official minutes of marion county board of county ... · may 7,2014 the marion county board of...
TRANSCRIPT
Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
May 72014
The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a workshop session in Commission Chambers at 1004 am on Wednesday May 7 2014 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala Florida
Upon roll call the following members were present Chairman Carl Zalak District 4 Vice-Chairman Stan McClain District 3 Commissioner David Moore District 1 and Commissioner Earl Arnett District 5 Commissioner Kathy Bryant District 2 arrived shortly after the meeting commenced Also present was County Administrator Lee A Niblock
Also present were Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair Chief Deputy Fred LaTorre Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland and Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Administrative Services Gregg Jerald
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country
BudgetsSheriff - Chairman Zalak advised that todays workshop was scheduled to address the Marion County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) 5-Year Strategic Plan
The Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a 1 page Agenda a 164 page document entitled Marion County Sheriffs Office Five-Year Strategic Plan and an 87 page document entitled Marion County Sheriffs Office Master Plan FY 2015-2019 to follow along with the PowerPoint presentation
Sheriff Blair referred to the two documents presented noting one was the full 5shyYear Plan and a smaller version for a PowerPoint presentation which basically highlighted the facts supported by the Plan itself He advised that he would turn the presentation over to Major Jerald and asked that questions be held until the end as some questions may be answered later in the presentation Chairman Zalak concurred
Bureau Chief Jerald noted that back in October of 2013 after last years budget Senior Staff and Bureau Chiefs within the Sheriffs Office met to address a 5-Year Plan as a matter of good business practice The 5-Year Plan was good for the Sheriffs Office and the Commission to provide to the public The Plan would accomplish a number of things and would allow the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and citizens to get a better global picture of what the Sheriffs Office actually did which was a much more comprehensive process than the green and white units seen on the street or those who worked in the jail This would be discussed along with the financial modeling of the different plans proposed today
Page 2 of the PowerPoint presentation (Marion County Sheriffs Office Master Plan FY 2015-2019) addressed the geographic overview of Marion County which had approximately 335125 residents of which roughly 80 lived in the unincorporated area and received law enforcement services from MCSO Marion County contained more than 1600 square miles which was significant and was the 5th largest county in terms of land mass in the State of Florida
Commissioner Bryant arrived at 1007 am Page 3 addressed the organization of MCSO which was organized into 7
Book T Page 415
May 72014
Bureaus 1) Community Policing which was the patrol operations 2) Corrections which ran the jail 3) Special Investigations which was the major crimes division and sex crimes 4) Support Services 5) Professional Compliance 6) Administrative Services and 7) Emergency Management
Pages 4 and 5 addressed the Bureau of Community Policing which was responsible for responding to all calls for service in Marion County MCSO was divided into 12 Districts of service that operated out of 10 different District Offices and was a decentralized approach to crime fighting by having Deputies out in the districts There were also 11 Divisions andor specialty units within the Patrol Bureau
The pie charts on page 6 addressed the allocation of personnel shift that had occurred from 2007 to 2014 It was noted that an additional 12 was currently devoted to Deputies supervisory ranks were reduced by about 5 which equated to about 32 Supervisors that were no longer with the Sheriffs Office as was there in 2007 Since Sheriff Blair assumed office in January of 2013 24 supervisory positions were eliminated in that time A significant reduction was also seen in the support staff of the Sheriffs Office Bureau Chief Jerald stated MCSO was doing more with less
Pages 7 and 8 addressed the Community Policing - Divisions which included 2 new units created by Sheriff Blair with the idea of targeting street crime and bringing criminals with arrest warrants who were evading apprehension to justice 1) Tactical Investigations Unit and 2) Fugitive Apprehension Unit The Tactical Investigations Unit was a 5 man unit that made 365 arrests in 2013 resulting in 536 felony charges The Fugitive Apprehension Unit was also a 5 man unit When Sheriff Blair took over the office there were 5805 active arrest warrants in Marion County and by the end of 2013 that number was down to 4663 which did not include warrants that were processed in 2013
Other divisions within the Community Policing Bureau included the K9 Unit Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team Underwater Recovery Team Aviation Unit Crisis Negotiation Team Mobile Field Force Bomb Squad Motorcycle Traffic Drug Interdiction Unit and Juvenile Division
Page 9 addressed the Community Policing - Citizen Focus Group that was empanelled a couple of years ago by the Sheriffs Office to see what citizens wanted from law enforcement The top 5 priorities were 1) response time 2) visibility 3) professional service 4) problem solvers and 5) communication
Page 10 addressed populationservice demand trends which included an additional 65000 more residents today than in 2000 Bureau Chief Jerald understood the County Administrator to say yesterday that another 50000 was expected over the next 10 years The MCSO received 147296 calls in 2000 and last year 309027 calls for service were received The unincorporated population from 2000 increased by about 32 while the volume of calls for service increased by 110
The MCSO had the same number of boots on the ground today (defined by Sergeants and below) today as 10 years ago in 20032004 however the calls for service were 80 higher today than in 2003 This created a strain on the agency to meet the increase in demands for law enforcement services
Page 11 addressed the impact of failure to maintain level of Deputy Sheriffs to meet increased population demand for law enforcement services which increased the response time for a deputy respond to a call for service It also increased the danger to the public and caused a risk to deputies who were less likely to have backup
Pqge 12 addressed the current community policing statistics - supply The
Page 416 Book T
May 72014
MCSO had 190 deputies with a rank of Sergeant or below which were referred to as boots on the ground It was noted that 32 of those positions had been lost since 2007 and had not been replaced If no deputies were added in this years budget there would be 13 fewer deputies next year than 1 0 years prior to that in fiscal year (FY) 2004shy2005
Page 13 referenced a quote by former Sheriff Ed Dean in a letter to the Board dated May 272011
Page 14 noted that since former Sheriff Dean wrote that letter the MCSO budget had been reduced by approximately $45 million which was in addition to the $17 million in medical and health insurance portion that was picked up along with all other Constitutional Officers last year but was real dollars that could not be used to support law enforcement functions It was noted that 57 patrol vehicles broke down while in service during the last 6 months of 2013
The graph on page 15 showed 189 boots on the ground in FY 20032004 and in FY 1213 there were a total of 191 If no new deputies were added next year the department would have 15 less deputies than in FY 20042005 The red line showed where MCSO would be had it kept up with population growth
Page 16 addressed the measure of proper deputy staffing which was commonly measured per deputy by 1000 residences This method was pioneered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) years ago and was currently used by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) as a common indicator of staffing strength
Page 17 addressed Marion County Deputy strength which was currently 094 deputies per 1000 residents while the State average was 16 Comparable counties also averaged at 16 deputies per 1000 residents Counties with similar populations (200000 to 400000 residents) averaged 144 deputies per 1000 residents Continued failure to add new deputies in combination with expected population growth would result in Marion County ranking 65th out of 67 counties in deputy strength within 10 years Marion County was currently ranked 58 out of 67
The spreadsheet on page 18 provided information regarding MCSO versus (vs) comparable counties which were chosen based on geographic location and socioeconomic factors (similar median incomes located within the region or a combination of the two) When averaged the number of deputies per 1000 residents was 16 who patrolled 1084 which was about 600 miles less than MCSO with approximately $15000000 more in funding The average funding per citizen averaged $41373 while MCSO funding was $24866 per citizen which was the lowest of all comparable counties
Bureau Chief Jerald advised that they looked at counties with over 1400 square miles (not included on the spreadsheet) and averaged 20 deputies per 1000 residents He stated more deputies were needed to patrol a larger land mass in order to achieve decent response times to meet citizen needs
The bar chart on page 19 showed the number of deputies per 1000 residents in terms of comparable counties
The graph on page 20 showed the deputy strength as to what had occurred over the last several years in Marion County In 20072008 there were 102 deputies per 1000 residents and today that figure was down to 094 which would continue to decrease if no deputies were added and in 5 years it would be down to 085 deputies
Page 21 addressed response times which was the number one priority for citizens based on the focus group results Priority 1 calls were calls for service for
Book T Page 417
May 72014
someone being battered (for example) which was at the top of the list and the closest available deputy responded Priority 2 through 4 were lower priority calls but were included when referring to ALL priority calls however Priority 1 calls were separated out since those were the most emergent situations to track response times In 2013 all priorities averaged about 1537 (15 minutes and 37 seconds) for a deputy to respond which exceeded the state and national averages by 35 Priority 1 calls were even more troubling as they averaged 11 35 in 2013 while the standard was 6 minutes Increasing the number of deputies available to respond to calls for services had a direct and immediate impact on response times
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 2 tables (charts) in the Marion County Sheriffs Office Five-Year Strategic Plan document on pages 36 and 37 in regard to decreasing response times in terms of adding deputy sheriffs The top table showed the number of deputiesdeputy strength estimated population impact on deputies per 1000 citizens and the estimated response time range The table at the bottom of page 36 and top of page 37 was somewhat different He commented on visibility with the focus group noting visibility in law enforcement was measured by the number of deputies per square mile Marion County had 015 deputies per square mile which was below all comparable counties but was another measure of visibility There were two different ways to basically look at the same thing how many deputies did it take and what could you realistically expect for that to have an impact on response time What kind of return on investment (RIO) would be realized
The bar chart on page 22 referred to calls worked outside assigned district due to lack of deputy presence
The bar chart on page 23 addressed priority 1 average response times in 2013 compared to comparable counties with a target of 6 minutes which showed Marion County was almost doubling that goal
The bar chart on page 24 provided the monthly average of response times for all Priority 1 calls from November 2012 through October 2013
Pages 25 and 26 showed staff resources by incident type for various calls in regard to routine traffic stops security checks burglary and robbery
Page 27 addressed a real-life example which took 37 minutes for a deputy to respond to a Priority 1 call Page 28 was reserved to play an audio of the 911 call received in regard to the real-life example on page 27 (Ed Note Page 29 follows page 31 in this document as referenced below)
Chairman Zalak questioned where the incident occurred and who was in command Bureau Chief Jerald advised that Captain Pogue had the background details on each of the examples which he could forward to each Commissioner after the presentation
Page 30 referred to other real-life examples of response time impact on citizen and officer safety In this example it took 26 minutes for the unit to arrive on scene even though the deputy was running code (lights and siren) More troubling was the fact that FireEmergency Medical Services (EMS) was on scene within 5 minutes of dispatch and were staged on-scene which was in accordance to protocol until law enforcement arrived to clear the scene FireEMS had to wait 18 minutes outside the residence before rendering aid to the victim Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the background on this incident would also be provided to each Commissioner
