hamilton county budget impact statements

To: Board of County Commissioners From: Christian Sigman, County Administrator CC: Jeff Aluotto, Assistant County Administrator Moira Weir, Assistant County Administrator John P. Bruggen, Budget Director Subject: 2012 Budget Preliminary Forecast Impact Statements Date: August 22, 2011

This memo transmits the 2012 budget forecast impact statements. The Office of Budget and Strategic Initiatives provided departments a template to document staffing, service and other impacts resulting from a 2012 preliminary forecast funding level (Attachment A). While most departments used the template, some departments responded in memo form (i.e., Sheriff’s Office) or via email (i.e., Prosecutor’s Office). To summarize the responses, the budget office developed a summary table included in Attachment B identifying departments that noted an impact on staffing and service provision. The Board will shortly receive an updated 2012 revenue and expenditure estimate for the general fund. Departments will be provided a revised budget forecast figure for 2012 with instructions to update their impact statements as necessary in advance of the budget working sessions with the Board on September 12, 14 and 19. I will craft my 2012 recommended budget in consideration of County Commission policy priorities, departmental budget impact statements and presentations as well as the most up-to-date revenue estimates. The administrator’s recommended budget will be released at the beginning of October. Please do not hesitate to contact John P. Bruggen (946-4316) if you have any questions.

1

2012 Budget Forecast Impacts

DepartmentStaff

Reductions Staff

Furloughs Service

EliminationService Impact

NotedPage

No.Auditor √ n/a n/a √ 3Board of Elections n/a n/a n/a n/a 4Clerk of Courts 5Commissioners & County Admin √ n/a n/a n/a 6Communications Center √ n/a n/a √ 7Contracts and Subsidies n/a n/a n/a √ 9Coroner √ √ √ √ 14County Facilities n/a n/a √ √ 18Court of Appeals n/a n/a n/a n/a 26Court of Common Pleas 27Court of Domestic Relations √ n/a n/a n/a 28Court Reporters 27Economic Development √ n/a √ √ 30Emergency Management n/a n/a √ √ 34Juvenile Court √ n/a n/a √ 36Municipal Court 27Non-Departmentals n/a n/a n/a n/a 37Planning and Development √ n/a √ √ 38Probate Court √ n/a √ √ 40Probation 27Prosecutor √ n/a n/a √ 41Public Defender n/a n/a n/a n/a 42Recorder √ n/a √ √ 57Sheriff √ n/a n/a √ 59Treasurer √ n/a n/a √ 64Veterans Service Commission n/a n/a n/a n/a 65

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

These are working papers of the Hamilton County Office of Budget and Strategic Initiatives. They do not represent the recommendations of the Hamilton County Administrator or the Board of County Commissioners. 8/22/2011

2

Auditor

From: Jarvis, Greg [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:24 PMTo: Bruggen, JohnSubject: Budget Impact Statement

Most of the proposed $307,568 appropriation reduction will come from the Finance Department. The reduction would result in the elimination of a minimum of three positions from Finance. The reduction will impact all facets of departmental operations: Accounting and Financial Reporting, Payroll, Accounts Payable and support for the Hamilton County Budget Commission. A reduction of this magnitude will result in the following: -Staff will not be able to complete objectives leading to the completion of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for 2010 and 2011 per the timetable set by the Auditor of State; -The timely payment of the County’s bills and obligations will be significantly impacted; -The daily assistance given to County departments will be curtailed, adversely impacting the administration of state and federal grants; -Daily interaction and response to local and national financial institutions will be slowed; -Response to daily inquiries, calls for assistance, surveys and questionnaires from local, state and federal agencies will occur with less frequency; -The time needed to adequately respond to the plethora of public information requests that the department receives will be increased. Meeting legally-mandated response times will be much more difficult; The time needed to research payroll files in order to respond to requests from current and former County employees may not be available. The work performed by the Finance Department is mandated by the Ohio Revised Code. The Department has a long-standing reputation for cross-training its employees in order to meet the intense daily demands placed on the County’s financial infrastructure. That reputation has remained intact despite the budget reductions of recent years. Additional cuts of the proposed magnitude will result in a significantly less productive operation.

3

2012 General Fund Budget Department Impact Form

8/22/2011

Department: Board of Elections Agency Director/Elected Official: Sally J. Krisel This impact statement is based on (select one):

___X__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $ 10,314,603.00 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: The work load of the Board of Elections will increase in 2012 due to two countywide elections and being a Presidential election year. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: No service will be eliminated. ORC Mandates elections. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: Staffing for regular full-time employees will remain the same in 2012 as 2011. Part-time employees will increase due to the volume of voters in a Presidential year.

Table I - General Fund FTE Summary

FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate Administration 44.40 44.40 44.40 44.40Total 44.40 44.40 44.40 44.40

4


8/22/2011

Department: Clerk of Courts Agency Director/Elected Official: John Williams Statement prepared by John P. Bruggen This impact statement is based on (select one):

_____ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $9,539,222 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. The Clerk of Court’s office has not provided an impact statement.

5


8/22/2011

Department: Commissioners & County Administration Agency Director/Elected Official: Christian Sigman This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X___ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $3,876,891 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: To meet the target budget the County administrator will recommend a series of service reductions, departmental consolidations/mergers, shared service opportunities, and staff reductions. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: Overall service levels and responsiveness may decline. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: The County Administrator may need to recommend the elimination of a staff position (or positions.)

6


8/22/2011

Department: Communication Center Agency Director/Elected Official: Mike Bailey This impact statement is based on (select one):

___X__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $2,236,764 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: This general fund budget forecast represents a reduction of approximately $400,000 from the 2011 budget. Most of the general fund budget is used to fund the Communication Center Telecommunications Division. Although the Telecommunications Division’s services are not mandated, the Division provides service to all county departments including those tasked with providing mandated services. Telecommunications is now staffed at a minimum level. For example there are two telephone operators to answer the county general phone lines and two technicians supporting telephone and network services in all county buildings. Any reduction in staff in the Telecommunications Division will have a negative impact on these services including delays in processing work orders and potential disruptions in telephone or network services. A portion of the general fund budget is used as a subsidy to the Communication Center budget. This subsidy has been reduced over the past few years. Revenues have also been declining. As a result, two Communications Officer positions have been left unfilled and unfunded for the past two years and will continue to be unfunded in 2012. At the same time a reduction in calls received during the same period has allowed the Department to absorb the impact of reduced staffing. However, further reductions in staffing will result in increased call answer wait times for citizens calling for assistance. Over the past two years the Communication Center budget has been streamlined to the point that the bulk of the budget is personnel costs. The $400,000 general fund budget forecast reduction would result in layoffs of up to five personnel or a 7.5% reduction in staff. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: The 2012 Telecommunications budget includes approximately $135,000 in maintenance and support contracts for services rendered to all county agencies. These services are required in order to minimize disruption of telecommunications services and provide security to our networks. One contract in particular is being renewed in 2012 for three years at the cost of a two year contract in order to take advantage of the savings. Elimination of these support agreements would place the County in a vulnerable position in relation to system security and reliability.

7


8/22/2011

Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: The majority of the Communications Department general fund employees are in the Telecommunications Division. As noted above elimination of any of these positions would have a negative impact on the Division and render it incapable of providing an acceptable level of service. Therefore, the reduction in general fund budget to the Communications Department could result in the elimination of restricted fund employees in the Communications Division. When considering separation costs and the drop in level of service associated with the elimination of five Communications Officers the net savings would not justify this action.

Table I - General Fund FTE Summary FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate Telecommunications 11.11 11.11 11.11 11.11

Total 11.11 11.11 11.11 11.11

8


8/22/2011

Department: Contracts and Subsidies – Central Information Technology Agency Director/Elected Official: John P. Bruggen This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $430,305 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: None. The information technology section was exempt from reduction in the forecast budget. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: The information technology section includes contracts with the City of Cincinnati for provision of email, county network, and active directory support, as well as geographic information systems. It also includes contracts for backup and support of the county website with various other vendors. Reductions would potentially compromise these central systems. IT staff are currently pursuing several alternate service provisions that may reduce costs in 2012. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: N/A

9


8/22/2011

Department: Contracts and Subsidies - Law Library Agency Director/Elected Official: Mary Jenkins Statement prepared by Jim Cundiff This impact statement is based on (select one):

_____ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Ms. Jenkins has declined to provide an impact statement.

10


8/22/2011

Department: Contracts and Subsidies - Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation District Agency Director/Elected Official: Holly Utrata-Halcomb This impact statement is based on (select one):

___X__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $256,706 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: All District programs are mandated by the ORC. The Earthwork Regulations which the District Administers for the County Commissioners – permissive per ORC 307.79; Sec. 208 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 86 Stat. 816 (1972), 33 U.S.C.A 1228 and the Clean Water Act,40 C.F.R. Part 122. The BOCC authorized the SWCD to perform these operations in 1993 (Volume 251, Images 5753-5757) has had a staff reduction by one FTE (out of 5) since Plan Reviewer retired December 2008. Since 2009, the total number of permits has seen a decline, however, due to regulatory requirements and added responsibility, our required inspections have almost doubled under the NPDES Phase II program. We are now required to inspect lots of development 1-acre or larger – this also includes individual lots. Two years ago, the size for inspection was 5 acres or larger. In addition, we took on the plan review and inspections for 18 jurisdictions, which has greatly expanded our workload. In taking on these jurisdictions, we must meet individually with each entity to explain and arrange services, i.e. how to deliver plans and communicate on inspections. We also had to provide trainings for the jurisdictions staff. In 2009, our staff performed 1,353 inspections. In 2010, 2,139 inspections were performed. This number of inspections just met the required number required by law. We anticipate that in 2011, the inspections performed will reach over 2,200. With all of this in mind, we are still down one staff person due to retirement. As the above comments indicate, we are stretched past reasonable limits. So much so, we had to offer overtime pay during the wet, critical spring building period just to fulfill the minimum requirements for plan review and inspections. Our Geotechnical Engineer also addressed 24 landslides for landowners during this time period. This is the first time overtime pay has been offered in the District’s 66 years of existence. The past two springs have been very wet. This condition is a precursor for landslides. In 2009 there were 38 landslides, in 2010 - 3 and in 2011 -24 to date. Our Earthwork staff not only provides plan review and inspections, they also assist landowners and units of government with landslide issues, erosion and sediment control and stream bank erosion. Another unique, mandated service our District provides is being the County enforcement agent for the Ohio Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program and we serve as the liaison for all USDA Agriculture Cost-share Programs as per ORC 1515. Each year, the USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service provides free conservation planning and cost-share funds to farmers. This past year, local farmers received a total of $16,000 in these funds.

