Next Fire/Rescue Contract Negotiation Scheduled

At the initial meeting between County Fire/Rescue and the IAFF on the 2011 contract, the county proposed a 22% reduction in starting salary among other changes. (See Genesis of a Collective Bargaining Agreement) The union response was deferred to the subsequent meeting which has now been scheduled for July 19.

---

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE
Contract Negotiations

Please be advised that a Contract Negotiations meeting between Palm Beach County Fire Rescue and the IAFF Professional Firefighters/Paramedics of Palm Beach County will be taking place on:

July 19, 2011
9:00 a.m.

This meeting will take place at the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue, Room 101/102, 405 Pike Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33411

(NOTE: This location has changed as of July 12 – it was to be held at the Trauma Hawk hanger on Southern Boulevard)

Palm Beach Post Takes on Fire / Rescue Pay

Fire / Rescue compensation is an issue we have been following for quite a while. A year before TAB was formed, several of us were involved in the campaign against the special sales tax to fund Fire / Rescue, and excessive compensation was a key argument against giving them their own revenue source outside of BCC control. Earlier this year, we conducted a salary survey of county employees (See How Much is Enough?) and were quite amazed to see the real data – that Fire / Rescue far exceeds the county staff and even PBSO in pay and benefits.

Jennifer Sorentrue and Adam Playford take on this issue in the Palm Beach Post this week, with their own look at the county compensation data. See More than half of county’s fire-rescue employees earn more than $90,000

TAB is quoted in the article, which mentions that the county contract with the IAFF expires this year and is currently being negotiated. Join us as we attend the next meeting on July 19 as the union responds to the county’s proposal for a 22% cut in starting salary. See Next Fire/Rescue Contract Negotiation Scheduled

County Budget Update – July 8

The next county budget workshop is Monday, July 11, at 9:30AM at 301 N. Olive, WPB in the 6th Floor Commission Chambers. Because of a scheduling issue, the BCC action to set the maximum millage rate that was scheduled for July 19 has been moved up to the 7/11 meeting. We expect the County Administrator to ask that this be set to rollback, currently estimated at 4.8751 (about a 2.6% increase in tax rate), or higher. The majority of homestead property owners would see a larger increase of course, because their valuations are still catching up.

TAB opposes a tax rate increase of any size and is calling for the millage to remain at 4.75.

Public comment begins at 10:00 but you should be there at 9:30am for the start of the meeting if you plan to speak. Please consider making your thoughts known to the commissioners, either in person at the meeting, or by email or phone prior to next Monday.

Since the June 13 meeting:

1. New estimates of property valuation show a smaller decline that Administrator Weisman sees as $3M more in tax revenue than expected. Consequently, he now calculates “rollback rate” at 4.8751. There is also an expectation for $2M more in revenue from other sources (sales tax and revenue sharing).

2. The Sheriff, who is expected to see a reduction in FRS pension costs of $18M, has objected to the county trying to “share the wealth” and take some of that savings for the county department budget. Bob Weisman has conceded the point and estimates that his shortfall will increase by $12M as a result.

The June budget package at flat (4.75) millage, had a $45M gap versus 2011. $15M of this was from valuation decline ($588M in taxes versus $603M), and $30M from declines “elsewhere”. The Revenue chart on page A-2 only identifies $14M of the “elsewhere” – notably $4M less in interest income, $10M in “other BCC revenue”, and a little more than $1M less from the Sheriff, offset by some small revenue increases in other areas.

Where is the rest of the “budget hole’? We asked Budget Director John Wilson to clarify the $45M, and he gave us this data:

• $15.470M – loss of tax revenue at current millage rate of 4.75
• $9.066M – decrease in one-time funding sources (available funding from existing capital project funds)
• $4.902M – decrease in other revenues (primarily interest income)
• $6.953M – reduction in beginning balances brought forward in Palm Tran, County Transportation Trust Fund & Court Tech. Fund.
• $2.687M – increase in new capital project funding
• $5.184M – increase in General Fund transfer to D/S Funds (additional issue and loss of one-time funding)
• $.781M – increase in non-department operations – primarily due to reduction in indirect cost allocation

 

We are still a little fuzzy on the fund transfers and one-time funding sources, but he assured us that it would be explained in the July budget package.