Page 31 referred to a real-life example that occurred where a deputy had to respond from a neighboring zone Upon arrival the deputy was met by an armed man
Page 418 Book T
May 72014
after commands to drop the weapon the man opened fire and struck the deputys watch The deputy retreated and had to wait 10 minutes for backup to arrive on a shots fired call
Page 29 addressed the deputy staffing needs which included different staffing scenarios based on different benchmarks To get back to the level of service that existed in 2007 (prior to the onset of the recession) would require 50 deputies to provide 102 deputies per 1000 residents To reach the state average would require 171 new deputies The MCSO had always prided itself on doing more with less in terms of having lower than average deputy strength as did the County MCSO did not need to have 106 deputies per 1000 residents however they did need to be higher than 094 The economic modeling at the end would show this could be accomplished with minimal impact on the millage rates over the next 5 years
Page 32 referred to capital needs for vehicles and equipment 194 out of 268 MCSO in-service patrol vehicles (73) had more than 103000 miles which was the industry standard for patrol vehicle replacement Using the Countys scorecard to replace its vehicles 73 of MCSO patrol vehicles also scored out for immediate replacement or within the next 12 months MCSO had no replacement mobile data terminals (MDTs) which deputies used in their vehicles Should an MDT break there was no replacement and there was no capital in the Sheriffs budget Bullet proof vests were required to be replaced every 5 years Grant monies had dried up for funding vest and resulted in the need for $80000 this year with a like amount due each successive year to replace those vests
The bar chart on page 33 showed replacement vehicles In comparison County vehicles scored at 18 for vehicles needing to be replaced which would fit into what one would expect on a 5 year replacement plan however MCSO needed to replace 73 of its vehicles
Pages 34 through 47 covered the Bureau of Corrections Page 35 referenced the Marion County Jail (MCJ) which was accredited through the Florida Corrections Association Commission (FCAC) and American Corrections Association (ACA) which was an incredibly prestigious accreditation as only 135 county jails in this country that received that accreditation out of more than 3200 The inmate capacity was a little over 1900 at MCJ and 256 in the Juvenile Detention Center
The pie charts on page 36 showed the allocation shift that had occurred from 20072008 to 20132014 in the jail which resulted in 8 less Supervisors today although the number of officers was basically the same and 31 fewer support staff Some of the support staff was eliminated to try to keep the Corrections Officers (COs) since they were needed to man the pods Also some of the top heaviness was reduced that previously existed
Page 37 referred to pod structuring and required staffing The people in blue (page 38) represented COs and the people in green represented Corrections Assistants (CAs) Alpha Pod (A-Pod) had an inmate count of 118 and a bunking overflow (number of inmates sleeping on daybeds) of 20 Bureau Chief Jerald noted that a little over 350 inmates were currently sleeping on daybeds at the jail due to overcrowding and not being able to open another Pod Bravo Pod (B-Pod) was currently closed
Page 39 showed the assigned staff per shift the inmate count and bunking overtlow of Charlie Pod (C-Pod) and Delta Pod (D-Pod) was currently closed
Page 40 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
Book T Page 419
May 72014
for Echo Pod (E-Pod) and Foxtrot Pod (F-Pod) Page 41 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for Golf Pod (G-Pod) and Hotel Pod (H-Pod) Page 42 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking over1low
for the Medical Pod and Medical InfirmaryHousing Page 43 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for the Medical Clinic which fluctuated on a daily basis and Booking (temporary inmate housing)
Page 44 showed the assigned staff per shift for Inmate Visitation and Juvenile Detention
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 5-Year Plan document noting the second tab provided the background information for the 2 studies that were performed using the Department of Justice and the Florida Sheriffs Association criteria Both studies showed that the MCSO was 60 COs short in the jail to properly staff Pods That overflow was currently being addressed by asking those deputies who were CO certified to serve shifts in the jail on their days off due to manpower shortage
Page 45 addressed overcrowding The MCJ currently had 362 inmates over capacity for existing open pods Two Pods were currently closed but could not be opened due to lack of staffing
Page 46 addressed other functions that the MCJ oversaw or investigations that took place in the jail Food services averaged around $050 per meal in 2013 which was the lowest for county jails of this size in the State of Florida by comparison the Department of Corrections (DOC) averaged $154 per tray Other functions also included Facility Services Inmate Services Juvenile Detention Classifications Warrants Mental Health Court Transportation Civil and Bailiffs
Page 47 addressed the inmate work farm which allowed inmates an opportunity to do something outside the jail walls as well as yielding significant food savings The food yield savings in 2013 was $105943953 and it cost $820233 to run the work farm resulting in a savings of $23921653 Increased efficiencies in running the farm in 2013 resulted in enhanced savings by $16278163 over 2012 The work farm was also the site of the work in lieu of arrest (WILA) program which was a state recognized model for alternative sentencing
Pages 48 through 52 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations The photograph on page 48 occurred in 2013 and showed the largest K2 bust in the history of Marion County that was accomplished by the Drug Unit
Page 49 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations Functions This Bureau was made up of Major Crimes and in 2013 received 1055 new cases the most they had ever received on record The Sex OffenderPredator Unit (SOPU) worked 735 cases in 2013 the most it had ever received on record The EvidenceForensics Unit processed 632 evidentiary items through the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) laboratory at the MCSO with a turnaround time of 2 days as compared to FDLEs average of 96 days Efficiencies were created by having a DNA laboratory at the MCSO Also 22226 pieces of evidence were received in 2013 and at the end of the year 75042 pieces of evidence were stored at the MCSO The Drug Unit worked 828 cases in 2013 despite having the same number of agents as in 2011 and 2012 except during those years 307 and 251 new cases were assigned
Page 50 addressed staff resource needs on Major Crimes scenes Page 51 addressed staff resource needs for the Unified Drug Enforcement Strike Team (UDEST)
Page 420 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
Bureaus 1) Community Policing which was the patrol operations 2) Corrections which ran the jail 3) Special Investigations which was the major crimes division and sex crimes 4) Support Services 5) Professional Compliance 6) Administrative Services and 7) Emergency Management
Pages 4 and 5 addressed the Bureau of Community Policing which was responsible for responding to all calls for service in Marion County MCSO was divided into 12 Districts of service that operated out of 10 different District Offices and was a decentralized approach to crime fighting by having Deputies out in the districts There were also 11 Divisions andor specialty units within the Patrol Bureau
The pie charts on page 6 addressed the allocation of personnel shift that had occurred from 2007 to 2014 It was noted that an additional 12 was currently devoted to Deputies supervisory ranks were reduced by about 5 which equated to about 32 Supervisors that were no longer with the Sheriffs Office as was there in 2007 Since Sheriff Blair assumed office in January of 2013 24 supervisory positions were eliminated in that time A significant reduction was also seen in the support staff of the Sheriffs Office Bureau Chief Jerald stated MCSO was doing more with less
Pages 7 and 8 addressed the Community Policing - Divisions which included 2 new units created by Sheriff Blair with the idea of targeting street crime and bringing criminals with arrest warrants who were evading apprehension to justice 1) Tactical Investigations Unit and 2) Fugitive Apprehension Unit The Tactical Investigations Unit was a 5 man unit that made 365 arrests in 2013 resulting in 536 felony charges The Fugitive Apprehension Unit was also a 5 man unit When Sheriff Blair took over the office there were 5805 active arrest warrants in Marion County and by the end of 2013 that number was down to 4663 which did not include warrants that were processed in 2013
Other divisions within the Community Policing Bureau included the K9 Unit Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team Underwater Recovery Team Aviation Unit Crisis Negotiation Team Mobile Field Force Bomb Squad Motorcycle Traffic Drug Interdiction Unit and Juvenile Division
Page 9 addressed the Community Policing - Citizen Focus Group that was empanelled a couple of years ago by the Sheriffs Office to see what citizens wanted from law enforcement The top 5 priorities were 1) response time 2) visibility 3) professional service 4) problem solvers and 5) communication
Page 10 addressed populationservice demand trends which included an additional 65000 more residents today than in 2000 Bureau Chief Jerald understood the County Administrator to say yesterday that another 50000 was expected over the next 10 years The MCSO received 147296 calls in 2000 and last year 309027 calls for service were received The unincorporated population from 2000 increased by about 32 while the volume of calls for service increased by 110
The MCSO had the same number of boots on the ground today (defined by Sergeants and below) today as 10 years ago in 20032004 however the calls for service were 80 higher today than in 2003 This created a strain on the agency to meet the increase in demands for law enforcement services
Page 11 addressed the impact of failure to maintain level of Deputy Sheriffs to meet increased population demand for law enforcement services which increased the response time for a deputy respond to a call for service It also increased the danger to the public and caused a risk to deputies who were less likely to have backup
Pqge 12 addressed the current community policing statistics - supply The
Page 416 Book T
May 72014
MCSO had 190 deputies with a rank of Sergeant or below which were referred to as boots on the ground It was noted that 32 of those positions had been lost since 2007 and had not been replaced If no deputies were added in this years budget there would be 13 fewer deputies next year than 1 0 years prior to that in fiscal year (FY) 2004shy2005
Page 13 referenced a quote by former Sheriff Ed Dean in a letter to the Board dated May 272011
Page 14 noted that since former Sheriff Dean wrote that letter the MCSO budget had been reduced by approximately $45 million which was in addition to the $17 million in medical and health insurance portion that was picked up along with all other Constitutional Officers last year but was real dollars that could not be used to support law enforcement functions It was noted that 57 patrol vehicles broke down while in service during the last 6 months of 2013
The graph on page 15 showed 189 boots on the ground in FY 20032004 and in FY 1213 there were a total of 191 If no new deputies were added next year the department would have 15 less deputies than in FY 20042005 The red line showed where MCSO would be had it kept up with population growth
Page 16 addressed the measure of proper deputy staffing which was commonly measured per deputy by 1000 residences This method was pioneered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) years ago and was currently used by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) as a common indicator of staffing strength
Page 17 addressed Marion County Deputy strength which was currently 094 deputies per 1000 residents while the State average was 16 Comparable counties also averaged at 16 deputies per 1000 residents Counties with similar populations (200000 to 400000 residents) averaged 144 deputies per 1000 residents Continued failure to add new deputies in combination with expected population growth would result in Marion County ranking 65th out of 67 counties in deputy strength within 10 years Marion County was currently ranked 58 out of 67