11


8/22/2011

In 2003, USEPA established the Phase II program under the Clean Water Act. In response to this new requirement, the County Commissioner established a Storm Water District under ORC 6117. Under the Administration of the Hamilton County Engineer, our SWCD is responsible for the Pre-construction, Education and Community Involvement component. To date, our staff has raised 195,000 in grants and other funding to help defer the cost of the education program A reduction of 10% would equal $44,770. Areas of reduction could include Object Levels***: 611 - $ 500 627 - $ 500 749 - $1,000 751 - $ 500 752 - $ 500 781 - $ 500 849 - $ 500 760 - $ 500 964 - $ 500 We do not know if there will be an increase in medical, dental, PERS and other costs out of our control. Gas prices are also ever increasing. If these costs increase, will extra money be added to our appropriations? Reduction in salaries would create a deficiency in our mandated performance. We are already at our maximum capacity and just providing the bare minimum in required performance. Since the staff has not received any raises in the past four years and the workload has increased, a reduction in staff would also devastate morale. ***The District budget is comprised of County appropriations, which are then matched by State funds through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. For the first 6 months of 2011, these funds were matched at a rate of 75%. We just learned that the next State fiscal year (July –June 2012) will provide a match of 67%. The last half of 2011 we will receive an 8% decrease in State funding, as well as the first 6 months of 2012. For every dollar decreased by the State, we will see another $.67decrease by the State, magnifying our loss. Next year, we will not know the match percentage for the last half of the year until the end of June. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: Our current office has a lease through 2016. The rent is evenly split between the District account and Storm Water Account. We have four vehicles shared among all staff that need upkeep. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: Reduction in salaries would create a deficiency in our mandated performance. We are already at our max. capacity and just providing the bare min. in required performance. We are currently working under capacity in the Earthwork Department. All staff members provide support to each other at some point to try and keep pace with the workloads. Since the staff has not received any raises in the past four years and the workload has increased, a reduction in staff would devastate morale.

12


8/22/2011

Line Item 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 611 – Office Supplies 627 – Rec. Supplies 749 – Travel Reimbursement 751 - Telephone 752 - Postage 781 - Advertising 849 – Repair/Maint. 760 – ACSIS 964 – Supv. Mileage from home

$3,500

3,000

5,000

3,500

5,000

2,000

1,000

1,025

0

3,000

1,000

4,000

4,200

2,500

2,000

1,000

525

800

2,500

500

3,000

3,700

2,000

1,500

500

525

300

2,500

500

3,000

3,700

2,000

1,500

500

500

300

Total $24,025 19,025 14,525 14,500

13


8/22/2011

Department: Coroner Agency Director/Elected Official: Anant R. Bhati, MD This impact statement is based on (select one):

_____ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $ 3,006,679 ___X__ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: The 2012 forecast represents a 10-15% reduction of 2011 appropriations which totals $350-$550,000 in funding. While ORC 313.07 gives the coroner authority to establish “suitable quarters, laboratories and equipment necessary for the proper performance of the duties of the coroner” the current forecast budget does not support the ability to fund this authority in its entirety and therefore services provided by certain sections of the forensic laboratory will be eliminated. The importance of the Crime Laboratory to our local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and court system is immeasurable and any reduction or elimination of service levels will have a significant impact on the same. Additionally, the laboratory provides significant support to the Coroner’s mandated function of determining cause and manner of death. It is unfortunate that typically the law lags science; otherwise local laws would mandate the delivery of effective forensic services. The reality is that the media has given the public the impression that such services are widely available. Consequently, citizens, law enforcement and the judiciary have come to expect, and take for granted, a local crime laboratory that provides comprehensive services. In addition to supporting the statutory requirements of the Coroner, the laboratory provides forensic service to 82 agencies ranging from the smallest of local police departments all the way to a few federal agencies. The Laboratory provides significant tools to law enforcement early in the investigatory process as well as later in the judicial process with timely and accurate scientific results and expert testimony. Although, the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigations (BCI and I) is an option for law enforcement, their backlog and case processing limitations are issues that cannot be ignored. Additionally, BCI is not local as their closest lab is about a hundred miles away in London, Ohio. This provides a hardship for the agencies who wish to submit evidence, and the availability of analysts for consultation and testimony is limited. In an effort to close the gap between the current forecast budget and our 2012 estimated expenditures, we have determined it necessary to eliminate the following sections within the Crime Laboratory: Arson/Trace Evidence, Firearms, DNA and Questioned Documents. This represents a loss of 10 FTEs, 1 Part time and $350,000 in personnel and supplies expenditures. A negligible amount of revenue is derived from these sections of the crime laboratory. DNA: The loss of the DNA section would mean that cases would be submitted to the BCI lab in London Ohio, over a hundred miles away. Not only is the distance a hindrance for evidence submission and return

14


8/22/2011

but it creates difficulties for coordinating investigations. Criminal investigations are a team effort. It is normally unreasonable to test every sample submitted. Negotiations between the investigator and analyst (and in many instances, the prosecutor) are necessary to select the most probative items for examination. Locally, this can often be done with a face to face meeting. Such is not the case with a distant laboratory. No other major city in Ohio relies completely on BCI for forensic support. Hamilton County would have to compete with the 87 other counties in Ohio for service from BCI. The nearest BCI lab to Cincinnati is at London which is about 2 hours away. Obviously, distance also plays a part in scheduling analysts for testimony. Our analysts are only 15 minutes away from court and pre-trial conferences are encouraged. County Prosecutors will have to exercise greater care in allowing distant analysts not only time to travel to court but time to prepare. When the public thinks of crime laboratories, the first thing they think of is DNA. Because of the “CSI effect” juries often expect DNA evidence to be presented at trial. Because of the advances that have occurred over the past 20 years, DNA has become one of the most important services offered by the crime laboratory. There are two very compelling reasons why DNA is vitally important to the criminal justice system. First, it is very specific. When DNA profiles a match it is usually quite certain that the DNA can be associated to the suspect. More importantly, comparing unknown DNA profiles to the CODIS database provides information to investigators on who committed the crime. The CODIS database consists of two sections; (1) forensic samples from other crime scenes and (2) convicted offender samples from actual subjects. It is important to note also that the Hamilton County Laboratory maintains a “Local” CODIS database that contains additional subjects. Some of these are suspects who have provided known samples but were eliminated from other investigations, and some are homicide victims thought to have been involved in criminal activity. Because of privacy and confidentiality requirements these profiles go no further than the local level. Even though BCI could also maintain a “Local” database, they may have more stringent policies for including profiles. Also, searching the “Local” database of the usual suspects can provide a more rapid hit to investigators because we are dealing with only a smaller number of profiles. DNA analyses offer a strong crime prevention component to forensic analyses. CODIS hits help get criminals off the street. This is especially true for property crimes which often represent the early stage of a criminal career. Conversely, law suits have resulted from instances of delays in processing that could have resulted in a CODIS hit, or failures to follow up on hits that identified perpetrators. Any delay in DNA processing is fraught with the potential to impede an investigation. Delays would certainly result from the sudden onslaught of over a 1000 Hamilton County DNA cases into the current BCI backlog. Currently, 30% of the cases we have entered into the CODIS database have returned a “hit”, thereby demonstrating the far reaching powers of the program. The Coroner has a statutory requirement to facilitate the timely identification of human remains. Having in-house DNA greatly impacts our ability to fulfill this requirement as requests can be given priority and rushed as necessary. In the recent past, the DNA section was instrumental in establishing the identification of known homicide victims allowing closure for the families and assisting the criminal investigation. In a mass disaster there is the great potential for fragmented remains thereby requiring extensive DNA analyses. Arson/Trace: Elimination of this section would have a significant impact on the investigation and prosecution of arson cases in Hamilton County as well as homicide investigations where an accelerant was used to cover up the crime. Arson testing may yield the only evidence a homicide has occurred and may be necessary for the determination of the manner of death, a duty of the Coroner. The section has had a

