Ley
To: npatters@scgov.net
Date: Thursday - August 25, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Sheriff's Budget
No prob
>>> Nora Patterson 8/25 11:08 am >>>
Oops. Sorry. I was translating Internal Revenue to the IRS. I thiought there was maybe outstanding obligations on payrolll.
>>> James Ley 8/25 11:04 am >>>
The Sheriff's office share of Wellness, IT applications support (down from four systems to two), network and phone costs, work station support costs (computers) and his share of many different types of insurance(general liability, vehicle, added cost for new helicopter and aircraft, etc). Some of the IT costs are going down as systems support is reduced and as we begin to recapture the investment benefit that we expected for the new phone system.
We also used to budget his insurance claim deductibles as an internal charge but now require that he take those directly out of his budget as a means of bringing awareness of and attention to safety and vehicle claims. .
Any normal budget that we do for each cost center includes these costs and we simply debit the cost center. And the Sheriff's total budget is really a combination of the cost under his control plus the internal service costs. Unlike our cost centers, we can no longer control/debit his budget once we give him the money with any sense of certainty. Not to say he wouldn't pay, more to say it is easier to maintain control for a variety of reasons. So rather than include these costs as part of his budget and then have to bill him back, we maintain control by adding it on top and retaining control.
Correct me if I missed anything gang.
>>> Nora Patterson 8/24 9:05 pm >>>
What and why are there internal revenue charges?
>>> James Ley 8/24 5:24 pm >>>
All
Sheriff Balkwill and I would like to inform you that we have reached an agreement that will be submitted to you in the final budget.
During the development of the preliminary budget, the Board tentatively budgeted a 3% increase for the Sheriff's budget. I indicated at the time that I expected that we would have further negotiations with the Sheriff.
Over the past few weeks we have shared correspondence and Bill and I were able to meet this Tuesday. Today we jointly agreed to a number and some "next steps."
The Sheriff's budget will be presented in the final budget as $79,305,281, a $5.5M increase or 7.5% above last years approved budget. To this will be added Internal Service charges which in fact are decreasing about 5%. Using the approved 05 budget number can be somewhat deceiving, for throughout the year amendments are made and ultimately reflect a closer number. In fact if you compare the amended Sheriff's budget for 05 we are really only adding $4.6M, an increase of 6.2% In summary:
FY05 Approved - $73,805,281
FY05 Amended - $74,657,977
FY06 Proposed - $79,305,281
All without Internal Service charges
To add some perspective, you may recall that the Sheriff's original proposal for FY06 was for an approximate $9.2M increase or about 12.4%, then at the workshop an approximate $7.3M request was made or about a 9.9% increase.
During our discussion it was once again clear that we all have been suffering some honest "translation" difficulties. The Sheriff generously offered as one "next step" that we assign one of our budget analysts to work directly with his budget team throughout the year and as they develop their budget, not only to help clear up any translation problems but also to offer any suggestions for improvements.
As another "next step" Bill made it clear, that despite the position that was articulated as part of the tentative collective bargaining agreement (the budget had to increase by $6M for the tentative agreement to be honored), he will move ahead with finalization of the agreement. I know that the Board was concerned that the deputies not be left hanging as a result of budget related differences. Bill just told me on the phone he is ready to move on. As a side note, I remind you that the Corrections staff is not covered by the tentative collective bargaining agreement, and will therefore be subject to the step plan instituted in previous budgets, one that we thought was professionally developed and to our knowledge has been administered as presented. Bill and I both wanted that to be clear so that there is no confusion between the two pay plans.
Although we don't really approve a line item budget for the Sheriff, in keeping with his previous practice of reconciling his line item budget to the final budget number, the Sheriff will revise his line item budget appropriately as the final "next step."
Because neither the Commission nor its Administration has any control over line item management of the Sheriff's budget, these conversations are often resolved through negotiations and settling upon a number that often reflects a compromise and/or acknowledgment of what may be differences in circumstance, philosophy or practice. I want to make it clear that throughout the conversations of the last four months, and while we may had differences of opinion, it was always our feeling that we were being dealt with in a professional and civil fashion. Thank you for that Bill and Skip!!!