The spreadsheet on page 18 provided information regarding MCSO versus (vs) comparable counties which were chosen based on geographic location and socioeconomic factors (similar median incomes located within the region or a combination of the two) When averaged the number of deputies per 1000 residents was 16 who patrolled 1084 which was about 600 miles less than MCSO with approximately $15000000 more in funding The average funding per citizen averaged $41373 while MCSO funding was $24866 per citizen which was the lowest of all comparable counties
Bureau Chief Jerald advised that they looked at counties with over 1400 square miles (not included on the spreadsheet) and averaged 20 deputies per 1000 residents He stated more deputies were needed to patrol a larger land mass in order to achieve decent response times to meet citizen needs
The bar chart on page 19 showed the number of deputies per 1000 residents in terms of comparable counties
The graph on page 20 showed the deputy strength as to what had occurred over the last several years in Marion County In 20072008 there were 102 deputies per 1000 residents and today that figure was down to 094 which would continue to decrease if no deputies were added and in 5 years it would be down to 085 deputies
Page 21 addressed response times which was the number one priority for citizens based on the focus group results Priority 1 calls were calls for service for
Book T Page 417
May 72014
someone being battered (for example) which was at the top of the list and the closest available deputy responded Priority 2 through 4 were lower priority calls but were included when referring to ALL priority calls however Priority 1 calls were separated out since those were the most emergent situations to track response times In 2013 all priorities averaged about 1537 (15 minutes and 37 seconds) for a deputy to respond which exceeded the state and national averages by 35 Priority 1 calls were even more troubling as they averaged 11 35 in 2013 while the standard was 6 minutes Increasing the number of deputies available to respond to calls for services had a direct and immediate impact on response times
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 2 tables (charts) in the Marion County Sheriffs Office Five-Year Strategic Plan document on pages 36 and 37 in regard to decreasing response times in terms of adding deputy sheriffs The top table showed the number of deputiesdeputy strength estimated population impact on deputies per 1000 citizens and the estimated response time range The table at the bottom of page 36 and top of page 37 was somewhat different He commented on visibility with the focus group noting visibility in law enforcement was measured by the number of deputies per square mile Marion County had 015 deputies per square mile which was below all comparable counties but was another measure of visibility There were two different ways to basically look at the same thing how many deputies did it take and what could you realistically expect for that to have an impact on response time What kind of return on investment (RIO) would be realized
The bar chart on page 22 referred to calls worked outside assigned district due to lack of deputy presence
The bar chart on page 23 addressed priority 1 average response times in 2013 compared to comparable counties with a target of 6 minutes which showed Marion County was almost doubling that goal
The bar chart on page 24 provided the monthly average of response times for all Priority 1 calls from November 2012 through October 2013
Pages 25 and 26 showed staff resources by incident type for various calls in regard to routine traffic stops security checks burglary and robbery
Page 27 addressed a real-life example which took 37 minutes for a deputy to respond to a Priority 1 call Page 28 was reserved to play an audio of the 911 call received in regard to the real-life example on page 27 (Ed Note Page 29 follows page 31 in this document as referenced below)
Chairman Zalak questioned where the incident occurred and who was in command Bureau Chief Jerald advised that Captain Pogue had the background details on each of the examples which he could forward to each Commissioner after the presentation
Page 30 referred to other real-life examples of response time impact on citizen and officer safety In this example it took 26 minutes for the unit to arrive on scene even though the deputy was running code (lights and siren) More troubling was the fact that FireEmergency Medical Services (EMS) was on scene within 5 minutes of dispatch and were staged on-scene which was in accordance to protocol until law enforcement arrived to clear the scene FireEMS had to wait 18 minutes outside the residence before rendering aid to the victim Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the background on this incident would also be provided to each Commissioner
Page 31 referred to a real-life example that occurred where a deputy had to respond from a neighboring zone Upon arrival the deputy was met by an armed man
Page 418 Book T
May 72014
after commands to drop the weapon the man opened fire and struck the deputys watch The deputy retreated and had to wait 10 minutes for backup to arrive on a shots fired call
Page 29 addressed the deputy staffing needs which included different staffing scenarios based on different benchmarks To get back to the level of service that existed in 2007 (prior to the onset of the recession) would require 50 deputies to provide 102 deputies per 1000 residents To reach the state average would require 171 new deputies The MCSO had always prided itself on doing more with less in terms of having lower than average deputy strength as did the County MCSO did not need to have 106 deputies per 1000 residents however they did need to be higher than 094 The economic modeling at the end would show this could be accomplished with minimal impact on the millage rates over the next 5 years
Page 32 referred to capital needs for vehicles and equipment 194 out of 268 MCSO in-service patrol vehicles (73) had more than 103000 miles which was the industry standard for patrol vehicle replacement Using the Countys scorecard to replace its vehicles 73 of MCSO patrol vehicles also scored out for immediate replacement or within the next 12 months MCSO had no replacement mobile data terminals (MDTs) which deputies used in their vehicles Should an MDT break there was no replacement and there was no capital in the Sheriffs budget Bullet proof vests were required to be replaced every 5 years Grant monies had dried up for funding vest and resulted in the need for $80000 this year with a like amount due each successive year to replace those vests
The bar chart on page 33 showed replacement vehicles In comparison County vehicles scored at 18 for vehicles needing to be replaced which would fit into what one would expect on a 5 year replacement plan however MCSO needed to replace 73 of its vehicles
Pages 34 through 47 covered the Bureau of Corrections Page 35 referenced the Marion County Jail (MCJ) which was accredited through the Florida Corrections Association Commission (FCAC) and American Corrections Association (ACA) which was an incredibly prestigious accreditation as only 135 county jails in this country that received that accreditation out of more than 3200 The inmate capacity was a little over 1900 at MCJ and 256 in the Juvenile Detention Center
The pie charts on page 36 showed the allocation shift that had occurred from 20072008 to 20132014 in the jail which resulted in 8 less Supervisors today although the number of officers was basically the same and 31 fewer support staff Some of the support staff was eliminated to try to keep the Corrections Officers (COs) since they were needed to man the pods Also some of the top heaviness was reduced that previously existed
Page 37 referred to pod structuring and required staffing The people in blue (page 38) represented COs and the people in green represented Corrections Assistants (CAs) Alpha Pod (A-Pod) had an inmate count of 118 and a bunking overflow (number of inmates sleeping on daybeds) of 20 Bureau Chief Jerald noted that a little over 350 inmates were currently sleeping on daybeds at the jail due to overcrowding and not being able to open another Pod Bravo Pod (B-Pod) was currently closed
Page 39 showed the assigned staff per shift the inmate count and bunking overtlow of Charlie Pod (C-Pod) and Delta Pod (D-Pod) was currently closed
Page 40 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
Book T Page 419
May 72014
for Echo Pod (E-Pod) and Foxtrot Pod (F-Pod) Page 41 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for Golf Pod (G-Pod) and Hotel Pod (H-Pod) Page 42 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking over1low
for the Medical Pod and Medical InfirmaryHousing Page 43 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for the Medical Clinic which fluctuated on a daily basis and Booking (temporary inmate housing)
Page 44 showed the assigned staff per shift for Inmate Visitation and Juvenile Detention
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 5-Year Plan document noting the second tab provided the background information for the 2 studies that were performed using the Department of Justice and the Florida Sheriffs Association criteria Both studies showed that the MCSO was 60 COs short in the jail to properly staff Pods That overflow was currently being addressed by asking those deputies who were CO certified to serve shifts in the jail on their days off due to manpower shortage
Page 45 addressed overcrowding The MCJ currently had 362 inmates over capacity for existing open pods Two Pods were currently closed but could not be opened due to lack of staffing
Page 46 addressed other functions that the MCJ oversaw or investigations that took place in the jail Food services averaged around $050 per meal in 2013 which was the lowest for county jails of this size in the State of Florida by comparison the Department of Corrections (DOC) averaged $154 per tray Other functions also included Facility Services Inmate Services Juvenile Detention Classifications Warrants Mental Health Court Transportation Civil and Bailiffs
Page 47 addressed the inmate work farm which allowed inmates an opportunity to do something outside the jail walls as well as yielding significant food savings The food yield savings in 2013 was $105943953 and it cost $820233 to run the work farm resulting in a savings of $23921653 Increased efficiencies in running the farm in 2013 resulted in enhanced savings by $16278163 over 2012 The work farm was also the site of the work in lieu of arrest (WILA) program which was a state recognized model for alternative sentencing
Pages 48 through 52 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations The photograph on page 48 occurred in 2013 and showed the largest K2 bust in the history of Marion County that was accomplished by the Drug Unit
Page 49 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations Functions This Bureau was made up of Major Crimes and in 2013 received 1055 new cases the most they had ever received on record The Sex OffenderPredator Unit (SOPU) worked 735 cases in 2013 the most it had ever received on record The EvidenceForensics Unit processed 632 evidentiary items through the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) laboratory at the MCSO with a turnaround time of 2 days as compared to FDLEs average of 96 days Efficiencies were created by having a DNA laboratory at the MCSO Also 22226 pieces of evidence were received in 2013 and at the end of the year 75042 pieces of evidence were stored at the MCSO The Drug Unit worked 828 cases in 2013 despite having the same number of agents as in 2011 and 2012 except during those years 307 and 251 new cases were assigned
Page 50 addressed staff resource needs on Major Crimes scenes Page 51 addressed staff resource needs for the Unified Drug Enforcement Strike Team (UDEST)
Page 420 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
MCSO had 190 deputies with a rank of Sergeant or below which were referred to as boots on the ground It was noted that 32 of those positions had been lost since 2007 and had not been replaced If no deputies were added in this years budget there would be 13 fewer deputies next year than 1 0 years prior to that in fiscal year (FY) 2004shy2005
Page 13 referenced a quote by former Sheriff Ed Dean in a letter to the Board dated May 272011
Page 14 noted that since former Sheriff Dean wrote that letter the MCSO budget had been reduced by approximately $45 million which was in addition to the $17 million in medical and health insurance portion that was picked up along with all other Constitutional Officers last year but was real dollars that could not be used to support law enforcement functions It was noted that 57 patrol vehicles broke down while in service during the last 6 months of 2013
The graph on page 15 showed 189 boots on the ground in FY 20032004 and in FY 1213 there were a total of 191 If no new deputies were added next year the department would have 15 less deputies than in FY 20042005 The red line showed where MCSO would be had it kept up with population growth
Page 16 addressed the measure of proper deputy staffing which was commonly measured per deputy by 1000 residences This method was pioneered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) years ago and was currently used by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) as a common indicator of staffing strength