Now that the package is available, we are still trying to understand it. We are also having some difficulty in bridging our analysis of the 2003-2011 period with 2012, since the budget package is in a different format than last year, and the section “Comparison of Revenues, Appropriations, Net Ad Valorem Requirement and Positions by Department” has been omitted. This section was important to us because it has appeared mostly unmodified in all the budgets since 2003. Now we are dealing with apples and oranges. The OFMB folks assure us the data is there, just spread around between different sections, and (in some cases) between the June and July packages. If we can unravel this Chinese puzzle, we will update our multi-year tracking charts in a future article.

We are adding another point to the TAB proposal. Since the “$45M gap” (now closer to $40M) is related to starting fund balances and interfund transfers, we think it is appropriate to consider using some small amount of reserves to avoid a tax rate increase. In 2006, Florida TaxWatch pointed out that our unreserved fund balances (then 71% of revenue) far exceeded our peer counties and were remarkably high. Today, the levels have come down some but we are still far above Orange, Hillsborough and Miami-Dade, and slightly below Broward. The balances are a significant multiple of a “prudent miminum” of 15-20% of revenue. Consequently, we are adding “Utilize undesignated reserves to fill a one-time budget hole”.

The TAB Proposal:

1. Maintain the county-wide millage at 4.75
2. Take the majority of cuts from PBSO, not the county departments
3. Take action to reduce the inventory of county property and reduce the debt
4. Utilize undesignated reserves to fill a one-time budget hole.

*Note: The TaxWatch study that relates to item #3 is in draft. We hope to share some of its findings in the near future.

Notes and Feedback From June 30 Commission Workshop in Pahokee

I was not able to attend the entire Commissioner Workshop on Thursday in Pahokee, but the following are my notes from the discussion:

Programs identified as potential areas for budget cuts by Robert Weisman and the Commissioners:

• 4-H
• Children’s programs
• Park services
• Drug & alcohol treatment / recovery
• Consumer Affairs
• Pools
• Life guards at the beach
• No increase in funds for economic development
• Events at County amphitheatres

The Commissioners expressed concern and would prefer not to reduce these services.

Feedback to Mr. Weisman and the Commissioners:  Drop the political jargon and start cutting overhead.  Rather than considering a “small” tax increase, your strategy should be to create a budget surplus.  The economic issues we are facing will not go away in a year or two.  A budget surplus is not a pipe dream.  It is possible if you have the will…. And you do not need to reduce services that are valued by your constituents.  Just eliminate waste:  Insist that Mr. Weisman increase productivity, eliminate positions that do not create direct value for constituents, and find synergies between Mr. Weisman’s responsibility functions.

You should also make peace with the Constitutional Officers.  They are the Commissions peers, not Mr. Weisman’s peers.  The Chair of the Commission should take the lead to open communications and build trust.  There are massive synergies that can be achieved through shared services of information technology, fleet management, real estate management, procurement of commodities, logistics, telecommunications, and other support functions.

Cruzan Amphitheater losses – If you have not attended concerts at Cruzan you should:

• Great entertainment which is often sold out…. Hmm…. Maybe we should raise the ticket price?
• The prices of concessions are similar to that charged at a Dolphins game.  The quality of the product and service is substandard.  Needs quality and price gouging oversight by the County + check to make sure that the County is receiving a fair share of the concession revenue.
• Alcohol sales are incredible, with literally wheel barrels full of beer carted throughout the venue.  Sounds like fun for boomers…. But at what cost on the road after the event?  Checking ID’s: right!  Interestingly, I’ve never seen a sobriety check point on Southern Blvd after an event. I guess we want to make sure that the vendors don’t get in trouble.

Mr. Weisman:

• We are not going to reduce staff.  Layoffs will be avoided.
• Cut the Sheriff’s budget….. no further cuts in his budget
• Questions value of drug and alcohol program, given low success rate

Feedback to Mr. Weisman:

• The County Administrator and Commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce staff when work volumes decline.  There is also a fiduciary responsibility to establish best in class processes, training, and technology to advance productivity while at least maintaining current levels of service to the public.  You should ask an unemployed homeowner whether he/she believes their tax payments should be used to retain County employees that are not required or could be laid off without a significant change in the quality of service delivered to the public.
• Any position that is not directly involved in meeting the needs of the public should be subject to elimination.  The County Administrator should be a role model by taking a voluntary salary reduction, requiring all employees (and encouraging constitutional officers to do the same) to take one unpaid furlough day per month for the entire budget cycle. Martin County instituted such a program some time ago:  Reduced operating expenses by between $1 and 2 million during the fiscal year (approximately 900 employees).  Feedback from their employees was mixed, but I understand that most agreed that they would rather reduce their compensation than layoff massive numbers of employees.  By the way, Martin County also reduced their staff levels during this same period.
• Drug and alcohol programs:  Mr. Weisman should talk to the people that manage these programs to learn that relapse is the norm.  Many people relapse more than 10 times before recovery.  Of course, he should review the effectiveness of the County program and consider alternative means of delivery (private sector) to insure that cost and quality is effective.

Commissioner Taylor:

• Inspector General is spending $3.4 million even now that we have ethics policies
• Need to replace break walls
• Need to rebuild bridges
• A tax increase to balance the budget is insignificant:  $.04 per taxpayer per day….. Most will accept it rather than reduce service levels.

Feedback to Commissioner Taylor:

• Palm Beach County has a national reputation that will not easily be overcome.  Our reputation is a significant disadvantage for job creation and economic development.  I am thankful that we have an Inspector General.  It is up to elected officials to demonstrate that they can be trusted.
• If increasing taxes is “not that big a deal”, then reducing the expenditures to balance the budget is “not that big of a deal?”
• I understand you have a survey at your website asking people if they would rather reduce services than increase tax rates.  There should be a third option:  Don’t increase taxes and maintain current service levels.
• I agree that infrastructure like aging bridges and break walls are important.  This should also be taken into consideration when the County evaluates new infrastructure, including parks, community centers, and the beaches.  A question that needs to be addressed:  Can we afford the upkeep cost of infrastructure?

Performance Measurement

This is a great topic.  I have reviewed Mr. Weisman’s recent performance measurement report provided to Commissioner Marcus.  The information included in the report is solely units of activity, not performance.  Performance measurement should track productivity, cost per unit, and quality of work (error free work flow – rework is very expensive) of the most important aspects of a person, department and/or organization.  In the private sector such measures are called key performance indicators (KPI’s).

The Commissioner discussion included comparing groups like to Sheriff’s Office to other municipalities. Benchmarking should only be based on best in class, and it should not be limited to government comparisons.

Prepared by Dale Gregory

Boca Raton, Florida

July 1, 2011

County Budget Update – July 5

The next county budget workshop is Monday, July 11, at 9:30AM. Because of a “scheduling issue”, the BCC action to set the maximum millage rate that was scheduled for July 19 has been moved up to the 7/11 meeting. We expect the County Administrator to ask that this be set to rollback, currently estimated at 4.89 (about a 3% increase in tax rate). The majority of homestead property owners would see a larger increase of course, because their valuations are still catching up.

TAB opposes a tax rate increase of any size and is calling for the millage to remain at 4.75.

Public comment begins at 10:00 but you should be there at the start of the meeting if you plan to speak. Later in the week we will publish a call to action for TAB coalition partners. Please consider making your thoughts known to the commissioners, either in person at the meeting, or by email or phone prior to next Monday.

Since the June 13 meeting:

1. New estimates of property valuation show a smaller decline that Administrator Weisman sees as $3M more in tax revenue than expected. Consequently, he now calculates “rollback rate” at 4.89. There is also an expectation for $2M more in revenue from other sources (sales tax and revenue sharing).

2. The Sheriff, who is expected to see a reduction in FRS pension costs of $18M, has objected to the county trying to “share the wealth” and take some of that savings for the county department budget. Bob Weisman has conceded the point and estimates that his shortfall will increase by $12M as a result.

The June budget package at flat (4.75) millage, had a $45M gap versus 2011. $15M of this was from valuation decline ($588M in taxes versus $603M), and $30M from declines “elsewhere”. The Revenue chart on page A-2 only identifies $14M of the “elsewhere” – notably $4M less in interest income, $10M in “other BCC revenue”, and a little more than $1M less from the Sheriff, offset by some small revenue increases in other areas.

