IN YOUR CORNER
Representatives of the Martin County Taxpayers Association met with the Sheriff
and his department heads to review the Sheriff's proposed 2003-04 budget.
The Sheriff has requested the Board of Commissioners to approve his
departmental budget of $41,371,505, which is an increase of $3,718,628 or 9.8%
over last year. At first glance, an increase of this magnitude appears
out of line with today's economy, so we were anxious to dig into the
details. The sheriff was very open with his figures and did not duck any
questions explaining everything. We give him and his staff a gold star
for the openness with which he runs his constitutional offices.
By far the largest portion of the Sheriff's budget is spent on personnel.
The department employs 555 people. He is proposing to increase his
department with nine additional people, or about a 1.6% personnel
increase. This is proposed even though they are anticipating increased
spending in overtime. According to figures obtained online from the Florida
State Office of Economic and Demographic Research, Martin County's population
increased in the past year by approximately 1.8%, so the requested increase in
personnel is proportionate. This is especially so considering the
increased responsibilities as a result of the terrorist threats and the
resultant reduced level of support from other federal and state law enforcement
agencies as they redirect their resources to deal with terrorism related
issues.
Another area of concern was the department's proposal on salary
increases. The Sheriff is proposing to give all employees an
across-the-board increase of $75/month, for an average increase of 2.2%.
On top of that, sheriff's employees will receive increases of 2.8% on their
employment anniversary dates, for a total of approx. 5%. Because these
anniversary dates are spread throughout the year, the total budget impact is
closer to 3.6%, very close to the national average of 3.5%.
Approximately forty percent of the budget growth relates to increases in retirement
funding. This is mandated by the State to meet reserves for future
retirement requirements, and the Sheriff has no control over this number.
The remainder of the budget growth relates to increased Workers' Compensation,
Health Insurance, FICA, and Operating Costs that appear to be in line with
national trend of inflation occurring in those areas.
As a demonstration of fiscal responsibility, the Sheriff is decreasing the
department's Capital Expenditures by over $600,000 to help offset the State-mandated
increases in pension spending. Some of the Department personnel have been
operating in temporary, prefabricated office structures that are well beyond
their designed life, and are sorely in need of replacement with a permanent
structure. The Department is going to limp along another year with these
structures, but feels they will need to be replaced soon. The Sheriff
discussed other ways the Department is saving taxpayers' money, one of which is
the substitution of regular cars for non-pursuit use with the new hybrid
versions. They currently have twenty-one hybrids which, among other
things, are advertised to get over twice the gas mileage as previously issued
cars.
All in all, it was the unanimous conclusion of the four MCTA representatives that
the Sheriff is doing a good job, not only in running a first-class law
enforcement department, but also in demonstrating significant fiscal
responsibility in spending our hard-earned dollars.
**
The Martin County Taxpayers has followed a policy of reviewing selective
departments or areas of county government that appear, on the surface, to be
cost excessive. Thus, when we reviewed the terms of the current IAFF
(International Association of Firefighters) contract with Martin County, we
asked to be included in the negotiations that are taking place to create a new,
three-year contract beginning October, 2003, through October, 2006.
In the last contract, compensation was increased 13% per year over a three-year
period, and the work week had been reduced from 54 to 48 hours. A
"Kelly Day" (paid day off) was awarded every seventh shift, and there
were numerous other goodies included which indicated that those who negotiated
for the management, or taxpayers, had a "give them what they want"
attitude.
Current negotiations began with management and the bargaining unit (union)
attempting to adjust certain non-economic aspects of the contract. Later
on, the negotiations reverted to economic issues. Management had wage
surveys from several comparable markets to reinforce their recommended
adjustments which would not only adjust several entry-level wages, but also
allow an across-the-board pay increase of approx. 6%, which was composed of 1%
plus the annual "step" increase of 5%. Although this was a far
cry from the 13%, it was considered adequate to accomplish County objectives;
namely to attract and retain quality employees by offering a compensation
package that leads the average.
Naturally the union wanted more. When one is accustomed to 13%, anything less
is a step backward. Typically, union negotiations stress across-the-board
wage adjustments. They glean the best details from many packages, and
they will negotiate forever, if allowed.
Management, on the other hand, should look at "total packages", set
targets for wages and benefits to be offered, and implement them. In the
final analysis, the union cannot make management do anything they are unwilling
to do.
Thus, when some of us returned from vacation, we were shocked and amazed to
find that management, EMS staff, and the Commissioners had upped the ante to an
across-the-board increase of 8% (5% step plus 3% merit), and there was still no
resolution. This has occurred during a time period when wages nationwide
increased only 3.5% for the past year (per Stuart News editorial 7/30/03).
There is a million-dollar overtime problem in the department that is also
unresolved, and absenteeism is high compared to private industry
standards. The bargaining unit brandishes the threat of attrition if we
don't give them what they want, although currently there is almost none.
Repeatedly providing the IAFF with better wages and benefits than any other
group of workers in county government cannot continue. Further, the
County should adopt a fiscal policy that restrains growth in all employee wages
and benefits to something closer to that experienced by taxpayers, and apply it
evenly to all County employees.