Page 17 addressed Marion County Deputy strength which was currently 094 deputies per 1000 residents while the State average was 16 Comparable counties also averaged at 16 deputies per 1000 residents Counties with similar populations (200000 to 400000 residents) averaged 144 deputies per 1000 residents Continued failure to add new deputies in combination with expected population growth would result in Marion County ranking 65th out of 67 counties in deputy strength within 10 years Marion County was currently ranked 58 out of 67
The spreadsheet on page 18 provided information regarding MCSO versus (vs) comparable counties which were chosen based on geographic location and socioeconomic factors (similar median incomes located within the region or a combination of the two) When averaged the number of deputies per 1000 residents was 16 who patrolled 1084 which was about 600 miles less than MCSO with approximately $15000000 more in funding The average funding per citizen averaged $41373 while MCSO funding was $24866 per citizen which was the lowest of all comparable counties
Bureau Chief Jerald advised that they looked at counties with over 1400 square miles (not included on the spreadsheet) and averaged 20 deputies per 1000 residents He stated more deputies were needed to patrol a larger land mass in order to achieve decent response times to meet citizen needs
The bar chart on page 19 showed the number of deputies per 1000 residents in terms of comparable counties
The graph on page 20 showed the deputy strength as to what had occurred over the last several years in Marion County In 20072008 there were 102 deputies per 1000 residents and today that figure was down to 094 which would continue to decrease if no deputies were added and in 5 years it would be down to 085 deputies
Page 21 addressed response times which was the number one priority for citizens based on the focus group results Priority 1 calls were calls for service for
Book T Page 417
May 72014
someone being battered (for example) which was at the top of the list and the closest available deputy responded Priority 2 through 4 were lower priority calls but were included when referring to ALL priority calls however Priority 1 calls were separated out since those were the most emergent situations to track response times In 2013 all priorities averaged about 1537 (15 minutes and 37 seconds) for a deputy to respond which exceeded the state and national averages by 35 Priority 1 calls were even more troubling as they averaged 11 35 in 2013 while the standard was 6 minutes Increasing the number of deputies available to respond to calls for services had a direct and immediate impact on response times
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 2 tables (charts) in the Marion County Sheriffs Office Five-Year Strategic Plan document on pages 36 and 37 in regard to decreasing response times in terms of adding deputy sheriffs The top table showed the number of deputiesdeputy strength estimated population impact on deputies per 1000 citizens and the estimated response time range The table at the bottom of page 36 and top of page 37 was somewhat different He commented on visibility with the focus group noting visibility in law enforcement was measured by the number of deputies per square mile Marion County had 015 deputies per square mile which was below all comparable counties but was another measure of visibility There were two different ways to basically look at the same thing how many deputies did it take and what could you realistically expect for that to have an impact on response time What kind of return on investment (RIO) would be realized
The bar chart on page 22 referred to calls worked outside assigned district due to lack of deputy presence
The bar chart on page 23 addressed priority 1 average response times in 2013 compared to comparable counties with a target of 6 minutes which showed Marion County was almost doubling that goal
The bar chart on page 24 provided the monthly average of response times for all Priority 1 calls from November 2012 through October 2013
Pages 25 and 26 showed staff resources by incident type for various calls in regard to routine traffic stops security checks burglary and robbery
Page 27 addressed a real-life example which took 37 minutes for a deputy to respond to a Priority 1 call Page 28 was reserved to play an audio of the 911 call received in regard to the real-life example on page 27 (Ed Note Page 29 follows page 31 in this document as referenced below)
Chairman Zalak questioned where the incident occurred and who was in command Bureau Chief Jerald advised that Captain Pogue had the background details on each of the examples which he could forward to each Commissioner after the presentation
Page 30 referred to other real-life examples of response time impact on citizen and officer safety In this example it took 26 minutes for the unit to arrive on scene even though the deputy was running code (lights and siren) More troubling was the fact that FireEmergency Medical Services (EMS) was on scene within 5 minutes of dispatch and were staged on-scene which was in accordance to protocol until law enforcement arrived to clear the scene FireEMS had to wait 18 minutes outside the residence before rendering aid to the victim Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the background on this incident would also be provided to each Commissioner
Page 31 referred to a real-life example that occurred where a deputy had to respond from a neighboring zone Upon arrival the deputy was met by an armed man
Page 418 Book T
May 72014
after commands to drop the weapon the man opened fire and struck the deputys watch The deputy retreated and had to wait 10 minutes for backup to arrive on a shots fired call
Page 29 addressed the deputy staffing needs which included different staffing scenarios based on different benchmarks To get back to the level of service that existed in 2007 (prior to the onset of the recession) would require 50 deputies to provide 102 deputies per 1000 residents To reach the state average would require 171 new deputies The MCSO had always prided itself on doing more with less in terms of having lower than average deputy strength as did the County MCSO did not need to have 106 deputies per 1000 residents however they did need to be higher than 094 The economic modeling at the end would show this could be accomplished with minimal impact on the millage rates over the next 5 years
Page 32 referred to capital needs for vehicles and equipment 194 out of 268 MCSO in-service patrol vehicles (73) had more than 103000 miles which was the industry standard for patrol vehicle replacement Using the Countys scorecard to replace its vehicles 73 of MCSO patrol vehicles also scored out for immediate replacement or within the next 12 months MCSO had no replacement mobile data terminals (MDTs) which deputies used in their vehicles Should an MDT break there was no replacement and there was no capital in the Sheriffs budget Bullet proof vests were required to be replaced every 5 years Grant monies had dried up for funding vest and resulted in the need for $80000 this year with a like amount due each successive year to replace those vests
The bar chart on page 33 showed replacement vehicles In comparison County vehicles scored at 18 for vehicles needing to be replaced which would fit into what one would expect on a 5 year replacement plan however MCSO needed to replace 73 of its vehicles
Pages 34 through 47 covered the Bureau of Corrections Page 35 referenced the Marion County Jail (MCJ) which was accredited through the Florida Corrections Association Commission (FCAC) and American Corrections Association (ACA) which was an incredibly prestigious accreditation as only 135 county jails in this country that received that accreditation out of more than 3200 The inmate capacity was a little over 1900 at MCJ and 256 in the Juvenile Detention Center
The pie charts on page 36 showed the allocation shift that had occurred from 20072008 to 20132014 in the jail which resulted in 8 less Supervisors today although the number of officers was basically the same and 31 fewer support staff Some of the support staff was eliminated to try to keep the Corrections Officers (COs) since they were needed to man the pods Also some of the top heaviness was reduced that previously existed
Page 37 referred to pod structuring and required staffing The people in blue (page 38) represented COs and the people in green represented Corrections Assistants (CAs) Alpha Pod (A-Pod) had an inmate count of 118 and a bunking overflow (number of inmates sleeping on daybeds) of 20 Bureau Chief Jerald noted that a little over 350 inmates were currently sleeping on daybeds at the jail due to overcrowding and not being able to open another Pod Bravo Pod (B-Pod) was currently closed
Page 39 showed the assigned staff per shift the inmate count and bunking overtlow of Charlie Pod (C-Pod) and Delta Pod (D-Pod) was currently closed
Page 40 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
Book T Page 419
May 72014
for Echo Pod (E-Pod) and Foxtrot Pod (F-Pod) Page 41 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for Golf Pod (G-Pod) and Hotel Pod (H-Pod) Page 42 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking over1low
for the Medical Pod and Medical InfirmaryHousing Page 43 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for the Medical Clinic which fluctuated on a daily basis and Booking (temporary inmate housing)
Page 44 showed the assigned staff per shift for Inmate Visitation and Juvenile Detention
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 5-Year Plan document noting the second tab provided the background information for the 2 studies that were performed using the Department of Justice and the Florida Sheriffs Association criteria Both studies showed that the MCSO was 60 COs short in the jail to properly staff Pods That overflow was currently being addressed by asking those deputies who were CO certified to serve shifts in the jail on their days off due to manpower shortage
Page 45 addressed overcrowding The MCJ currently had 362 inmates over capacity for existing open pods Two Pods were currently closed but could not be opened due to lack of staffing
Page 46 addressed other functions that the MCJ oversaw or investigations that took place in the jail Food services averaged around $050 per meal in 2013 which was the lowest for county jails of this size in the State of Florida by comparison the Department of Corrections (DOC) averaged $154 per tray Other functions also included Facility Services Inmate Services Juvenile Detention Classifications Warrants Mental Health Court Transportation Civil and Bailiffs
Page 47 addressed the inmate work farm which allowed inmates an opportunity to do something outside the jail walls as well as yielding significant food savings The food yield savings in 2013 was $105943953 and it cost $820233 to run the work farm resulting in a savings of $23921653 Increased efficiencies in running the farm in 2013 resulted in enhanced savings by $16278163 over 2012 The work farm was also the site of the work in lieu of arrest (WILA) program which was a state recognized model for alternative sentencing
Pages 48 through 52 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations The photograph on page 48 occurred in 2013 and showed the largest K2 bust in the history of Marion County that was accomplished by the Drug Unit
Page 49 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations Functions This Bureau was made up of Major Crimes and in 2013 received 1055 new cases the most they had ever received on record The Sex OffenderPredator Unit (SOPU) worked 735 cases in 2013 the most it had ever received on record The EvidenceForensics Unit processed 632 evidentiary items through the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) laboratory at the MCSO with a turnaround time of 2 days as compared to FDLEs average of 96 days Efficiencies were created by having a DNA laboratory at the MCSO Also 22226 pieces of evidence were received in 2013 and at the end of the year 75042 pieces of evidence were stored at the MCSO The Drug Unit worked 828 cases in 2013 despite having the same number of agents as in 2011 and 2012 except during those years 307 and 251 new cases were assigned
Page 50 addressed staff resource needs on Major Crimes scenes Page 51 addressed staff resource needs for the Unified Drug Enforcement Strike Team (UDEST)
Page 420 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
someone being battered (for example) which was at the top of the list and the closest available deputy responded Priority 2 through 4 were lower priority calls but were included when referring to ALL priority calls however Priority 1 calls were separated out since those were the most emergent situations to track response times In 2013 all priorities averaged about 1537 (15 minutes and 37 seconds) for a deputy to respond which exceeded the state and national averages by 35 Priority 1 calls were even more troubling as they averaged 11 35 in 2013 while the standard was 6 minutes Increasing the number of deputies available to respond to calls for services had a direct and immediate impact on response times