Jim
All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are still looking at the budget but these are the preliminary thoughts. I will ask Jeff or Gail to add any additional comments.
His request is for $82,952,061. Last year's budget was $73, 805,281. This is a variance of $9,146,780 or 12.39% However, recall that his budget last year was based upon the receipt and expenditure of INS funds. He has fallen short of the receipt of the revenue and has yet to show a reduced expense. If you subtract about a million of revenue and therefore a supposed expense out of last years budget than the real increase is 14.33%
He is seeking 28 new positions, for an additional expense of $1.83M for personnel and equipment. Ten of these positions have supposedly been "ordered" by the judges as new bailiff positions. I find this curious and interesting but I am not persuaded. I am just a bit curious as to how the judges can order the County to budget for this expense unilaterally. Steve Demarsh and I have talked and he is looking into the matter. The other 18 positions are scattered hither and yon for various positions such as an additional corrections officer for the Venice jail, records, property, etc. We have just received a staffing study for the jail and courts. We will be analyzing this in conjunction with the work of the Criminal Justice Commission. That Commission has identified a huge impact on the jails operating costs resulting from the City of Sarasota Camping ordinance. There are three solutions. Continue to absorb those costs, the sheriff can in fact refuse to house a large proportion of these individuals under state law requiring the City to seek other recourse or try to divert revenues from the jailor develop revenues for the City to produce an outcome that is more meaningful to the individuals involved, the County and the City. That discussion has yet to occur. Another oft used reason for the need for new positions is that at any one time there are 20 to 30 vacant positions and that new positions are the way to bridge that gap to stay "fully" staffed. Te problem with this approach is that it creates a never ending spiral and supporting argument as an operation always has 5-10% of its positions vacant - so each year that argument could be used to ask for 20-30 more people. This uses the budget as an alternative to recruitment practices that focus on the acquisition of trained up people or as an alternative to dissecting and reinvent minimize time away from the job. Our needs an theirs may vary but we want to understand this better.
CAUTION - AS I READ THE ANALYSIS SO FAR WE STILL HAVE TO RECONCILE THE PERSONNEL COST NUMBERS BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF WHAT THESE POSITIONS (NEW AND OLD) SHOULD COST DO NOT EQUATE TO THE REQUEST. THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL.
He does show about $750,000 in increased costs due to FRS and health care.
$3.75M of the request is for things like salary adjustments for existing positions. These personnel costs are 5.96% above last years budget for personnel. Remember that there is now a collective bargaining unit that is looking at the surrounding counties and cities. Still an almost 6% increase seems high when ours is closer to 3.5%
He does have some equipment replacement and maintenance issues and technology issues. We will have to parse these out further, for example looking to see if software licenses that we already buy can cover their needs, but they are small in comparison only being about $400,000 of the request.
Could you fill us in on issues ahead of time
All mail to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the Public Record laws of Florida
All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.
>>> Shirley Wittine 05/16/05 12:06 PM >>>
I've scheduled the following meetings with Sheriff Balkwill and Maj. Rossi regarding the budget:
May 23
1:30 Dave Mills
2:00 Nora Patterson
2:30 Jon Thaxton
3:00 Paul Mercier
June 1
3:30 Shannon Staub
The meetings are scheduled a half hour apart, but the Sheriff thinks they will only need about 15 minutes. That gives us a little bit of wiggle room.
Please let me know if there are any problems with this schedule.
Thanks,
Shirley
Shirley E. Wittine, Executive Assistant
Sarasota County Government
Board of County Commissioners Office
1660 Ringling Boulevard
Sarasota, FL 34236
(941) 861-5390
fax: (941) 861-5987
-----------------------------------------------------------
Close Reply to Sender Reply All
Print View
From: James Ley
To: npatters@scgov.net
Date: Thursday - August 25, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Sheriff's Budget
No prob
>>> Nora Patterson 8/25 11:08 am >>>
Oops. Sorry. I was translating Internal Revenue to the IRS. I thiought there was maybe outstanding obligations on payrolll.