15


8/22/2011

working relationship with the Hamilton County Arson Taskforce since its inception over 30 years ago. Evidence would have to be submitted to the State Fire Marshall’s laboratory in Reynoldsburg which is over 100 miles away. The Trace Evidence Section is also responsible for gunshot residue analyses from the hands of suspected shooters. These samples would have to be submitted to the BCI Lab in London Ohio for processing. As a lab serving the entire state, they already have a significant backlog of cases. This would have a detrimental effect on the investigation of shooting homicides. This section performs microscopic hair examinations for the investigation of such cases as homicides, sexual assaults or robberies. Such examinations are often needed to screen samples before performing more expensive and time consuming tests such as DNA analyses. The section also examines evidence such as shoeprints, fibers, glass particles, and paint chips from homicides and property crimes such as burglaries, breaking-and-entering offenses, and auto accidents. Many of these cases go to trial in a matter of weeks rather than months. There is a danger that the BCI lab would not be able to examine the evidence in time for trial or that the prosecution would have to request a number of contingencies. Conversely it may be necessary to go to trial without the forensic evidence that juries have come to expect. Additionally, the Trace Evidence Section examines a wide range of evidence that does not fall into the categories covered by other sections. Consequently, exploding dye packs from bank robberies, lamp filaments from auto accidents, or identification of suspicious materials would have to be referred to some other lab. This would place an additional burden on the investigator to find a lab to do the examination. Because the Trace Evidence section is responsible for explosives investigations, the loss of that capability would have homeland security ramifications. We have tried to develop the skills and materials to assist in post blast explosive investigations that could arise due to terrorist actions. No other lab locally can provide that support. The Trace Section is the most qualified to deal with unusual requests. They have the equipment and the experience to deal with identifying strange materials (such as white powders thought to be Anthrax or poisons). Firearms: The firearms section processes evidence from virtually every shooting case that goes to trial in Hamilton County. Loss of this capability would adversely affect every shooting investigation in the County. Its effect would be most severe in juvenile cases that must go to trial in a short time. All evidence would have to be submitted to the BCI lab for examination. This would result in significant delays. Although we have a backlog of over 350 cases, our examiners insure that the evidence for cases going to trial is examined prior to the trial date. This requires constant vigilance and coordination with the prosecutor’s office. The section responds to many special requests from investigators to compare evidence from one case to another. Such requests are often received on short notice with an expectation of a quick reply. The Firearms Section maintains an unsolved shooting file for comparison to newly submitted evidence. This is a service that can only be provided locally. The firearms included in the file also provide the priorities for investigators to submit confiscated guns for inclusion in the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). The section performs function tests and provides expert testimony in cases of shootings where there is a claim that the gun discharged accidently. These examinations are done in conjunction with investigating officers who are familiar with the claims of suspects. Such joint investigations become difficult when they involve distant examiners. Additionally, the ability to analyze firearms provides support to by providing expertise in trigger function tests, distance determination and suspected weapon comparison in instances where manner of death is in question, again a requirement of the Coroner.

16


8/22/2011

Questioned Documents: If the QD section were to be eliminated, Hamilton County would lose the capability to do handwriting comparisons. Such examinations are important when dealing with threatening letters, white collar crime, and forged checks. Additionally, the Coroner loses the capability to differentiate between suicides and homicides, as well as face families of suicide victims and convince them that a thorough investigation has been conducted. Routinely, the QD examiner compares suicide notes to known writing to confirm that the note was written by the victim. In addition to the elimination of the 11 aforementioned positions, all staff members will be required to furlough for a total of 10 days between January 1 and December 31, 2012. 2012 furloughs will be imposed the same way they were in 2009 with the complete suspension of morgue and crime lab operations. Death investigation and scene response will continue, but autopsy service will not be available on furlough days. This will adversely affect the police department’s ability to effectively investigate deaths including homicides. Additionally, bodies will not be released to funeral homes nor will cremation certificates be issued which will impede the family’s ability to have timely funeral services. This inconvenience will possibly cause significant cultural or religious issues. On the chance a mass fatality occurs on a furlough day, the ability to summon additional help is crippled. No evidence will be accepted or released from the crime lab, and analysis will not be performed on the affected dates. The case backlog will continue to grow while law enforcement investigations and court proceedings will suffer the greatest. The Rapid Indictment Program which requires a 10 day turnaround time on drug submissions may have to be suspended during this time period. Staff will be unavailable to testify or consult with prosecutors on pending court proceedings. The imposed furlough will save approximately $80,000 in personnel expenses, but the true cost will be borne by law enforcement, prosecutor’s office, funeral homes and families. This cost is immeasurable. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: The elimination of the 4 analytical sections of the laboratory renders nearly $1,000,000 in specialized scientific equipment obsolete. It has been our experience when dealing with obsolete scientific equipment, the true value of the equipment is not realized when the equipment is disposed of. Additionally, grant funds have been used to purchase some of the equipment and disposal of that equipment would have to comply with federal regulations. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: The aforementioned cuts represent a loss of 10 FTEs and 1 part time employee. All separation costs have been considered.


FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 320028 15.2375 15.2375 15.2375 15.2375320036 4 4 4 4320044 23.1 24.1 24.1 14320051 1 1 1 1Total 43.3375 44.3375 44.3375 34.2375

17


Department: County Facilities Director: Ralph W. Linne 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: Our approved General Fund Budget for 2011 was $19,723,406 and this was used as the baseline for the reduction for the 2012 General Fund Budget. The Forecast Budget provided shows a General Fund Budget reduction of $3,064,941 from the 2011 Approved Budget which equals 15.5%. Ability to Meet Forecast: We are short by $1,104,660 in reaching our 2012 target of $16,658,465. Taking into account the increase in costs for contracts outsourced; increase in water and sewage fees; required inspections and testing by law; and increases in cost of materials and fuel, there are no other items to reduce. Any further reduction in maintenance and trades staff will result in the safety of those employees compromised along with serious operational problems in the facilities maintained by this department. Proposed Reductions: If following budget items are to be reduced by the amount shown this will result in a $1,960,281 reduction which would be short of the target number by $1,104,660.

Budget Items

Reduction

Remaining Reduction

Needed

Impact

- $3,064,941 Natural Gas and Electric Power

$420,000

$2,644,941 None…this reduction in utility rates is a result of bidding out electric power and natural gas… This assumes that there no rate increases in 2012 by Duke Energy for T&D

237 William Howard Taft

$559,281 $2,085,660 None…Assumes the title to the building will be transferred to the new owner before January 2012, includes elimination of the Custodial position

Hillcrest Training School

$255,000 $1,830,660 Minor…. Assumes the that there will be no requests during the year from Juvenile Court staff for upgrades and/or failure of equipment

222 E. Central Parkway

$100,000 $1,730,660 None…this reduction in utility rates is a result of bidding out electric power and natural gas

Cleaning Services (Does not include 222 East Central Parkway, Justice Center, Youth Detention Center or Hillcrest Training School)

$250,000 $1,480,660 Major…Assume a reduction of available man-hours by 20% after the re-bidding of the present services from a 4 day to a 3 day cleaning schedule which will result in an increase in complaints along with both public and employee areas not being kept as current levels in 2011

Security at County Administration Building

$105,500 $1,375,160 Major…Reduce security staff to only night shift during weekdays…no security after midnight or on weekends…access will be only by access cards….there will be no staffing of the security desk during normal working hours

Construction Materials/Supplies

$78,000 $1,297,160 Minor…due to reductions in staff in past years, the need for the same level of materials is no longer required for the building trades

Various Buildings (Does not include 222 East Central Parkway or Hillcrest Training School)

$192,500

$1,104,660

Minor...equipment and building components would be repaired in place of being replaced, resulting in an increase in our deferred maintenance costs in the future

(1) No funding of Capital projects Notes:

(2) At this time the only reductions for 222 East Central Parkway is in utility costs (3) Possible additional costs for maintaining Memorial Hall per lease agreement is not presently in the budget (4) Board of Revision was not reduced, since the caseload for 2012 is unknown, but assumed to be the same as in 2011 (5) Assumes Hillcrest Training School will be in operation for 2012 with maintenance performed by Facilities Department (6) Costs associated with Performance Contracting are not included and assume utility savings would not go into effect until 2013

18


Below is a description of services that will continue to be eliminated or reduced as in prior budgets: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The reduction in cost proposed for 2012 mainly comes from the contract with Duke Energy being at a lesser cost than budgeted. We will continue the efforts to reduce the usage of electricity at the Administration Building, Courthouse, 230 East 9th, 800 Broadway, 222 E. Central Parkway, 250 William Howard Taft, Youth Detention Center, Patrol Headquarters, Records Center, Hillcrest Training School, and Justice Center by continuing to have higher temperature settings in the summer months which had the impact of the buildings being warmer than in past years.

Electric Power

Natural GasWe will continue with the reduction in the usage of natural gas for the Administration Building, Courthouse, 230 East 9th, 800 Broadway, 222 E. Central Parkway, 250 William Howard Taft, Youth Detention Center, Patrol Headquarters, Records Center, Hillcrest Training School, and Justice Center by continuing to have lower temperature settings in the winter months with the impact of these buildings being cooler than in past years along with the assumption that gas rates will be lower in 2012 than in previous years due to our buying power with other counties thru the CCAOSC and market conditions.