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 2 tables (charts) in the Marion County Sheriffs Office Five-Year Strategic Plan document on pages 36 and 37 in regard to decreasing response times in terms of adding deputy sheriffs The top table showed the number of deputiesdeputy strength estimated population impact on deputies per 1000 citizens and the estimated response time range The table at the bottom of page 36 and top of page 37 was somewhat different He commented on visibility with the focus group noting visibility in law enforcement was measured by the number of deputies per square mile Marion County had 015 deputies per square mile which was below all comparable counties but was another measure of visibility There were two different ways to basically look at the same thing how many deputies did it take and what could you realistically expect for that to have an impact on response time What kind of return on investment (RIO) would be realized
The bar chart on page 22 referred to calls worked outside assigned district due to lack of deputy presence
The bar chart on page 23 addressed priority 1 average response times in 2013 compared to comparable counties with a target of 6 minutes which showed Marion County was almost doubling that goal
The bar chart on page 24 provided the monthly average of response times for all Priority 1 calls from November 2012 through October 2013
Pages 25 and 26 showed staff resources by incident type for various calls in regard to routine traffic stops security checks burglary and robbery
Page 27 addressed a real-life example which took 37 minutes for a deputy to respond to a Priority 1 call Page 28 was reserved to play an audio of the 911 call received in regard to the real-life example on page 27 (Ed Note Page 29 follows page 31 in this document as referenced below)
Chairman Zalak questioned where the incident occurred and who was in command Bureau Chief Jerald advised that Captain Pogue had the background details on each of the examples which he could forward to each Commissioner after the presentation
Page 30 referred to other real-life examples of response time impact on citizen and officer safety In this example it took 26 minutes for the unit to arrive on scene even though the deputy was running code (lights and siren) More troubling was the fact that FireEmergency Medical Services (EMS) was on scene within 5 minutes of dispatch and were staged on-scene which was in accordance to protocol until law enforcement arrived to clear the scene FireEMS had to wait 18 minutes outside the residence before rendering aid to the victim Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the background on this incident would also be provided to each Commissioner
Page 31 referred to a real-life example that occurred where a deputy had to respond from a neighboring zone Upon arrival the deputy was met by an armed man
Page 418 Book T
May 72014
after commands to drop the weapon the man opened fire and struck the deputys watch The deputy retreated and had to wait 10 minutes for backup to arrive on a shots fired call
Page 29 addressed the deputy staffing needs which included different staffing scenarios based on different benchmarks To get back to the level of service that existed in 2007 (prior to the onset of the recession) would require 50 deputies to provide 102 deputies per 1000 residents To reach the state average would require 171 new deputies The MCSO had always prided itself on doing more with less in terms of having lower than average deputy strength as did the County MCSO did not need to have 106 deputies per 1000 residents however they did need to be higher than 094 The economic modeling at the end would show this could be accomplished with minimal impact on the millage rates over the next 5 years
Page 32 referred to capital needs for vehicles and equipment 194 out of 268 MCSO in-service patrol vehicles (73) had more than 103000 miles which was the industry standard for patrol vehicle replacement Using the Countys scorecard to replace its vehicles 73 of MCSO patrol vehicles also scored out for immediate replacement or within the next 12 months MCSO had no replacement mobile data terminals (MDTs) which deputies used in their vehicles Should an MDT break there was no replacement and there was no capital in the Sheriffs budget Bullet proof vests were required to be replaced every 5 years Grant monies had dried up for funding vest and resulted in the need for $80000 this year with a like amount due each successive year to replace those vests
The bar chart on page 33 showed replacement vehicles In comparison County vehicles scored at 18 for vehicles needing to be replaced which would fit into what one would expect on a 5 year replacement plan however MCSO needed to replace 73 of its vehicles
Pages 34 through 47 covered the Bureau of Corrections Page 35 referenced the Marion County Jail (MCJ) which was accredited through the Florida Corrections Association Commission (FCAC) and American Corrections Association (ACA) which was an incredibly prestigious accreditation as only 135 county jails in this country that received that accreditation out of more than 3200 The inmate capacity was a little over 1900 at MCJ and 256 in the Juvenile Detention Center
The pie charts on page 36 showed the allocation shift that had occurred from 20072008 to 20132014 in the jail which resulted in 8 less Supervisors today although the number of officers was basically the same and 31 fewer support staff Some of the support staff was eliminated to try to keep the Corrections Officers (COs) since they were needed to man the pods Also some of the top heaviness was reduced that previously existed
Page 37 referred to pod structuring and required staffing The people in blue (page 38) represented COs and the people in green represented Corrections Assistants (CAs) Alpha Pod (A-Pod) had an inmate count of 118 and a bunking overflow (number of inmates sleeping on daybeds) of 20 Bureau Chief Jerald noted that a little over 350 inmates were currently sleeping on daybeds at the jail due to overcrowding and not being able to open another Pod Bravo Pod (B-Pod) was currently closed
Page 39 showed the assigned staff per shift the inmate count and bunking overtlow of Charlie Pod (C-Pod) and Delta Pod (D-Pod) was currently closed
Page 40 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
Book T Page 419
May 72014
for Echo Pod (E-Pod) and Foxtrot Pod (F-Pod) Page 41 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for Golf Pod (G-Pod) and Hotel Pod (H-Pod) Page 42 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking over1low
for the Medical Pod and Medical InfirmaryHousing Page 43 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for the Medical Clinic which fluctuated on a daily basis and Booking (temporary inmate housing)
Page 44 showed the assigned staff per shift for Inmate Visitation and Juvenile Detention
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 5-Year Plan document noting the second tab provided the background information for the 2 studies that were performed using the Department of Justice and the Florida Sheriffs Association criteria Both studies showed that the MCSO was 60 COs short in the jail to properly staff Pods That overflow was currently being addressed by asking those deputies who were CO certified to serve shifts in the jail on their days off due to manpower shortage
Page 45 addressed overcrowding The MCJ currently had 362 inmates over capacity for existing open pods Two Pods were currently closed but could not be opened due to lack of staffing
Page 46 addressed other functions that the MCJ oversaw or investigations that took place in the jail Food services averaged around $050 per meal in 2013 which was the lowest for county jails of this size in the State of Florida by comparison the Department of Corrections (DOC) averaged $154 per tray Other functions also included Facility Services Inmate Services Juvenile Detention Classifications Warrants Mental Health Court Transportation Civil and Bailiffs
Page 47 addressed the inmate work farm which allowed inmates an opportunity to do something outside the jail walls as well as yielding significant food savings The food yield savings in 2013 was $105943953 and it cost $820233 to run the work farm resulting in a savings of $23921653 Increased efficiencies in running the farm in 2013 resulted in enhanced savings by $16278163 over 2012 The work farm was also the site of the work in lieu of arrest (WILA) program which was a state recognized model for alternative sentencing
Pages 48 through 52 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations The photograph on page 48 occurred in 2013 and showed the largest K2 bust in the history of Marion County that was accomplished by the Drug Unit
Page 49 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations Functions This Bureau was made up of Major Crimes and in 2013 received 1055 new cases the most they had ever received on record The Sex OffenderPredator Unit (SOPU) worked 735 cases in 2013 the most it had ever received on record The EvidenceForensics Unit processed 632 evidentiary items through the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) laboratory at the MCSO with a turnaround time of 2 days as compared to FDLEs average of 96 days Efficiencies were created by having a DNA laboratory at the MCSO Also 22226 pieces of evidence were received in 2013 and at the end of the year 75042 pieces of evidence were stored at the MCSO The Drug Unit worked 828 cases in 2013 despite having the same number of agents as in 2011 and 2012 except during those years 307 and 251 new cases were assigned
Page 50 addressed staff resource needs on Major Crimes scenes Page 51 addressed staff resource needs for the Unified Drug Enforcement Strike Team (UDEST)
Page 420 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
after commands to drop the weapon the man opened fire and struck the deputys watch The deputy retreated and had to wait 10 minutes for backup to arrive on a shots fired call
Page 29 addressed the deputy staffing needs which included different staffing scenarios based on different benchmarks To get back to the level of service that existed in 2007 (prior to the onset of the recession) would require 50 deputies to provide 102 deputies per 1000 residents To reach the state average would require 171 new deputies The MCSO had always prided itself on doing more with less in terms of having lower than average deputy strength as did the County MCSO did not need to have 106 deputies per 1000 residents however they did need to be higher than 094 The economic modeling at the end would show this could be accomplished with minimal impact on the millage rates over the next 5 years
Page 32 referred to capital needs for vehicles and equipment 194 out of 268 MCSO in-service patrol vehicles (73) had more than 103000 miles which was the industry standard for patrol vehicle replacement Using the Countys scorecard to replace its vehicles 73 of MCSO patrol vehicles also scored out for immediate replacement or within the next 12 months MCSO had no replacement mobile data terminals (MDTs) which deputies used in their vehicles Should an MDT break there was no replacement and there was no capital in the Sheriffs budget Bullet proof vests were required to be replaced every 5 years Grant monies had dried up for funding vest and resulted in the need for $80000 this year with a like amount due each successive year to replace those vests
The bar chart on page 33 showed replacement vehicles In comparison County vehicles scored at 18 for vehicles needing to be replaced which would fit into what one would expect on a 5 year replacement plan however MCSO needed to replace 73 of its vehicles
Pages 34 through 47 covered the Bureau of Corrections Page 35 referenced the Marion County Jail (MCJ) which was accredited through the Florida Corrections Association Commission (FCAC) and American Corrections Association (ACA) which was an incredibly prestigious accreditation as only 135 county jails in this country that received that accreditation out of more than 3200 The inmate capacity was a little over 1900 at MCJ and 256 in the Juvenile Detention Center
The pie charts on page 36 showed the allocation shift that had occurred from 20072008 to 20132014 in the jail which resulted in 8 less Supervisors today although the number of officers was basically the same and 31 fewer support staff Some of the support staff was eliminated to try to keep the Corrections Officers (COs) since they were needed to man the pods Also some of the top heaviness was reduced that previously existed
Page 37 referred to pod structuring and required staffing The people in blue (page 38) represented COs and the people in green represented Corrections Assistants (CAs) Alpha Pod (A-Pod) had an inmate count of 118 and a bunking overflow (number of inmates sleeping on daybeds) of 20 Bureau Chief Jerald noted that a little over 350 inmates were currently sleeping on daybeds at the jail due to overcrowding and not being able to open another Pod Bravo Pod (B-Pod) was currently closed
Page 39 showed the assigned staff per shift the inmate count and bunking overtlow of Charlie Pod (C-Pod) and Delta Pod (D-Pod) was currently closed
Page 40 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
Book T Page 419
May 72014
for Echo Pod (E-Pod) and Foxtrot Pod (F-Pod) Page 41 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for Golf Pod (G-Pod) and Hotel Pod (H-Pod) Page 42 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking over1low
for the Medical Pod and Medical InfirmaryHousing Page 43 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for the Medical Clinic which fluctuated on a daily basis and Booking (temporary inmate housing)