Where is the rest of the “budget hole’? We asked Budget Director John Wilson to clarify the $45M, and he gave us this data:

• $15.470M – loss of tax revenue at current millage rate of 4.75
• $9.066M – decrease in one-time funding sources (available funding from existing capital project funds)
• $4.902M – decrease in other revenues (primarily interest income)
• $6.953M – reduction in beginning balances brought forward in Palm Tran, County Transportation Trust Fund & Court Tech. Fund.
• $2.687M – increase in new capital project funding
• $5.184M – increase in General Fund transfer to D/S Funds (additional issue and loss of one-time funding)
• $.781M – increase in non-department operations – primarily due to reduction in indirect cost allocation

We are still a little fuzzy on the fund transfers and one-time funding sources, but he assured us that it would be explained in the July budget package which will be available prior to the 7/11 meeting. The new package is not available on the county website as of this writing, but has been delivered to the commissioners. We will publish our analysis of it shortly, and make any adjustments to the TAB proposal that would be called for.

As of now, the TAB Proposal remains:

1. Maintain the county-wide millage at 4.75
2. Take the majority of cuts from PBSO, not the county departments
3. Take action to reduce the inventory of county property and reduce the debt

*Note: The TaxWatch study that relates to item #3 is in draft. We hope to share some of its findings in the near future.

Scare Tactics

Once again, the Post’s Rhonda Swan takes on the silly games that permeate the annual county budget process. In First, cut the scare tactics, she highlights the yearly practice of proposing cuts to popular programs, simply to turn out the interest groups to oppose the cuts, knowing full well that the Commissioners will restore them.

TAB explored this game last month in The Kabuki Budget. We believe the practice is cynical, and one of the reasons that people have lost respect for government at all levels.

Ms. Swan ends her editorial with this thought: If county commissioners want to dispel public misconceptions about the budget, they should direct staff to present proposals that are realistic.”

Indeed.

A Commissioner Takes on “Exigent Operational Necessity”

The Palm Beach Post is looking out for the taxpayer.

Last week we mentioned that Rhonda Swan raised the issue of the county’s interpretation of “exigent operational necessity” as it applies to the PBSO Career Services Act in an editorial.

This week, Jennifer Sorentrue brings it up in the context of the Sheriff’s budget dispute with the county, and quotes Steven Abrams: “It would seem to boil down to whether our current budget situation qualifies, Commissioner Steven Abrams said recently. “I personally believe it does.”

We know of one, perhaps two other commissioners who also differ with County Attorney Denise Neiman’s interpretation of the statute that “it is not necessity until the county is out of money”. Or, in the words of Ric Bradshaw: ‘The county would have to be “almost insolvent” before he could freeze employees’ pay, in his view. “If I was to freeze the pay plan, the union could come in here and take me to court,” Bradshaw said. “You can’t just violate the law because you want to.”

Will the commissioners push the issue? – we really hope so. The time has come for the Sheriff to tighten his belt like everyone else in the county – including the county staff who haven’t seen raises in quite a while.

For Jennifer’s excellent article, see: Palm Beach County, sheriff at odds over raises

Exigent Operational Necessity?

Writing in the Palm Beach Post on Friday, editorial writer and columnist Rhonda Swan makes the case that salary reductions for government employees in these troubled times are justifiable – even for administrators like Bob Weisman who takes home $251K / year.

She is also the first in the local media (to our knowledge) to raise questions about the Sheriff’s plan to give raises to the newly unionized civilian employees of PBSO. Citing the protection of the “PBSO Career Service Protection Act” – passed in 2004 to prevent a reduction in benefits for sworn law enforcement and corrections officers, Sheriff Bradshaw claims it now applies to the civilians.

The escape clause in the bill, “exigent operational necessity” has in the past been interpreted by County Attorney Denise Neiman as meaning “the county is out of money and the reserves are gone”. Ms Swan suggests an alternate view – that the Sheriff can invoke “necessity” within PBSO in light of county forced budget cuts. An innovative interpretation and we applaud the concept.

For the entire article, see: Administrators not immune

TAB is referenced in the article for our study on county pay and benefits.

Should the Sheriff be Subject to the Ethics Ordinances and the Inspector General?

Over the last few years, Palm Beach County has taken a great leap in establishing ethical standards and implementing a watchdog function that is helping dispel the reputation of “corruption county”. First, by ordinance, the County Commission and staff included themselves under the jurisdiction of a Commission on Ethics, and the Office of Inspector General. Then, in November of 2010, 70% of the voters supported a charter amendment to extend the umbrella to the 38 municipalities of the county, and the Solid Waste Authority brought themselves under it by inter-local agreement. By May of this year, the new ordinances (including a Code of Ethics and Lobbyist rules) were fully implemented.