Cleaning ServicesWe are in the process of re-bidding the services for 2012 which will be equal to only cleaning for three (3) nights in place of the present four (4) nights. This will affect the following buildings: Administration Building, Courthouse, 230 East 9th, 800 Broadway, and 250 William Howard Taft. The impact has been that areas are being not being dusted, trash not removed from trash cans, and restrooms not cleaned on a daily basis. Also the bi-annual cleaning of carpet was eliminated with the impact of unsightly flooring. All cleaning on the 1st Floor of the South Building at the Justice Center is done by Sheriff’s inmates.

We will continue to do the minimum repairs in all facilities; this includes the boilers and other heating equipment. Impact has been such that we are doing repairs to 20 to 30 year old equipment when in the past we would have replaced these items with more energy efficient models as well as being state of the art which would reduce the preventative maintenance needed. So far during the first seven months in 2011, we have had at least twenty (25) major equipment failures, these were: motors, HVAC roof top units, breakers, switchgear, cameras, chillers major components, fire panel, air compressors, and underground storage tank. These equipment has been replaced or is in the process of being replaced.

Building and Heating Repairs

Window CleaningIn previous years there was the elimination of window cleaning services for the Administration Building, Courthouse, 230 East 9th, 800 Broadway, 250 WHT, Coroners, Justice Center, and Patrol Headquarters which we will continue in 2012. The result has been an increase in usage of electricity to light areas due to the dirt and film on the windows of which these areas were previously lighted by natural sunlight. We will continue to do spot cleaning where needed for the safety of the public and employees entering and exiting the buildings.

Brass and Metal MaintenanceWe will continue with the elimination of brass and metal maintenance cleaning services for the Administration Building, Courthouse, 230 East 9th, 800 Broadway, and Justice Center with the impact of the brass doors, frames, and fixtures turning green and the metal surfaces become stained with dirt. Spot cleaning will continue to occur when needed to ensure the proper operation of the brass doors.

19


We will continue to limit the purchases of computer and software to only the level needed for maintaining existing IT systems and Building Automated Control systems (BAC) with the necessary replacements and/or upgrades.

Data Processing Equipment/Software

We will continue with the reduction in performing repairs to appliances, the impact has and should continue to be minor. Only the appliances necessary for operations were repaired in 2010 and 2011. The same approach will be followed for 2012.

Appliance Repair

Architectural/Engineering (A/E) ServicesWe will continue with the reduction in the allocation of funds for the professional consulting firms to perform engineering, code, safety, security, and ADA tasks. The impact will continue to be minor as long as the services needed require a minimum amount of man-hours from our design consultants.

Sidewalk RepairsWe will continue to delay doing sidewalk repairs at all facilities with the possible impact of fines from the City of Cincinnati for not doing the necessary repairs. Possible lawsuits could occur if a person falls due to the condition of the sidewalks and curbs.

Floor and Marble CleaningFloor and wall cleaning services for various buildings will not be done with the impact of the both the marble and tile becoming more stained and damaged to the point of having to do major costly replacements in future years.

We are not achieving the majority of the items required in order to secure the LEED-EB: O&M “Silver Rating” for our facilities, which is per BOCC Resolution - GREEN Building Policy for New Construction and Major Renovations. This could impact the Carbon Footprint of the County.

GREEN Initiatives

• No funds for the purchase and verification of “GREEN” janitorial supplies and equipment • No funds to develop and maintain the standards for the purchasing of “GREEN” materials. • No funds to install “GREEN” roofs as replacements for existing roofs.

20


CAPITAL

Vehicle ReplacementWe had eliminated the planned purchase of any vehicles in 2009, 2010, 2011 and this will continue in 2012. The impact has been an increase in repairs and the associated maintenance costs to keep our existing fleet safe and usable. Several vehicles are over 10 years old and due to the gas mileage we are impacting the Carbon Footprint of the County by not replacing them. If a vehicle can no longer be operated then a request will be submitted for replacement.

Capital Maintenance ProjectsThere has been no major funding of Capital Projects since 2006. In 2012, we will continue with only $400,000, as a result the impacts are as follows:

• Major unplanned repairs and/or replacement of building components/equipment, if needed in 2012, the expenditures will be funded from the County Reserve Fund

• No updating done on estimates for existing known work until 2013 at the earliest, which means the Five-Year Capital Maintenance Projects Plan for 2013-2017 would not be as accurate as in previous years. This will affect future cash flow projections.

• No funding will be available to have prepare a much needed Master Space Plan

Equipment ReplacementWe will continue with the deferring of planned replacement of mechanical/electrical equipment for all facilities. The impact of this prior to 2010 was minor with no high cost equipment failures. There were several major equipment failures in 2010. So far in 2011, we have had over 25 major equipment failures.

With the present level of staffing, Preventative Maintenance (PM) tasks will continue not to be done in a timely manner or not at all, which will continue to result in equipment failures/replacements which could have been avoided.

Deferred Capital Maintenance Projects Since 2007

$35.0$38.1

$53.0$87.1

$83.1

$77.40

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100Note: There was a reduction of 40 Projects from the 2011 Plan, a majority were related to 237 WHT

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

21


STAFFING Since 2007 there has been a 25% reduction in staffing with no major reductions in work responsibilities. No longer can reductions in staff occur in order to achieve the target budget. The total number of positions eliminated, since January 2007 has been twenty-nine (29). This consists of nine (9) Building Trades positions, six (6) Local 20 positions, and thirteen (14) non-union positions. The result of staff reductions has been:

• Preventative Maintenance has not been done in a timely manner or not at all. As a result, unnecessary equipment failures have occurred and will continue to occur. It will take longer to complete the repairs which will and has affected the daily operations of the several facilities even to the point that work areas were not usable at times.

• The backlog of work orders has and will continue to increase as shown below.

• No supervision to oversee Building Trades • No staff available to administer major contracts (Cleaning, Security, and Utilities) on a daily basis • Some maintenance tasks are being performed by contractors at a higher hourly rate than if the work

was performed by an County employee due to past reductions in staff and increase in contractor costs • Only one staff position for the management of Capital Projects (there has been a reduction of four

positions or 80% of the workforce in the Project Management Division over the last several years)

Backlog of Work Orders Since 2007

267317

8841209

1273

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Open Work Orders (Backlog)

July 2011

December 2010

December 2009

December 2008

December 2007

Reduction in Employees Since 2007

6

9

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Number of Facilities' Employees

Non-Union

Building Trades

Local 20

22


At this time there will be a net increase of four (4) positions after the reduction of one (1) position due to the sale of 237 William Howard Taft. The only unknown cost impact will be separation costs for the one laid off employee. We plan on covering this with the cost savings when there are unfilled positions in 2012, as a result there are no dollars budgeted for separation costs at this time.

Describe the impact on department general fund staffing:


FTEs

2010 Budget

2011 Budget

2011 Estimate

2012 Budget

060020 – Administration 13.00 12.50 12.50 13.50

060030 – Safety Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

060038 – Building Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00

060046 – Project Management 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

060050 – Plant Mgt – Office Bldgs 18.60 18.40 18.95 19.20

060053 – Plant Mgt – Corrections/Aux 13.35 13.40 14.25 14.50

060058 – 222 Central Parkway 7.10 7.40 7.40 7.65

060059 – 237 William Howard Taft 4.10 2.40 1.00 0.00

060060 – Construction/Trades 16.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

060070 – Property & Security Mgt 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

060080 – Hillcrest Training School 8.70 8.30 8.30 8.30

060090 – 2020 Juv. Detention Ctr. 13.15 13.10 13.10 13.35

060066 – Board of Revision 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00

Total 101.50 95.50 95.50 99.50 Notes: - The Board of Revision is four (4) part-time employees working from March thru September which equals 2.0

FTE’s, this number may have to be increased in 2012 due to the resignation of a County employee who was on the Board but not in the facilities budget

- 060050 Plant Mgt – Office Bldgs is composed of 800 Broadway, Courthouse, 230 East Ninth, and Administration Building

- 060053 Plant Mgt – Corrections/Aux is composed of Justice Center, Patrol Headquarters, Communication Center, 250 William Howard Taft, Record Center, Coroner, Target Range, and Public Works Garage

23


Changes in Staffing for 2012

060046 – Project Management Add a position, Project Administrator; this position will assist both the Facilities Project Manager and Assistant Director – Facility Management with Capital Maintenance Projects conducted by both outside contractors and/or the Department’s in-house Building Trades. Impact to 2012 Budget – None - This position would be funded by the reduction of funds allocated for the Department’s Architectural and Engineering Design Agreements. If this position is approved, the following reductions would be made from the following budget line items: 060060 – Construction Trades 060046 – Project Management 0715 – Engineering Services 0715 – Engineering Services 0716 – Architectural Services 0716 – Architectural Services 0849 – Misc Repairs 0849 – Misc Repairs 060020 – Administration Add a position, Facilities Engineer; to provide engineering design and technical leadership for the infrastructure of facility, grounds, and utilities distribution through both internal and external resources, including the management of utility contracts (water, electric and natural gas) and the monitoring of the performance contractor (Ameresco) adherence to the “Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measures” contract.