Page 44 showed the assigned staff per shift for Inmate Visitation and Juvenile Detention
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 5-Year Plan document noting the second tab provided the background information for the 2 studies that were performed using the Department of Justice and the Florida Sheriffs Association criteria Both studies showed that the MCSO was 60 COs short in the jail to properly staff Pods That overflow was currently being addressed by asking those deputies who were CO certified to serve shifts in the jail on their days off due to manpower shortage
Page 45 addressed overcrowding The MCJ currently had 362 inmates over capacity for existing open pods Two Pods were currently closed but could not be opened due to lack of staffing
Page 46 addressed other functions that the MCJ oversaw or investigations that took place in the jail Food services averaged around $050 per meal in 2013 which was the lowest for county jails of this size in the State of Florida by comparison the Department of Corrections (DOC) averaged $154 per tray Other functions also included Facility Services Inmate Services Juvenile Detention Classifications Warrants Mental Health Court Transportation Civil and Bailiffs
Page 47 addressed the inmate work farm which allowed inmates an opportunity to do something outside the jail walls as well as yielding significant food savings The food yield savings in 2013 was $105943953 and it cost $820233 to run the work farm resulting in a savings of $23921653 Increased efficiencies in running the farm in 2013 resulted in enhanced savings by $16278163 over 2012 The work farm was also the site of the work in lieu of arrest (WILA) program which was a state recognized model for alternative sentencing
Pages 48 through 52 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations The photograph on page 48 occurred in 2013 and showed the largest K2 bust in the history of Marion County that was accomplished by the Drug Unit
Page 49 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations Functions This Bureau was made up of Major Crimes and in 2013 received 1055 new cases the most they had ever received on record The Sex OffenderPredator Unit (SOPU) worked 735 cases in 2013 the most it had ever received on record The EvidenceForensics Unit processed 632 evidentiary items through the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) laboratory at the MCSO with a turnaround time of 2 days as compared to FDLEs average of 96 days Efficiencies were created by having a DNA laboratory at the MCSO Also 22226 pieces of evidence were received in 2013 and at the end of the year 75042 pieces of evidence were stored at the MCSO The Drug Unit worked 828 cases in 2013 despite having the same number of agents as in 2011 and 2012 except during those years 307 and 251 new cases were assigned
Page 50 addressed staff resource needs on Major Crimes scenes Page 51 addressed staff resource needs for the Unified Drug Enforcement Strike Team (UDEST)
Page 420 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
for Echo Pod (E-Pod) and Foxtrot Pod (F-Pod) Page 41 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for Golf Pod (G-Pod) and Hotel Pod (H-Pod) Page 42 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking over1low
for the Medical Pod and Medical InfirmaryHousing Page 43 showed the assigned staff per shift inmate count and bunking overflow
for the Medical Clinic which fluctuated on a daily basis and Booking (temporary inmate housing)
Page 44 showed the assigned staff per shift for Inmate Visitation and Juvenile Detention
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the 5-Year Plan document noting the second tab provided the background information for the 2 studies that were performed using the Department of Justice and the Florida Sheriffs Association criteria Both studies showed that the MCSO was 60 COs short in the jail to properly staff Pods That overflow was currently being addressed by asking those deputies who were CO certified to serve shifts in the jail on their days off due to manpower shortage
Page 45 addressed overcrowding The MCJ currently had 362 inmates over capacity for existing open pods Two Pods were currently closed but could not be opened due to lack of staffing
Page 46 addressed other functions that the MCJ oversaw or investigations that took place in the jail Food services averaged around $050 per meal in 2013 which was the lowest for county jails of this size in the State of Florida by comparison the Department of Corrections (DOC) averaged $154 per tray Other functions also included Facility Services Inmate Services Juvenile Detention Classifications Warrants Mental Health Court Transportation Civil and Bailiffs
Page 47 addressed the inmate work farm which allowed inmates an opportunity to do something outside the jail walls as well as yielding significant food savings The food yield savings in 2013 was $105943953 and it cost $820233 to run the work farm resulting in a savings of $23921653 Increased efficiencies in running the farm in 2013 resulted in enhanced savings by $16278163 over 2012 The work farm was also the site of the work in lieu of arrest (WILA) program which was a state recognized model for alternative sentencing
Pages 48 through 52 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations The photograph on page 48 occurred in 2013 and showed the largest K2 bust in the history of Marion County that was accomplished by the Drug Unit
Page 49 addressed the Bureau of Special Investigations Functions This Bureau was made up of Major Crimes and in 2013 received 1055 new cases the most they had ever received on record The Sex OffenderPredator Unit (SOPU) worked 735 cases in 2013 the most it had ever received on record The EvidenceForensics Unit processed 632 evidentiary items through the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) laboratory at the MCSO with a turnaround time of 2 days as compared to FDLEs average of 96 days Efficiencies were created by having a DNA laboratory at the MCSO Also 22226 pieces of evidence were received in 2013 and at the end of the year 75042 pieces of evidence were stored at the MCSO The Drug Unit worked 828 cases in 2013 despite having the same number of agents as in 2011 and 2012 except during those years 307 and 251 new cases were assigned
Page 50 addressed staff resource needs on Major Crimes scenes Page 51 addressed staff resource needs for the Unified Drug Enforcement Strike Team (UDEST)
Page 420 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
operations and minimum staffing The UDEST was a joint effort between the Sheriffs Office and the Ocala Police Department (OPD) that operated out at the airport Some of the resources needed for drug operations were statutorily mandated such as Rachels Law which established the number of people required to be involved for drug buys with a confidential informant
Page 52 addressed the Bureau of Support Services that was overseen by Bureau Chief Holland This Bureau performed MCSOs financial internal audit human resources purchasing and information technology (IT) functions The Bureau consisted of two divisions Budget and Finance Division and Personnel Division The Budget and Finance Division included the Accounting Services Unit Acquisition Services Unit Inventory ControllWarehouse and Accounting Jail CanteenCivil The Personnel Division included the Employee Services Unit (Human Resources) IT Unit and the Fleet Maintenance Unit
Pages 53 through 55 addressed the Bureau of Emergency Management Page 54 addressed Emergency Management which was responsible for training preparation mobilization response and mitigation of all types of disasters including hurricanes tornadoes floods sinkholes bio-terrorism lightning events fires pandemics and mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions
Page 55 continued addressing Emergency Management which managed statutorily mandated special needs registry of individuals needing special assistance in the event of a natural disaster currently more than 1200 Marion County residents were registered Emergency Management also managed CodeRED Rapid Emergency Notification System free of charge to citizens of Marion County Emergency notification advisements were sent out for boil water alerts danger notices missing persons and evacuations
Commissioner Bryant out at 1043 am Pages 56 and 57 addressed the Bureau of Professional Compliance and
performed the following functions Training to include combat readiness defensive tactics firearms and physical agility Internal Affairs Volunteer Services which included 1500 MCSO volunteers (mounted unit reserve deputies internal support homeland security patrol Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funeral escorts etc) and logged over 128000 hours in 2013 patrolling over 500000 miles of county neighborhoods businesses lakes and rivers representing a savings to taxpayers exceeding $3000000 and gang investigations
Page 58 addressed the Bureau of Administrative Services which was comprised of Legal Services Records Division and Planning and Research Division In 2013 the Legal Services Division obtained final judgments for forfeitures of almost $205000 including 11 motor vehicles 1 motorcycle and a Triple Crown Trailer all of which were used to facilitate criminal (felony) activity The division also closed 32 lawsuits against the MCSO last year with the oldest case dating back to 2006 The Records Division includes the Sheriffs Office automated telephone system where deputies could call in their reports and the operator took down the information The Planning and Research Division included the Accreditation Unit Grants Unit and the Criminal Research and Analysis Unit
Commissioner Bryant returned at 1045 am Page 59 addressed the Economic Models The assumptions for the economic
models were created by Budget Director Michael Tomich and were the same assumptions that were used by Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) EMS and their 5shy
Book T Page 421
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
Year Plan Each model had an a and b scenario demonstrating the budget impact with a sales tax (scenario b) and without a sales tax (scenario a) In light of Board direction over the last couple of years the MCSO tried to include a model for each fund that kept the millage rate flat This attempt was reflected in Scenario 1 of each fund
Pages 60 through 69 addressed the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Economic Models The spreadsheet on page 61 referred to Scenario 1 Flat Millage Over Five Years (Decreasing Service Level) In year 1 (2014-2015) the ad valorem millage rate increased to 324 which was the result of not adding any deputies cars or capital into the budget It was the function of those COPS deputies that had to be included in the budget or MCSO would lose 10 deputies After year 1 the ad valorem millage rate went back to the 321 rate that it was currently at today The impact on deputy strength was noted at the bottom of the page This Plan would add no new deputies for 5 years and in year 5 (2018-2019) there would be 085 deputies per 1000 residents which would result in even worse response times than today MCSO would be able to purchase its first 5 vehicles in the 3rd year Capital of $100000 was included in year 2 for computer equipment and in year 3 Capital would be included in the ~udget for servers and IT
Page 62 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - NO SALES TAX This model would keep deputy strength where it was today at 094 deputies per 1000 residents This Plan would essentially add 28 deputies over 5 years and required a net 5 increase over the 5 years without a sales tax A net 5 MSTU increase which was 12 next year that decreased every year afterward
Page 63 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level) - WITH SALES TAX This model would maintain deputy strength but added a sales tax which showed a net decrease in the millage rate by year 5 (2018shy2019) that would be 1 lower than today This Plan would have a 6 increase next year (2014-2015) but decreased each successive year and would result in a savings of about 5 or 6 on the impact to the MSTU millage rate over a 5 year period
Page 64 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 2007 Deputy Strength - NO SALES TAX Scenarios 3 4 and 5 were good better and best situations in terms of increasing service levels to the citizens of Marion County Scenario 3(a) increased the level of service by returning the deputy strength over a 5 year period by adding 50 deputies with no sales tax It was estimated that response times would be decreased by 3 minutes with the addition of those 50 deputies and the net millage rate increase over the 5 years would be 10 which would go down in later years
Page 65 referenced Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Return to 207 Deputy Strength - WITH SALES TAX Under this scenario the millage rate would increase 8 in year 1 (2014-2015) 1 in year 2 (2015-2016) and decreased by 4 over the last 3 year The average property owners tax bill would be $871 higher than it was on todays millage rates or $072 per month