>>> James Ley 8/25 11:04 am >>>
The Sheriff's office share of Wellness, IT applications support (down from four systems to two), network and phone costs, work station support costs (computers) and his share of many different types of insurance(general liability, vehicle, added cost for new helicopter and aircraft, etc). Some of the IT costs are going down as systems support is reduced and as we begin to recapture the investment benefit that we expected for the new phone system.
We also used to budget his insurance claim deductibles as an internal charge but now require that he take those directly out of his budget as a means of bringing awareness of and attention to safety and vehicle claims. .
Any normal budget that we do for each cost center includes these costs and we simply debit the cost center. And the Sheriff's total budget is really a combination of the cost under his control plus the internal service costs. Unlike our cost centers, we can no longer control/debit his budget once we give him the money with any sense of certainty. Not to say he wouldn't pay, more to say it is easier to maintain control for a variety of reasons. So rather than include these costs as part of his budget and then have to bill him back, we maintain control by adding it on top and retaining control.
Correct me if I missed anything gang.
>>> Nora Patterson 8/24 9:05 pm >>>
What and why are there internal revenue charges?
>>> James Ley 8/24 5:24 pm >>>
All
Sheriff Balkwill and I would like to inform you that we have reached an agreement that will be submitted to you in the final budget.
During the development of the preliminary budget, the Board tentatively budgeted a 3% increase for the Sheriff's budget. I indicated at the time that I expected that we would have further negotiations with the Sheriff.
Over the past few weeks we have shared correspondence and Bill and I were able to meet this Tuesday. Today we jointly agreed to a number and some "next steps."
The Sheriff's budget will be presented in the final budget as $79,305,281, a $5.5M increase or 7.5% above last years approved budget. To this will be added Internal Service charges which in fact are decreasing about 5%. Using the approved 05 budget number can be somewhat deceiving, for throughout the year amendments are made and ultimately reflect a closer number. In fact if you compare the amended Sheriff's budget for 05 we are really only adding $4.6M, an increase of 6.2% In summary:
FY05 Approved - $73,805,281
FY05 Amended - $74,657,977
FY06 Proposed - $79,305,281
All without Internal Service charges
To add some perspective, you may recall that the Sheriff's original proposal for FY06 was for an approximate $9.2M increase or about 12.4%, then at the workshop an approximate $7.3M request was made or about a 9.9% increase.
During our discussion it was once again clear that we all have been suffering some honest "translation" difficulties. The Sheriff generously offered as one "next step" that we assign one of our budget analysts to work directly with his budget team throughout the year and as they develop their budget, not only to help clear up any translation problems but also to offer any suggestions for improvements.
As another "next step" Bill made it clear, that despite the position that was articulated as part of the tentative collective bargaining agreement (the budget had to increase by $6M for the tentative agreement to be honored), he will move ahead with finalization of the agreement. I know that the Board was concerned that the deputies not be left hanging as a result of budget related differences. Bill just told me on the phone he is ready to move on. As a side note, I remind you that the Corrections staff is not covered by the tentative collective bargaining agreement, and will therefore be subject to the step plan instituted in previous budgets, one that we thought was professionally developed and to our knowledge has been administered as presented. Bill and I both wanted that to be clear so that there is no confusion between the two pay plans.
Although we don't really approve a line item budget for the Sheriff, in keeping with his previous practice of reconciling his line item budget to the final budget number, the Sheriff will revise his line item budget appropriately as the final "next step."
Because neither the Commission nor its Administration has any control over line item management of the Sheriff's budget, these conversations are often resolved through negotiations and settling upon a number that often reflects a compromise and/or acknowledgment of what may be differences in circumstance, philosophy or practice. I want to make it clear that throughout the conversations of the last four months, and while we may had differences of opinion, it was always our feeling that we were being dealt with in a professional and civil fashion. Thank you for that Bill and Skip!!!
Jim
All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.