Impact to 2012 Budget – None - This position would be funded by the reduction of funds allocated for the Department’s utilities. If this position is approved, the following reduction would be made from the following budget line items:

060050 – Plant Mgt – Office Bldgs 060053 – Plant Mgt – Corrections/Aux 0822 – Natural Gas Service 0822 – Natural Gas Service 0823 – Electric Service 0823 – Electric Service 060058 – 222 Central Parkway 060080 – Hillcrest Training School 0822 – Natural Gas Service 0822 – Natural Gas Service 0823 – Electric Service 0823 – Electric Service

24


060038 – Building Services Add two positions, Facilities Grounds and Maintenance Worker; to provide landscaping, snow removal, exterior grounds cleaning/maintenance, and equipment maintenance/repair.

Impact to 2012 Budget – None - This position would be funded by the reduction of funds allocated for the Department’s Landscaping and Snow Removal Agreements. If these positions are approved, the following reduction would be made from the following budget line items:

060038 – Building Services 060090 – 2020 Juv. Detention Ctr 0910 – Contractual Services 0910 – Contractual Services 060080 – Hillcrest Training School 0910 – Contractual Services 060050 – Plant Mgt – Office Bldgs; 060053 – Plant Mgt – Corrections/Aux; 060058 – 222 Central Parkway; and 060090 – 2020 Juv. Detention Ctr. Add one position, HVAC Technician; to trouble shoot, maintain, repair and install HVAC equipment.

Impact to 2012 Budget – None - This position would be funded by the reduction of funds allocated for the Department’s HVAC Vendor Agreements. If this position is approved, the following reduction would be made from the following budget line items:

060050 – Plant Mgt – Office Bldgs 060053 – Plant Mgt – Corrections/Aux 0910 – Contractual Services 0910 – Contractual Services 060058 – 222 Central Parkway 060090 – 2020 Juv. Detention Ctr. 0910 – Contractual Services 0910 – Contractual Services

25


8/22/2011

Department: Court of Appeals Agency Director/Elected Official: Mark E. Combs This impact statement is based on (select one):

__x__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $41,190 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: As stated last year, all services rendered by the First District Court of Appeals are mandated by the Ohio Constitution and state law. The Court does not sponsor or promote any discretionary programs or activities. As a result, there are no services that can be eliminated or reduced. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: In 2007, First District Court of Appeals had a beginning budget of $90,550. Going into 2012, our Preliminary Forecast Budget is at $41,190. For the services that this court provides from the Judges to other courts, and ultimately the citizens of Hamilton County, it is unreasonable to believe that we can operate on so little funds. Essential publications cover roughly half of the budgeted amount. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: Not applicable. Payroll and benefits of the First District Court of Appeals are paid by the State of Ohio.

26


8/22/2011

Department: Common Pleas, Municipal Court, Court Reporters, Probation Agency Director/Elected Official: Mike Walton Statement prepared by Jim Cundiff This impact statement is based on (select one):

____ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Mr. Walton has declined to provide an impact statement for the group of departments under his direction.

27


8/22/2011

Department: Domestic Relations Agency Director/Elected Official: Susan Laker Tolbert, Administrative Judge This impact statement is based on:

2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $2,960,999 This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: The court’s statutory mandates and authority to act are codified within Title 31 of the Ohio Revised Code in various sections, beginning at § 3105. The responsibility of the court includes the termination of marriages, the care, protection and custody of children and the protection of individuals against domestic violence. It is the responsibility of the Court of Domestic Relations to comply with the Supreme Court’s Rules of Superintendence in resolving matters in a timely manner and to report the monthly statistics of the progress of all cases. When comparing the 2012 Budget Forecast to the 2011 Appropriation, it appears that funding will be reduced by $535,654 or 15.3%. The majority (96.04%) of the Domestic Relations Court budget is allocated to personnel. If this full budgetary forecast is implemented, resulting in the additional elimination of personnel, the public can anticipate longer resolution of the issues that come before the court. Many of these issues involve the best interest and welfare of children and the delayed results will lead to detrimental effects for families. ORC §3113.31 et seq. governs the Court’s mandate with regard to domestic violence protection orders. No fees may be assessed for the filing and securing of the protection order. Mandated by the statute are strict time limits for hearings, as the first hearing is the same day as the filing of the petition and the second hearing within 7 – 10 days. This timeline protects individuals from potentially fatal consequences. At this time, approximately 15 employees or 28.17% of the court’s personnel are assigned to manage the voluminous caseload associated with this statutory mandate. In addition to the personnel costs of processing, scheduling and holding hearings, the court must provide language interpreters, copies of the Order to all required parties, and service of the Protection Orders. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: The Court of Domestic Relations is a court of public record and is mandated by law to record, store and retrieve approximately 19,000 hearings annually. Both hardware and software associated with this digital audio system must be maintained and updated in order to fulfill the integrity of the court’s recording system. Additionally, all hearings require judicial decisions that are rendered utilizing personal computers, copiers and printers. A ruling issued from the court’s bench is not effective until journalized on the Clerk of Court’s docket. Thus, any additional decrease in funds allocated for printers, copiers, and associated costs, would render the court’s decisions unable to be journalized and therefore without effect.

28


8/22/2011

The court must notify the litigants and attorneys of the court’s rulings (Civ. R.5, 53 and 58). This notification procedure consists of generating copies of decisions and mailing this documentation to all interested parties. If additional cuts are made to funds utilized for this service, the court may be unable to properly notify parties of the resolution of their case. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: In 2007, the Court of Domestic Relations was given funding to maintain 82 full time positions. Currently, the Court employs only 53.25 employees in the General Fund. This data represents a 35.06% decrease in staffing. Furthermore, from 2007 to 2010, the total number of filings for divorces and dissolutions have increased 8.3%. Preliminary statistics for 2011 indicate that the number of filings for divorces and dissolutions have continued to increase. The 2012 proposed funding decrease would result in additional position eliminations. Domestic Relations does not expect any attrition in 2012. Separation costs are unknown at this time, thus, the final number of full time position reductions is uncertain.

Table I - General Fund FTE Summary FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 440024-Judges and Magistrates 21.00 21.00 22.00 19.00440032- Administration 26.00 24.25 22.25 19.00440057-Parenting Specialists 10.00 9.00 9.00 7.00Total 57.00 55.25 53.25. 45.00

29

Hamilton County General Fund Budget Impact Form July 22, 2011 Department: Hamilton County Development Company, Inc. (HCDC), Economic Development Office Agency Director/Elected Official: David Main and Harry Blanton 2011 General Fund Budget Forecast: $578,000 (before a 10% to 15% cut) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The primary function of the Economic Development Office, administered under contract with HCDC, a private non-profit corporation, is to promote the economic welfare and improve the economic opportunities for the people in Hamilton County. This is accomplished through the retention, expansion, attraction and creation of research facilities and industrial and commercial businesses within the County, all of which encourage the creation and retention of jobs and employment opportunities and expand/enhance the tax base investment, generating property tax and retail sales tax for the County. The Economic Development Office administers the following programs for Hamilton County: ● Business Retention & Expansion ● Business Attraction & Marketing of the County ● Negotiation of Tax Incentives through the Enterprise Zone and Community Reinvestment Area programs ● Administration of Industrial Development Revenue Bond Program ● Assisting with disposition and redevelopment of surplus County-owned property ● Assisting communities with economic development related issues ● Administration of the Community Business Districts and Commercial Revitalization Program ● Business Site Location Assistance (administer data base and assist with site searches) ● Promotion of County-wide land development and adaptive property re-use ● Promotion of blighted property redevelopment through programs like the Urban Land Assistance Program and the Industrial Site Improvement Fund ● Educate local professionals and officials about economic development through workshops and presentations

30

HCDC also approves small business loans through the SBA 504 and Ohio 166 loan programs, as well as, offers business coaching and management assistance to entrepreneurs through the Entrepreneur Signature Program (ESP) and by operating a small business incubator to nurture new business start-ups. Other responsibilities include designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating economic development plans, programs, strategies and policies on behalf of the County. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is an example of this service. Since 2007, HCDC, through its three core program areas, has assisted companies who have generated over $692 million in business investments while helping create or retain approximately 14,168 jobs in the County. Services that would be eliminated or reduced: The Economic Development Office acts as the sales and marketing department for Hamilton County. As a mature, urban industrial economy, Hamilton County faces unfavorable economic trends and challenges from both the global economy and from surrounding less urban counties that possess an abundance of shovel-ready, greenfield sites with close proximity to major highways. A reduction in HCDC’s activities would hamper the County’s ability to promote economic development, and as such poses a long-term threat of a loss of business, investments, jobs and employment opportunities, and ultimately County tax revenues. The direct impact of this reduction of funding would reduce the economic development services HCDC provides to the County and the communities therein. This would include major reductions in business attraction, retention and expansion efforts and technical assistance provided to communities on economic development programs and projects. This could then result in the potential loss of new investment in the County from companies within and outside of the region. While a $57,800 to $86,700 reduction in a budget for some departments may not seem drastic, the loss of this amount to HCDC would cause a major shift of priorities and a reduction in staff. The loss of a senior staff member would mean the loss of experienced and sound advice that has been provided to the County and its communities. Unfortunately, many of the inner-ring communities do not have the resources to hire their own economic development staff and as a result they would be most affected by this cut.