Page 66 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - NO SALES TAX This model was a variation of Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth which increased the millage rate in the first year (2014-2015) by 12 that would be maintained and have not raise the millage rate for the last 4 years of this Plan This scenario would have a 12 millage rate increase over the next 5 years which would add 64 deputies (over that 5 year period) and increased the deputy strength above the 2007 figures to 106 deputies per 1000 residents
Page 422 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
Page 67 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Variation of 2(a) - WITH SALES TAX which would cut the millage impact in half The millage rate would increase 6 in year 1 (2014-2015) to 340 mills but remained constant throughout the remaining 4 years This scenario would add 64 deputies and increase the service level which would allow adequate staffing that would be closer to reaching those response time goals
Page 68 referred to Scenario 5(a) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a 21 net millage rate increase over the 5 year period in order to accomplish adding 100 new deputies
Commissioner Moore out at 1051 am MCSO tried to push the deputy hires back under this model in light of economic
conditions by hiring 10 deputies in year 1 (2014-2015) 15 in year 2 20 in year 3 25 in year 4 and 30 in year 5 which would raise the deputy strength up to 118 deputies per 1000 residents in year 5 (2018-2019)
Page 69 referred to Scenario 5(b) Increased Service Level (Best) 100 New Deputies in 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario basically showed an overall impact of 21 Oths of a mill on the millage rate in year 5 (2018-2019) and would require a net increase in the MSTU of 14 over that 5 year period which was 7 less than without the sales tax The deputy strength would be increased to 118 deputies per 1000 residents
Commissioner Moore returned at 1052 am Page 70 addressed the General Fund (MCSO Share) Economic Model Page 71
referenced Scenario 1 Flat Millage (Decreasing Service LevelDecreased Jail Equipment Staffing) This scenario would keep the millage rate at a flat 149 mills throughout the 5 years and would allow 1 CO to be added in 2014-2015 3 COs in 2015-20166 COs in 2016-201710 COs in 2017-2018 and 14 COs in 2018-2019 Page 71 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - NO SALES TAX In this scenario the millage rate was actually lower in year 5 (2018-2019) than it was today The millage rate would decrease by a net 6 over the life of this 5 year plan but would add 34 COs which would keep up with population growth
Page 72 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Population Growth (Maintaining Service Level - WITH SALES TAX Bureau Chief Jerald advised that the sales tax did not have as great an impact on the corrections budget as it did on the MSTU budget as capital expenses were significantly less in the jail in regard to equipment vehicles etc than on the road patrol He noted that not as great an impact would be seen when included in the sales tax model however it still decreased the millage by another 1 over the life of the Plan Under this scenario a net decrease would be realized over the life of the Plan of 7
Page 74 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to fill the 60 position that they were short over the next 5 years which could be accomplished with essentially no net impact over the 5 years on the millage rate The millage rate would increase 5 in 2014-2015 but decreased 5 over the next 4 years
Page 75 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) Fill Needed Corrections Positions over 5 Years - WITH SALES TAX This scenario resulted in a net 1 millage rate decrease in 5 years however the millage rate increased by 4 in 2014-2015 but decreased by 5 over the next 4 years
Book T Page 423
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
Page 76 referred to Scenario 4(a) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - NO SALES TAX This scenario allowed MCSO to add 79 COs and opening of a new Pod to relieve some of the overcrowding Without a sales tax this would require a 9 net millage increase over the 5 years which would be mainly absorbed in the first year with a 7 increase
Page 77 referred to Scenario 4(b) Increased Service Level (Better) Open New Pod to Relieve Overcrowding - WITH SALES TAX The net millage increase with a sales tax would decrease from 9 down to 7 (5 in year 1 1 in years 2 and 3 and then flattens out in years 4 and 5) This scenario would also allow the addition of 79 COs over the 5 year period of time
Pages 78 through 85 addressed the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund Page 79 referred to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund which was the smallest of the MCSO funding sources that had survived through deficit spending for several years including spending $16 million in Reserves during the current budget year This budget funded approximately 130 MCSO positions (90 administrativesupport positions and 40 sworn positions) Due to deficit spending no model could keep the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund millage rate flat that would keep existing personnel even without adding computers bodies etc
Page 80 referred to Scenario 1 (a) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - NO SALES TAX This scenario added no employees for 5 years and no dollars were allocated for capital but the millage rate would still increase by 26 (4 in 2014-2015) and 22 in 2015-2016) Due to the size of the millage rate it would increase the amount of impact to property owners of about $071 per month
Page 81 referred to Scenario 1 (b) No increase in positions during 5 year plan (decreased service level) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the net impact from 26 to 14 and the reason for that was because the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund funded a lot of support functions MCSO was adding capital for computers and some of the equipment that was significantly outdated such as the telephone system This scenario added no positions over the 5 year period of time
Page 82 referred to Scenario 2(a) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels) shyNO SALES TAX This scenario would add 15 employees over 5 years to keep up with increasing population demands The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture over the 5 year period was a net increase of 41
Page 83 referred to Scenario 2(b) Inflation + Growth (Maintain Service Levels)shyWITH SALES TAX This scenario decreased the percentage increase to 29 resulting in a 14 difference between Scenario 2(a) and would allow adding the same number of bodies over the 5 year period of time to keep up with inflation
Page 84 referred to Scenario 3(a) Increased Service Level (Good) - NO SALES TAX This scenario would allow MCSO to add 7 new support positions over and above those accounted for through normal population growth The net impact to the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was 43 over 5 years
Page 85 referred to Scenario 3(b) Increased Service Level (Good) - WITH SALES TAX This scenario would decrease the net millage increase by 10 down to 33 over the 5 years
Bureau Chief Jerald addressed a final slide which was not included in the handout showing some of the preliminary results of a salary study commissioned back in February of 2014 as the results had just started to trickle in on Friday The salary study was compared to one that former Sheriff Dean had conducted in 2006 The salary ranges (minimum middle maximum and averages) were across the board through the
Page 424 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
agency and were not relegated to a Deputy I CO I Majors Captains etc but rather all personnel from top to bottom within the Sheriffs Office in comparison to where they were in 2006 According to the study starting salaries for MCSO today were 202 less than comparable agencies in the region In 2006 under that same comparison MCSO was 753 on the starting end below peers As time went on and wages remained stagnant people were not able to move through their salary grade The disparities were becoming worse when compared to other law enforcement agencies in the region Deputy I starting pay was 28 less than comparable agencies within the region One of the things that was startling from the study was that the disparity became worse when getting to ranked positions (Sergeants Lieutenants Captains and Majors) The reason for that is the step plan which was a 5 year plan but was now a 10 year plan where deputies had some progression and could move up to Corporal however the salaries for ranking individuals was far below their peers in comparable law enforcement agencies This created a provincial argument of how to retain people which had become a problem since MCSO had started experiencing employees with more than 5 years of service leaving the Sheriffs Office in greater percentages than those with less than 5 years of experience
Sheriff Blair stated the models were just primarily of capital needs deputy sheriffs patrol cars but what was not included was a 3 across the Board raise for all employees He noted this was a large plan as it covered five years and requested that the Board review the Plan then provide feedback Sheriff Blair commented on the sales tax which mayor may not go in August He stated he would have to wait and see what would fit to help MCSO keep public safety on behalf of the citizens each and every day
Sheriff Blair noted that over 80 assaults on law enforcement officers occurred last year which was not mentioned He advised that several deputies were assaulted multiple times and he was concerned with their safety noting they did not have the needed backup because of the distance they had to travel Sheriff Blair referred to the FBI numbers noting based on population MCSO deputy strength should be at 25 deputies per 1000 residents but was at 094 He stated they had to start somewhere to increase deputy strength to decrease response times
Commissioner Moore noted the presentation did not include the 3 for raises and asked if that information could be included and provided to each Commissioner Support Services Bureau Chief Jerry Holland advised that the total cost for raises would be about $12 million
Chairman Zalak questioned which model would be used for the Sheriffs budget noting he had to be close to putting that together Sheriff Blair advised that he was waiting to see what happened with the sales tax noting the sales tax would change things He stated the facts were well documented the study was conducted and they had been working on this Plan since October of 2013 Sheriff Blair commented on the need to start moving this county in the right direction When looking at comparable counties around Marion County MCSO fell way behind on deputy strength and salaries He noted they were having issues hiring deputy sheriffs
In response to Commissioner McClain Sheriff Blair advised that no salary increase assumptions were included in any of the scenarios Chairman Zalak noted it was not a very good model
Budget Director Michael Tomich advised that the original model provided to the Sheriffs Office included a 2 inflation adjustment in the out years Commissioner McClain noted there was not a 3 every year but there was a 2 increase each year
Book T Page 425
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
Mr Tomich concurred noting that inflation assumption was for all operating expenditures Sheriff Blair stated it was a recurring expense Mr Tomich stated he would not say that the cars were a recurring expense although the model showed personnel and operating expenditures going with growth and inflation For the capital side it was showing growth and inflation for the current level of capital which was very low since they had not been keeping up The model then allowed them to put in units (number of vehicles etc) which was a manual addition to the model but the prices they were based on were adjusted for inflation There was no automatic growth factor but they were actually choosing the number of vehicles etc in the model which provided the different scenarios
Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the models under the economic variables noting the bottom line was what Mr Tomich was referring to in regard to price level adjustment of2
Commissioner Moore noted that the Property Appraiser advised that property values would increase by about 25 and questioned whether those increased values were included in the models or if home values were flat lined Mr Tomich advised that total taxable values were taken from the State estimates which were 5 year projections that were utilized in the models The State provided estimates on a countywide basis and did not provide specific 5 year projections for the MSTU He noted he provided those estimates proportionate as to what they were today