There are still pockets of county government that are exempt from all this however. The school board is considering the question and may take the plunge at a later time, but the Constitutional Officers (Sheriff, Clerk, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections, Property Appraiser, County Attorney and Public Defender) are specifically excluded. The most significant of these of course is the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office with its 4000 employees and $500M annual budget.

TAB believes if it is good for the county and cities, it should be good for the Sheriff, particularly given the wall that exists between PBSO and the public regarding disclosure of information. Very little financial (or other) information is readily available for scrutiny, and Chapter 119 (Open Records Law) procedures are needed to obtain anything not specifically mandated for disclosure under statute.

Just as the SWA took this step voluntarily, it has been proposed that the Sheriff enter into an inter-local agreement with the county to become part of the county ethics process. To this end, Chairman Karen Marcus formally requested that they do so.

“No Way, No How” was the synopsis of the 9 page response.

Responding for the Sheriff, Colonel Joe Bradshaw in the department of Legal Affairs, explained that they asked for a legal opinion from the General Counsel of the Florida Sheriff’s Association, R.W Evans. In Mr. Evans opinion, the “…County Code of Ethics cannot be applied to the Sheriff under any circumstances, because the investigation of law enforcement and corrections officers is preempted by Florida Law. Further, any oversight of the Sheriff’s Office by the Commission on Ethics and the Inspector General exceeds the County’s authority and improperly encroaches upon the constitutional office of the Sheriff.”

Based on this opinion, Colonel Bradshaw concludes “.. the Sheriff cannot enter into an interagency agreement with the county to extend the jurisdiction of the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics and the Inspector General to the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.”

In Mr. Evans response, he notes that “This issue is critically important to FLorida Sheriffs..” and that this is “.. the position of the Florida Sheriff’s Association of which I am General Counsel.”

In the opinion, several Florida Statues and case law are cited, pointing out that the Legislature has drawn a protective moat around law enforcement agencies which excludes interference from local elected officials in any way. In a sense, PBSO is “above the law” as far as the county is concerned and no public influence on PBSO is possible without changes in Legislation. We see this time and again – if the county asks the Sheriff for budget cuts he threatens to go to Tallahassee to overturn them. If existing benefits are questioned, the “PBSO Career Service Protection Act” is cited. There is effectively no local control over the Sheriff’s office save the ballot box.

Given the above, is there no other choice but to accept the opinion of the Sheriff’s Association? The voters of Broward County did not think so, and recently passed a charter amendment with 72% of the vote, placing their constitutionals (including the Broward Sheriff) under the County Code of Ethics. To date (to our knowledge), this has not been challenged in court on constitutional or other grounds, although Palm Beach County Attorney Denise Neiman has stated that Broward has crossed the constitutional line and a challenge would succeed. We shall see.

So what can be done about this? There are groups out there that are critical about the way PBSO spends taxpayer money (among other things – see pbsotalk.com). We have no way of knowing if information from those sources are accurate, but much of it appears to come from insiders. In fact, there is currently no outside oversight of PBSO such as the Office of Inspector General brings to other parts of county government, and we think that is a dangerous situation.

We support Chairman Marcus’ call for an inter-local agreement with PBSO. If there are legislative roadblocks then we should work through them with the delegation. We should also have a serious discussion of charter changes which would tear down the constitutional barriers to public oversight of PBSO.

For the full text of Colonel Bradshaw’s response to Karen Marcus, including the opinion of the Florida Sheriff’s Association, click HERE.

New County Grassroots Organization becomes TAB Coalition Partner

TAB welcomes its newest coalition partner, the Palm Beach County Tea Party. The group, formed by past leaders of SFTP that want to go in a new direction, was announced on Tuesday, June 21, and will initially have chapters in Jupiter and Wellington.

Local issues will have a more prominent role with the new group, including the county budget. In a question and answer video, group founder Pam Wohlschlegel said regarding the county budget: “We need to be fiscally responsible and part of that is budget cuts. Our founding group feels very strongly that the TAB proposal has a lot of good things in it and hope that our commissioners will accept it.”

For more information about the newest TAB partner, click HERE.

« Previous Page — Next Page »