31

One activity that is mandated by the Ohio Revised Code is the monitoring of the Enterprise Zone and Community Reinvestment Areas of the County that have already been approved by the County Commission through the Tax Incentive Review Council. Failure to comply with this mandate would result in the County losing the ability to grant future tax incentives and incurring monetary fines for such noncompliance. Special considerations in eliminating or reducing services: The County approved a three-year contract with Hamilton County Development Company, Inc. in March of 2010. This contract would need to be renegotiated and amended should the proposed budget cuts be implemented. HCDC received a 15% cut of our CDBG funding in the recent reductions by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Impact on department general fund staffing: The proposed reduction of 10% to 15% in funding for the Economic Development Office budget is equal to $57,800 to $86,700. The Economic Development Office is currently budgeted for $578,000 in 2011 which supports salary, benefits, rent and general overhead of approximately 7 employees. This proposed reduction would result in the lay-off and elimination of at least one senior professional employee/position and the commensurate economic development value otherwise provided.

32


8/22/2011

Department: Economic Development Agency Director/Elected Official: Jeff Aluotto This impact statement is based on (select one):

___x__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $1,008,950 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: In accord with the 2011 and 2012 working policy, the budget office exempted the entire Economic Development department from budget reductions in 2012. Economic Development is comprised of support for the Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Port Authority, Cincinnati USA Partnership, Hamilton County Development Corporation and administrative costs related to the Hotel/Motel tax program, and the Assistant County Administrator who oversees the various divisions. All of the 2012 divisional budgets are consistent with the 2011 budgets with the exception of the Port Authority. The Port Authority’s budget assumes an increase of $175,000 to allow the Port Authority to fulfill its mission of spearheading the redevelopment of brownfield sites, implementing the land bank project and the common bond fund, and implementing economic development initiatives throughout Hamilton County. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: N/A. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: N/A.


FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate Economic Development 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.65Hotel Motel 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Total 1.95 1.91 1.90 1.90

33


8/22/2011

Department: Hamilton County Homeland Security/Emergency Management Agency Agency Director/Elected Official: Michael C. Snowden This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X___ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $227,000 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: In the past, Hamilton County Emergency Management has pro-actively controlled costs, which has enabled us to carry over a significant surplus from previous budget years. This surplus was effective in allowing our department to continue to function effectively while receiving a significantly reduced allocation from the Board of Commissioners during the past year. This surplus will most likely be eliminated in the coming year. The Greater Cincinnati Hazardous Materials Unit is our only available resource for hazardous material response outside of the City of Cincinnati. The unit is staffed by over 100 volunteers, with some paid part-time on-call staff members. This unit has been in existence since the late 1980’s, and has a distinguished safety record. The material cost of operating and maintaining the readiness of this unit is quite high, and requires constant replenishment of expired protective equipment and calibration of detection equipment. The unit has instituted a standardized cost per capita for all of the jurisdictions it serves, and this cost is $102,303 for Hamilton County for 2012. This cost will cover all Hamilton County jurisdictions for hazardous material response for the coming calendar year. If we cannot contract with the Greater Cincinnati Hazardous Materials Unit, then the citizens of Hamilton County cannot depend upon the timely and effective hazardous material emergency response that they have relied upon in the past. In addition, by the spring of 2012, Hamilton County EMA will have installed 140 new sirens, and refurbished existing sirens, to complete a 203 unit all-hazards warning system for Hamilton County. This system will have been paid for by using State Homeland Security monies, so the initial cost of the design and installation of the system was paid for with grant funding. In order to protect and preserve this system, we would like to re-institute the maintenance of this system by Hamilton County Emergency Management. Some of the previous sirens dated to 1950, and many of the older sirens were not being maintained after the responsibility for this maintenance was turned over to the individual jurisdictions, so the system fell into disrepair. Hamilton County EMA would like to preserve the viability of the warning system by budgeting $15,000 per year to maintain this system. This money will need to be carried over from year to year in order to ensure that we can replace the batteries for each siren every three years. The new sirens will be covered by a five year warranty for maintenance, so the maintenance costs for the new sirens will be minimal. This funding

34


8/22/2011

stream will ensure the future maintenance of this system, and provide timely warnings to the citizens of Hamilton County. Our cost estimations based on previous budgets reveal that we believe we will need an additional $63,000, for a total of $290,000, in revenue from the Board of County Commissioners in order to maintain the contract with the Greater Cincinnati Hazardous Materials Unit, and to implement maintenance on our new all-hazards warning system. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: If we cannot continue to contract with the Greater Cincinnati Hazardous Materials Unit, then the individual jurisdictions will be responsible for contracting for hazardous material emergency response. If the jurisdictions cannot take this action, then the lack of a timely and appropriate response may result in injury, loss of life, and destruction of property. If the property destruction is bad enough, it may result in degradation of the economy and loss of tax revenue to the jurisdiction and the county. If we cannot implement maintenance responsibility for the new all-hazards warning system, then the new sirens may become inoperable within five years due to lack of routine maintenance. The individual sirens will almost certainly fail within five years due to the lack of battery replacement when the batteries have reached the end of their service life. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: Hamilton County EMA continues to manage multiple federal grants with a small group of employees (5.5 FTE’s) We will continue to manage our budget in a conservative and responsible manner with the small staff that we have. We have consistently identified ways to deliver consistent services to our constituents while identifying ways of transferring costs to grant streams when we can.


FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate OCA 330035 Admin 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5OCA 330043 Haz Mat 0 0 0 0OCA 330001 Fed Grant 6 6 6 7OCA 330003 State Grant 1 1.5 1.5 1.5Total 13.5 13.5 13.5 14.5

35

2012 General Fund Budget DRAFT Department Impact Form

8/22/2011

Department: Juvenile Court Agency Director/Elected Official: Frank Yux, Court Administrator This impact statement is based on (select one):

_____ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $ 18,329,419 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: As many County departments have, the Court has reduced its General Fund budget by a third over the last five years. These dramatic reductions have eliminated all non-mandated services in the Court, except Hillcrest Training school. While the discretion of the Judge as to what level of treatment a child needs is mandated and protected under separation of powers; running a training school is not. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: The Court has drafted an RFP to have a private provider run Hillcrest. This will not eliminate funding required for children, but will reduce overall expenses. In addition, the Court will be able to access federal dollars for placement of children. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: Currently, 63 FTE are budgeted in the GF for Hillcrest. In addition, 34 more staff are budgeted on restricted funds for Hillcrest.

36


8/22/2011

Department: Non-Departmentals Agency Director/Elected Official: Jim Cundiff This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X___ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: No services will be reduced or eliminated. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: N/A Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: N/A

37


8/22/2011

Department: Planning and Development Agency Director/Elected Official: Gary Van Hart This impact statement is based on (select one):

_____ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $5,326,072 ___X__ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: Since the department budget is approximately 87% personnel the only reductions that can be made in the budget are personnel (layoff of approximately 13 staff of the 36 that are funded primarily by the General Fund) which will result in major cuts in services to the public. We have allocated layoffs throughout the General Fund staff to minimize the impact to any one division within the department. The Building, Planning, Zoning, and County Divisions are all supported by the General Fund. Although the reductions will greatly impact customer service in each area we have provided for state mandated functions and minimum service in all divisions. The Board has made a commitment to promote economic and physical development opportunities for the County. The work of the Planning and Development Department directly supports and facilitates this mandate. The County’s Building Inspections Division is certified by the state with responsibility for the issuance of Building Permits, regulated by the following sections of the ORC: 3781, 3791, and 307.37. With a possible reduction of at least four staff members, wait times for building permit review and building inspections within the unincorporated areas of the County and six communities that we contract with would increase. If staff could not respond in the time allotted by the State Building Codes (30 days) this could result in permits being automatically adjudicated which could ultimately result in de-certification and the loss of $1,800,000 in building permit revenue. If the County loses certification as a state building department, the authority to enforce the Ohio building codes reverts back to the state which would require property owner/permit applicants to drive to Columbus or another outlying location to apply for building permits. Additionally, each of the townships would then have legal authority to certify their own building department. For the six communities that we contract with, they would be required to either staff their building departments of contract with another provider. This would be the direct opposite of consolidation of services. In addition the Customer Service staff would be reduced by three, leaving only three staff members, which would severely limit response to customer needs. Customer Service staff time delays directly affect the timely processing of building permits, applications, zoning certificates, etc. Currently the Zoning Enforcement section deals with issuing permits and proactively investigating and abating zoning violations. With the loss of two Zoning Enforcement staff members, permits would not be issued in a timely manner (currently most permits are issued on a while-you-wait basis) and zoning investigations would be done on a complaint basis only. The Zoning Resolution adopted by the Board