Chairman Zalak requested Mr Tomich to go through the model as to how it was put together and address some of the factors Mr Tomich advised that the model was basically driven by economic variables the countywide population as derived from the State of Florida Bureau of Economic amp Business Research (BEBR) from the University of Florida (UF) and was the basis for the growth assumptions within the model Countywide taxable property values which came from the Revenue Estimating Conference of the State of Florida were used in the models Those same levels of population growth and taxable value property growth were extrapolated for the MSTU for Law Enforcement in proportion to the amount of population and taxable property value in that tax unit as it was currently and into the future He stated the price level adjustment came from the Department of Labor noting there was only one Federal Agency that would provide that information into the future which would be 2 per year and was utilized in the models The growth and inflation factors were not only utilized on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side with the current operating expenditures Then the model allowed for the addition of deputies full-loaded costs of a deputy were used where MCSO could plug a number into the model that would be shown as a recurring cost into the out years and utilize the inflation factor For the current operating expenditures and personnel expenditures it utilized both growth and inflation into the out years
Mr Tomich stated he did not instantly know if he had personnel costs by inflation only since MCSO could choose the number of additional deputies however the operating costs were growth and inflation
Chairman Zalak commented on the MSTU models under Economic Variables which included MSTU population increase over year MSTU property value increase over year and price level adjustment He noted that in year 5 the property value increase was estimated at 556 Mr Tomich concurred noting those 2 economic variables were from different sources (BEBR and Revenue Estimating Conference) plus other assumptions to come up with those taxable property values He
Page 426 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
noted the sources provided the information on a countywide basis which was the best information he had to deal with He then took the current level of taxable value and population just within the MSTU for Law Enforcement and used the same levels of increase which mayor may not be valid
Mr Tomich referred to an earlier comment on deficit spending within the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund currently which showed why that millage rate increased The models for both the MSTU for Law Enforcement and Fine amp Forfeiture Fund were full-fund models that included every expenditure and revenue in those funds extrapolated out into the future The MSTU of Law Enforcement was purely a Sheriff function but included other costs which all related back to that and appropriately included everything The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund had minimal amounts relative to the Sheriffs expenditures in that fund for the State Attorney and Clerks Office He advised that he was comfortable making the growth and inflation assumptions for those departments without having discussed it with either office as it did not have an overall affect the model By using the whole fund it also included the deficit spending however when it came to the Sheriffs operations in the General Fund a different approach was taken Rather than try to do the entire General Fund for this purpose and then have assumptions for a great deal of County Departments and outside agencies as well as all other things Mr Tomich took the entirety of the General Fund all of the operating departments subtracted all of the direct revenue for those operating departments to come up with what would then be remaining as the general revenue portion That revenue which came into the General Fund that was not specifically attributable to departments (ie property taxes sales tax revenue sharing interest income alcoholic beverage license fees etc) That amount was then taken and based on all the operating expenditures and the proportionate share that were operating expenditures of the Sheriffs Office then took that proportionate share of those other operating revenues and offset that against the Sheriffs expenditures in order to arrive at what portion of the ad valorem revenue would be attributable to the Sheriffs Office What that did not do as it was just an operating revenue against operating expenditure was bringing into the equation the deficit that was currently in the General Fund He noted some reserve amounts had been used to balance the current years budget
Mr Tomich stated long story short the same could be said for the General Fund that was said for the Fine amp Forfeiture Fund in regard to a deficit amount He advised that what he attempted to do was to isolate that portion of other general revenue that would grow over time and all other things being the same if the same proportion of total expenditures remained the same amongst departments in the General Fund large assumption that the amount of growth and inflation that would be available to the Sheriffs Office out of that proportionate share of those other revenues and then show how much the ad valorem rate would increase for whatever assumptions they put into their expenditures
Chairman Zalak referred to page 6 which reported 200 deputies for the 2013shy2014 allocation but when looking at the models under that same year the cumulative number of deputies was ranked at 261 He questioned how that worked Bureau Chief Jerald noted that Deputies was defined at the bottom of the page as including road patrol deputies detectives Kg traffic aviation School Resource Officer (SRO) and Department of Children amp Families (DCF) Monitor When getting into cumulative deputies it included deputies that were dual certified andor cross trained as well as supervisors which were not included in the deputies on page 6 (eg sergeants
Book T Page 427
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
captains lieutenants majors etc) Chairman Zalak questioned how he would know if the deputies added across this
timeline would be cumulative deputies or boots on the ground Sheriff Blair advised that they were boots on the ground Bureau Chief Jerald stated that was what the Sheriff was focused on by reducing the top heaviness by 24 supervisors The focus was to increase the boots on the ground to decrease response times and increase the service level
Chairman Zalak referred to page 9 in regard to the Citizen Focus Group and questioned the methodology behind putting that together and the demographics of that group Bureau Chief Jerald stated he could provide those details via email
Commissioner Bryant questioned what would happen in year 6 when the sales tax sunsets Bureau Chief Holland stated they would have to take into account that they were on a normal replacement schedule at that point and figure out a way to continue Commissioner Bryant inquired as to whether or not there was a plan Sheriff Blair stated it was dependent upon the model selected noting if they were purchasing 50 cars in the prior year then they would continue that in following years Bureau Chief Jerald stated they would plan on purchasing the number of cars needed in year 1 of the sales tax when reaching year 5 those cars would probably be around 100000 miles again at which time they could be replaced in year 5 and start building that back into the budget to avoid having a car problem in year 6
Commissioner McClain advised that it was in the Plan noting 2 scenarios were provided (one with and one without a sales tax) If the scenario with the sales tax was used it would reduce the millage rate increase in the first couple of years and moving forward there were assumptions that property values would increase some which would allow the millage rate to stay flat at that point however there would still be an increase in the overall dollar figure He commended the Sheriffs Office for providing the 5 Year Plan noting this was the model they needed to talk about
Commissioner McClain commented on the scenarios in regard to response times for Priority 1 and all other priority calls noting the number of deputy strength moving forward would help meet those goals of 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls and 11 30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds) for Priority 2 calls Sheriff Blair stated it was based on the size of the County which drove up response times Commissioner McClain questioned if they came to an agreement on a scenario would it help meet those response times Bureau Chief Jerald advised that a direct mathematical formula was well established in law enforcement
Commissioner Bryant noted it would boil down to the question of what level of service the County wanted Sheriff Blair stated that was a good point noting they wanted to show what different models would do as it was about the level of service Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the chart on page 36 of the 5 Year Plan document which estimated the impact of deputy strength in regard to response times
Chairman Zalak referred to page 12 in regard to the $45 million shortfall and questioned how that was calculated Bureau Chief Holland advised that what happened last year was that the millage rate did not support the level of expenditures in the MSTU Fund which was partially due to former Sheriff Dean giving turn-back money every year as it created a deficit more and more each year When the millage rate remained the same by giving back the turn-back money the expenditures were the same and last year they had to increase the millage rate to generate that $45 million to keep the expenditures the same Bureau Chief Jerald stated the real dollar amount actual
Page 428 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
amount in the Sheriffs letter that was submitted with regard to his reasonable and necessary budget was $45 million less in dollar terms than it was on the date of that letter He clarified that former Sheriff Dean submitted a budget request that year and reduced the budget by about $32 or $33 million and reduced it by another $1000000 the following year Bureau Chief Jerald stated those 2 years added up to $45 million
Commissioner Bryant commented on the models noting some showed a negative (decrease in millage) in year 5 She referred to Scenario 3(b) pages 65 which impacted the millage rate and requested a projection 10 year out with a sales tax on that model I
General discussion ensued Mr Tomich stated he understood the feasibility question since they were talking
about a sales tax that generated many millions of dollars and only so much could be offset Sheriff Blair opined that if all public safety (fire municipalities and sheriff) was included noting 7 years was discussed in the Committee He noted some counties had a half-cent sales tax for public safety
Mr Tomich noted what they were confronted with now was a deficit inltquipment replacement where a lot of equipment was needed all at once which was what the sales tax could accomplish He stated what happened then was that they ended up with all new vehicles that would be old in 5 years and the real challenge became how to replace all of the vehicles at the end of the 5 years Mr Tomich opined that they may want to start looking at a scenario where there was enough sales tax monies set aside but not actually extending the levy so that over the next 5 years some of those vehicles could be replaced to smooth back into a transition Bureau Ctlief Holland advised that they tried to spread the vehicle replacements throughout the models so that by year 5 they would be on a normal replacement schedule
General discussion resumed Chairman Zalak asked if the same model could be run with a sales tax and no
millage increase for 5 years Commissioner McClain referred to Scenario 1 (page 61) noting that model did not include a sales tax Mr Tomich advised that the model was built to allow the Sheriffs Office to create different scenarios Chairman Zalak requested models be provided with a sales and flat millage rates for all 3 funds Mr Tomich stated he could work with the Sheriffs Office to create a separate item for 3 (or any percentage they chose) in addition to the price level adjustment Tile formulas in the model could then be adjusted for personal services to be driven off of that to show not only the inflation factor against operating but be specific about how much to adjust salary levels over the years
Chairman Zalak requested information on agency numbers in regard to total employees if they managed the jail if not then minus Corrections Bureau Chief Holland advised that they would work on getting that information Bureau Chief Jerald referred to the spreadsheet on page 18 noting the budgets shown for comparable counties included Corrections budgets Those counties whose Sheriffs Office did not have Corrections then the Corrections line item was taken from the county budget and included it with their sheriffs office
Commissioner McClain noted the assumptions did not reach the 6 minute response time until what point in time Bureau Chief Jerald stated it was a range noting they figured 50 deputies would reduce that response time by 3 minutes from 11 05 currently which would make the response time about 8 minutes
Sheriff Blair advised that should the Board have questions they could reach out
Book T Page 429
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T
May 72014
to him and he would provide an answer He commended Mr Tomich for working with them this year Chairman Zalak agreed noting this was a good model It was the general consensus of the Board to concur
There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon adjourned at 11 35 am
carl~ Attest
Page 430 Book T