38


8/22/2011

requires issuance of permits within eight days of a completed application or the application may be deemed approved as submitted, regardless of compliance with zoning regulations. Zoning enforcement complaints are required to be investigated within ten working days and failure to investigate could result in litigation against the county. Zoning inspectors also inspect and issue final approval of all zoning permits prior to issuance of final approval by building inspectors; failure to inspect and issue these final approvals in a timely manner would result in longer waiting periods for issuance of final building permits and may delay residential home sales, opening of businesses, etc. that depend on the issuance of Final Occupancy permits following construction. ORC sections that mandate these services are 303.12, 303.16, 303.17, 303.18, 303.04, and Article XIII. The loss of Development Review staff would impact both major and minor subdivision approvals as well as all zone amendments and PUD approvals. Failure to act on these matters could result in approval as submitted and/or litigation against the county. The Zoning Enforcement and Development Review sections also have several zoning contracts totaling $70,000 to $80,000 per year in revenue which could not be continued with the loss of staff. These duties are mandated under the following ORC sections: 303.04, 711.10, 303.21, 713.23, and 711.131. The loss of several other Planning and Development staff would result in the department’s inability to continue the administration of the County’s HIP Program, the ability to maintain the County website, as well as the administration of on-going contracts and grants including a contract with MSD and the EECBG grant. This would result in the loss of approximately $300,000 in revenue to the County’s General Fund. The number of customers impacted by the loss of any, or in some instances all of these services could potentially number several hundred thousand, wait times might be so long that they violate either State mandated or County regulations resulting in unfettered development or litigation. The potential loss of revenue is approximately $2,200,000. Customers would be frustrated and a severely reduced staff would be completely demoralized. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: Any cars, trucks, laptops, workstations, printers, etc. used by former staff members could be auctioned or distributed to other county departments. Gasoline and mileage expenses would be reduced as well as incidental office supplies. Potential savings could be between $10,000 and $20,000. However, this in no way compensates the loss of service to the public or the curtailment of economic development within the County. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: Due to separation costs 13 out of 36 staff members funded primarily through the General Fund would result in the elimination of the Building Division. Customer Service, Zoning, Development Review and Planning staff would be reduced to minimum levels. The following staff would be eliminated: Building Division Staff 4 of 17 Customer Service Staff 3 of 6 Zoning Enforcement Staff 2 of 4 Development Review/Planning Staff 4 of 9


FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate* 290029 40.4 42.17 38.5 25.5Total 40.4 42.17 38.5 25.5

39

2012 Budget Impact Statement.doc

Mark A. Perry, Assistant Administrator Probate Division, Court of Common Pleas

William Howard Taft Law Center 230 E. Ninth Street, 10th Floor

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2145 (513) 946-3560 Fax: (513) 946-3581

[email protected]

MEMORANDUM To: John Bruggen, Budget Director Subject: 2011 Preliminary Forecast Budget Impact Statement Date: August 15, 2011

In response to the Budget Impact Statement related to the OBSI Preliminary Forecast Budget, the Court offers the following response.

As you know, the Court has historically had concerns regarding the Forecast Budget

methodology and budget process in general. However, in light of the financial condition of the County, the Court has continually worked to reduce its general fund budget and can produce evidence of the Court’s fiscal stewardship of taxpayers’ funds. For example, the Court has purchased goods and services for prices cheaper than those paid by departments under the Board of County Commissioners even after the Court notified the Board of this ability. To date, no department under the Board has asked the Court for assistance regarding potential savings and has continued to purchase goods and services at higher prices than those secured by the Court.

In addition, the Court has requested clarification regarding the 2012 Preliminary Forecast

Budget in an e-mail dated July 12, 2011 the responses of which will be necessary for the Court to understand the global budget methodology so that the Court could prepare an informed response. The Court received the OBSI responses on August 4, 2011. The Court has not fully reviewed the global forecast budget because the responses appear to be incomplete. However, as it was presented, the Court’s 2012 Preliminary Forecast Budget would have a significant impact on the Court. Significant layoffs would be necessary which would require a reduction in hours opened to the public. If for example, the Court would reduce the hours of operation for the Marriage License department, the Court may not be able to grant 100% of marriage license applications which would mean some couples could not get married in Hamilton County and would reduce revenue. This would be the result on any reduction in hours. In any event, the Court will develop procedures to mitigate the restriction and/or loss of access to the public.

The Court is still reviewing the Preliminary Forecast Budget as well as other BOCC recently

adopted budgetary policies to develop a plan to reengineer the Court for the existing economic conditions. In prior years, the Court and OBSI have found ways to develop a consensus budget that provides the citizens with unrestricted access to justice and there are no indications that this will not be the case for the 2012 budget.

40

Prosecutor

From: Joe Huster [[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 11:05 AM

To: Anderson, Lisa; Bruggen, John

Cc: Jim Harper; Sigman, Christian

Subject: 2012 Gen Fd Budget Impact Statement

This email will serve as the Prosecuting Attorney's Gen Fd Forecast Budget Impact Statement. The Prosecutor's Office consists of the Criminal Division, Civil Division, and the Family Law Division. The Criminal Division, which handles Common Pleas, Municipal, Juvenile, and Appellate cases is supported by the General Fund. The Civil Division receives approximately 40% of funding from the Delinquent Real Estate Fund. The Family Law Division is almost entirely funded through contracts with the Department of Jobs & Family Services. Non-personnel costs of the office are minor, and have been reduced to minimum acceptable levels over the past several years. The 2012 Gen Fd Forecast Budget of $8,459,330 represents a reduction of approximately $3M from our 2011 anticipated expenditures and our 2012 budget request. A shortfall of this magnitude would require a lay-off of approximately 50 Criminal Division attorneys, assuming a salary of $50,000 with benefits. This drastic cut would prohibit us from fulfilling our statutory duties and would significantly impact our ability to successfully prosecute criminals. Current caseloads for Criminal Division attorneys are considered high compared to similar sized jurisdictions in Ohio and nationwide. Fewer attorneys would increase caseloads, thereby exacerbating the workload problem. Increased workloads would undoubtly lead to trial delays and eventually dismissals because of the failure to meet trial deadlines required by statute. In addition, the prosecution of cases making it to trial would be less effective because of decreased trial preparation resulting from increased workloads. As provided in the ORC, the Prosecutor's 2012 budget will be submitted to the Court of Common Pleas for approval. We will continue to cooperate with the BOCC to achieve overall County goals.

41


8/22/2011

Department: Public Defender Agency Director/Elected Official: Shelia Kyle-Reno This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X__ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $14,346,173 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: The legal representation provided by the Public Defender to the indigent is constitutionally mandated. On September 1st 2010 the Board of County Commissioners of Hamilton County (BOCC) and the Law Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender (HCPD) entered into an agreement which the BOCC agreed to provide the funding necessary to enable the HCPD to achieve its objectives as set forth in section II of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to comply with the Ohio Public Defender's Commission Memorandum dated May 20, 2010. Appropriations to cover the costs of these objectives will be made as part of the annual budget process over a four year funding plan providing an additional $2M per the attached MOU. The 2012 budget provides for an addition $576,030 in funding from the 2011 appropriation $13,770,143 to 2012 funding level of $14,346,173. See attached MOU and three-year funding schedule. The General Fund revenue impact for 2012 from the State Public Defender at 35% is $5,021,161. Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: Special consideration in eliminating of reducing the constitutionally mandated services provided by the Public Defender and 2012 funding provisions set forth in the MOU would potentially jeopardize the State Public Defender’s ability to continue the 35% reimbursable funding to Hamilton County. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: The 2012 additional staffing levels as provided within the MOU increase the Public Defender’s FTE complement by 15 full time positions which include (5) Municipal Attorneys, (3) Juvenile Staff Attorneys, (4) Paralegals, (2) Felony Staff Attorneys and (1) Support Court Specialist. These added positions are also funded partially from a direct reduction to the Contract Misdemeanor line item (0908) Defense of the Indigent in the amount $240,600.

42


8/22/2011


FTEs 2010 Budget

2011 Budget

2011 Estimate

2012 Estimate

470039 Public Defender 54.5 64.5 57.5 65.5470041 GAL 27.0 28.0 28.0 28.0470042 Juvenile Unit 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0470044 Drug Court Unit 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0470045 Felony Unit 5.0 5.0 12.0 15.0Total 109.5 120.5 120.5 135.5

43


8/22/2011

7/21/10

AGREEMENT AMONG THE HAMILTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LAW OFFICE OF THE HAMILTON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND THE

HAMILTON COUNTY OFFICE OF BUDGET AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

I. HISTORY In 2007 the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners commissioned NLADA

to conduct a Management and Efficiency Evaluation of the Indigent Defense System in Hamilton County. In July 2008 NLADA issued its report, “Taking Gideon’s Pulse”, which found that the State of Ohio was not meeting its constitutional obligations to properly fund indigent defense, and as a result suggested various reforms. In 2008 the Hamilton County Commissioners created a Task Force, chaired by Commissioner David Pepper to review the recommendations of NLADA. In February 2009, the Task Force submitted its report, again calling for various reforms. Following various meetings with the Ohio State Public Defender Commission, on May 20, 2010 that Commission issued a Memorandum, which requires the Hamilton County Commissioners and the Hamilton County Public Defender Commission to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that sets forth concrete bench marks for reform. The Ohio Public Defender Commission in its Memorandum identified “four critical issues that require immediate attention…”: 1) increase pay for misdemeanor contract attorneys; 2) implement pay parity for staff attorneys; 3) provide adequate office space for staff attorneys; and 4) hire support staff. Further, it should be noted that the 2010 annual budget for the Hamilton County Public Defender’s Office is approximately $13 million and at the current rate of reimbursement from the Ohio Public Defender of 35%, approximately $4.9 million will be deposited into the Hamilton County General Fund.

II. PURPOSE This Agreement is entered into by the Hamilton County Commissioners (hereinafter “HCC") and the Law Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender (hereinafter “HCPD”), and the Hamilton County Office of Budget and Strategic Initiatives (hereinafter “BSI”) for the purpose of complying with the mandate and recommendations outlined in the May 20, 2010 Memorandum from the Ohio Public Defender Commission, and to set forth the steps that HCC and HCPD will endeavor to take to improve their obligations to provide indigent defense services. To that end the objectives sought to be achieved by the HCPD include, but are not limited to: 1) create salary parity with the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s office; 2) without impacting budget, increase compensation for contract attorneys while reducing dependency on them; 3) maintain a firm and strong commitment to training; 4) expand and enhance performance evaluations; 5) work on ways to increase reimbursement revenue through indirect cost allocations; 6) obtain adequate temporary and permanent space; 7) hire additional legal and support staff; 8) work with the Cincinnati Bar Association to establish a committee to review and

44


8/22/2011

make recommendations regarding the hourly fees and caps for assigned counsel established in the 2004 fee schedule and work toward implementation of any proposed schedule.

III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE HCPD Under this Agreement, the HCPD will provide indigent defense services in Hamilton County. The HCPD will seek reimbursement from the state of Ohio for any reimbursable costs that are applicable to this service. Wherefore, HCPD agrees as follows:

A. In 2010 the HCPD shall:

1) Develop a plan to change from a 35 hour work week to a 40 hour work week for legal staff.

2) Develop a plan to create pay parity with the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office for legal staff.

3) Develop a plan to create pay parity with the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office for non-legal staff.

4) Reduce dependency on Municipal Court Contract Attorneys without any major budgetary impact.

5) Increase the payment schedule for contract attorneys from the current fee schedule of $70 per client.

6) Work with HCC to find sufficient and adequate space to temporarily relocate the GAL division’s 28 employees.

B. In 2011 the HCPD shall: 1) Further reduce dependency on Municipal Court Contract Attorneys without any major

budgetary impact. 2) Hire an additional 7 Municipal Staff attorneys using a portion of the funds in the

Contract Attorney line item in the 2011 budget. 3) Hire 3 additional support personnel. 4) Seek reimbursement from the State Public Defender for any indirect costs deemed to

be associated with Pre-Trial Services. 5) Hire 1 additional support person for the relocated GAL division. 6) In conjunction with the Cincinnati Bar Association, create a committee to review

2004 fee schedule for assigned counsel.

C. In 2012 the HCPD shall: 1) Hire 4 paralegals to be assigned to Municipal teams and Juvenile staff. 2) Hire 2 additional felony staff attorneys. 3) Hire 3 additional juvenile staff attorneys. 4) Hire 1 additional support person. 5) Hire 5 additional Municipal Staff attorneys

45


8/22/2011

D. In 2013 the HCPD shall: 1) Hire 2 additional felony staff attorneys. 2) Hire 1 additional appellate staff attorney. 3) Hire 5 forensic social workers. 4) Hire 2 additional investigators. 5) Cooperate with HCC and BSI in moving HCPD to new facilities

IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF HCC and BSI

Under this Agreement, the HCC and BSI agree to provide the funding necessary to enable the HCPD to achieve its objectives as set forth in section II above and to comply the Ohio Public Defender’s Commission Memorandum dated May 20, 2010. Wherefore, HCC and BSI agree to:

A. By August 2, 2010 HCC and BSI shall: Provide an additional $152,570 to be

used for but not limited to the following: 1) An additional $152,570 to HCPD’s budget to enable HCPD to make the necessary

salary increases to reflect a 40 hour work week. 2) Assist HCPD in finding sufficient and adequate space to temporarily relocate the

GAL division’s 28 employees. B. In 2011 HCC and BSI shall: Provide an additional $750,000 to be used for but

not limited to the following: 1) An additional $488,230 to HCPD’s budget to cover the annual cost associated with

the change to a 40 hour work week for legal staff and pay parity for all employees. If HCC agrees to provide salary adjustments to other departments within their salary plan, HCPD will receive the salary adjustment based upon its salaries after the conversion to the 40 hour work week and establishment of pay parity with the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office.

2) The funds necessary to renovate available space and to move the GAL division into acceptable temporary facilities.

3) Provide an additional $118,800 to HCPD’s budget to cover the costs associated with the hiring of 3 additional support personnel.

4) Work towards having a portion of the Pre-Trial Service budget designated as an indirect cost allocation to the HCPD.

5) Provide an additional $30,360 to HCPD’s budget to cover the salary associated with the hiring of 1 additional support person for GAL.

6) Provide an additional $10,000 to HCPD’s budget for additional computer equipment for new staff.

7) In addition to the 4 full-time employees set forth above an additional 7 full-time employees for a total of 11 full-time employees; a portion of the cost for the additional

46


8/22/2011

7 to be bore by HCPD by a reduction in Contract Attorney line item in the 2011 budget.

C. In 2012 HCC and BSI shall: Provide an additional $576,030 to be used for but not limited to the following:

1) An additional $167,200 to HCPD’s budget to cover salary of 4 paralegals. 2) An additional $145,200 to HCPD’s budget to cover salary of 2 felony staff attorneys. 3) An additional $174,240 to HCPD’s budget to cover the salary of 3 juvenile staff

attorneys. 4) Obtain a minimum of 50,000 sq. ft. of acceptable permanent space for use by HCPD. 5) An additional $39,600 to cover the salary of 1 additional support person. 6) In addition to the 10 full-time employees set forth above an additional 5 full-time

employees for a total of 15 full-time employees; a portion of the cost for the additional 5 to be bore by HCPD by a reduction in Contract Attorney line item in the 2012 budget

D. In 2013 HCC and BSI agree to: Provide an additional $521,400 to be used for

but not limited to the following:

1) An additional $145,200 to HCPD’s budget to cover the salaries for 2 additional felony staff attorneys.

2) An additional $72,600 to HCPD’s budget to cover salary for 1 additional appellate staff attorney.

3) An additional $198,000 to HCPD’s budget to cover salaries for 5 forensic social workers.

4) An additional $105,600 to HCPD’s budget to cover salaries for 2 additional investigators.

5) Provide funds necessary to renovate and/or relocate to permanent facilities of approximately 50,000 sq. ft.

6) Provide the costs associated with the relocation to permanent facilities.

V. USE OF FUNDS RECEIVED The Law Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender warrants and agrees that any funds received from the Hamilton County general fund will be utilized by the Law Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender to provide constitutionally mandated indigent defense.

VI. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS HCC and BSI agree that if the percentage of reimbursement by the State of Ohio Public Defender Commission at any time exceeds 35% any and all additional revenue will be directed to the HCPD without going into the general fund in addition to the amounts committed herein. Further, if at any time HCC and BSI provide County funds for salary adjustments, those funds

47


8/22/2011

will be provided to HCPD over and above the funds used to create pay parity and to increase pay from a 35 hour work week to a 40 hour work week.

VII. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement will commence on 8/1/2010.

VII. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT All terms and conditions of this Agreement are embodied herein. No other terms and conditions will be considered a part of this Agreement unless expressly agreed upon in writing and signed by all parties. The terms of this Agreement are hereby agreed to by the parties as shown by the signatures of the representatives of each. ___________________________________ _______________ Hamilton County Public Defender Date ___________________________________ ______________ President, Hamilton County Commissioners Date ___________________________________ _______________ Assistant Administrator of Budget and Strategic Date Initiatives

48


8/22/2011

49


8/22/2011

50


8/22/2011

51


8/22/2011

52


8/22/2011

53


8/22/2011

54


8/22/2011

55


8/22/2011

56


8/22/2011

Department: Treasurer Agency Director/Elected Official: Robert A. Goering This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X___ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $759,466 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: Temporary employees which are used during collection periods will be eliminated along with regular staff employees which will lead to tax payments being processed slower and substantial delays to the school districts and other taxing authorities on receiving their tax revenues as per ORC 321.08. Available cashiers for the public during collection period will be reduced creating extensive lines on the last days of collection. This can cause potential security and financial risks. Taxpayer emails and letter correspondence will become untimely causing potential late or no payments being made by the taxpayer. Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: 1 full time cashier will not be replaced. 1 full time clerk will not be replaced. 2 temporary employees will not be hired.

Table I - General Fund FTE Summary FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 0511 Regular Employee 5 5 5 3 0519 Part Time Employee 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0521 Temporary Employee .5 .5 .5 0 Total 7 7 7 4.5

64


8/22/2011

Department: VETERANS SERVICE COMMISSION Agency Director/Elected Official: WILLIAM A. BOETTCHER This impact statement is based on (select one):

__X___ 2012 General Fund Budget Forecast: $1,686,176 _____ 10-15% reduction from 2011 budget

This Department Impact Form is a mechanism for departments to articulate the detailed potential impact of operating your department at the 2012 General Fund budget forecast funding level. It is the department’s prerogative and responsibility to determine which areas of its budget to eliminate or reduce. This includes staffing levels and specific positions for elimination. Please note that these impact forms will be a key tool used for public deliberation on the 2012 general fund budget. Please describe any services that will be eliminated or reduced: Mandated OHIO REVISED CODE 5901 Describe any special considerations in eliminating or reducing a service: N/A Describe the impact on department general fund staffing: N/A

Table I - General Fund FTE Summary FTEs 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate Administration 11.15 11.11 10.05 10.05Total 11.15 11.11 10.05 10.05 The decrease in staff is due to changing the FTE calculation methodology for board members.

65

hamilton county budget impact statements

Documents

departmentals na na

subsidies na na na

court of appeals na

board of elections na

auditor na na

prosecutor na na

treasurer na na

public defender na na