Preparing Budgets and Budget Decisions

A sheriff must submit his proposed budget to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) itemized into six areas of expenditures FSS 30.49(2)(a) 1-6:

1. Salary of the sheriff

2. Salaries of deputies and assistants

3. Expenses, other than salaries

4. Equipment

5. Investigations

6. Reserve for contingencies

These six areas of itemized expenditures must then be divided into three categories FSS 30.49 (2)(b) 1-2 that include:

1. The county jail

2.  Bailiffs and personnel for the courts

3.  Law Enforcement and Civil Process Duties

County Jail

The county jail category usually has a portion of four areas of itemized expenditures assigned to it that were submitted in the sheriff’s proposed budget:

1. Salaries of deputies and assistants (i.e. correctional officers and assistants)

2.  Expenses, other than salaries

3.  Equipment

4.  Reserve for contingencies

Bailiffs and personnel for the courts

The Bailiffs and personnel for the courts category has a portion of three areas of itemized expenditures assigned to it that were submitted in the sheriff’s proposed budget:

1. Salaries of deputies and assistants (i.e. bailiffs and court personnel)

2. Expenses, other than salaries

3. Equipment

Law Enforcement and Civil Process Duties

The Law Enforcement and Civil Process Duties category has a portion of all six itemized expenditures assigned to it that were submitted in the sheriff’s proposed budget:

1. Salary of the sheriff

2. Salaries of deputies and assistants

3. Expenses, other than salaries

4. Equipment

5. Investigations

6. Reserve for contingencies

After the Sheriff prepares his/her budget, it must be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) by June 1st and in some counties, May 1st.  During the summer months the Commission generally holds workshops on the budget. However, it is only at the public hearings held in September (not the workshops) held pursuant to law, that the BCC may take action on the sheriff’s proposed budget.  The action they may take is to approve as submitted, amend, modify, increase, or reduce any or all items of expenditure. FSS 30.49 (4).  However, there are two exceptions found to this rule in specific law.  First is the itemized expenditure of the salary of the sheriff.  That is set by specific law in FSS 145.071.  Thus, the BCC cannot amend, modify, increase, or reduce this particular item of expenditure even though the general law of FSS 30.49 (4) says the BCC may amend, modify, increase, or reduce any or all items of expenditure.  Second is the itemized expenditure listed under the category of the county jail for salaries of deputies and assistants (i.e. correctional officers and assistants).  In short, once the BCC agrees that the sheriff of a county becomes the chief correctional officer, then the BCC is obligated to fund the amount of personnel the sheriff says he needs to run the jail under specific law FSS 951.061 (1). Thus, the BCC cannot amend, modify, increase, or reduce this particular item of expenditure even though the general law of FSS 30.49 (4) says the BCC may amend, modify, increase, or reduce any or all items of expenditure. 

It is an issue of debate as to how the BCC must change the sheriff’s proposed budget.  One argument is the BCC can only change broad items of expenditure, i.e. salaries of deputies and assistants, thus leaving it to the sheriff to decide how to appropriate the monies approved.  Another argument is that the BCC can make specific changes within the items of expenditure, i.e. salaries of deputies and assistants, thus compelling the sheriff to appropriate the monies accordingly.  In the first scenario the BCC could authorize funds for the hiring of additional deputies, but the sheriff would spend the money on salary raises for current personnel.  In the second scenario, the BCC could authorize funds for the hiring of additional deputies and the sheriff would be obligated to hire these additional deputies. 

There are pluses and minuses under each scenario.  In the first scenario the BCC can place all the responsibility of the sheriff budget appropriations on the sheriff.  Thus, if any problem arises during the fiscal year the BCC can pass on the downside to the sheriff.  On the other hand, the BCC loses most of its control in its decision making and over site process to the sheriff’s budget and its lack of accountability to the citizens as the taxing authority.  In the second scenario the BCC would have greater accountability to the citizens as the taxing authority, but take on great responsibility if a problem arose during the fiscal year for which the sheriff lacked adequate funding because the BCC cut such funding for a specific purpose at the budgets public hearings. However, if a problem arose during the fiscal year the law makes a provision for the sheriff to request and the BCC to approve emergency appropriations to the sheriff’s budget in order to overcome such problem. FSS 30.49 (10).

Regardless of the arguments, the Division of Administration, requires both the sheriff and BCC to answer its questions on a sheriff’s budget appeal in the manner of the second scenario.  Thus, history has dictated that the BCC is on stronger footing to at least examine the sheriff’s proposed budget using the second scenario and form its basis for reasoning on the same.  Further, FSS 30.49 (3) allows the BCC to ask specific questions regarding expenditures over previous years and the proposed expenditures, with the exemption of confidential information in the itemized expenditure of investigations.  Thus, the law indicates (along with the Division of Administration) that the BCC go further into the examination of a sheriff’s proposed budget than just the broad itemized expenditures.

Some Florida Sheriffs have argued on the other hand in support of scenario one from FSS 30.53 regarding their independence for purchasing, selection of personnel, the hiring, firing, and setting of salaries of such personnel.  However, there seems to be no conflict with this argument and the second scenario, provided that the sheriff tells the BCC what will be done with the proposed budget expenditures through the independence of the Office and then the sheriff appropriates the approved budget accordingly.  In other words, the BCC can still require specific details and make decisions of expenditure approval based on the information provided by the sheriff, it cannot however, force the sheriff to use a unified county purchasing system, personnel system, or tell the sheriff who to hire or fire and what the sheriff will pay specific individuals.

Regardless of the above arguments, the Sheriff should present and justify the proposed budget in four levels of need.  The Florida Sheriff’s Association suggest these four levels be listed as follows:

First -The amount necessary to maintain the same level of service – This does not mean that the sheriff’s proposed budget automatically begins with the same dollar amount in the current fiscal year’s budget.  Rather, it requires a reexamination each year of the essential services presently being performed first.  Here the BCC could require the sheriff to provide and defend a comprehensive work load analysis of the agency.  The work load analysis tells how much work actually exists within each function, which in turn tells how many personnel are needed.  There are industry standards in the field of criminal justice that tell how much work an individual is expected to be able to perform satisfactorily based on the job assignment.  Once the amount of total work is known through the workload analysis and the amount of work an individual is expected to perform appropriately, the BCC can require the sheriff to reduce the current amount of personnel in the agency, keep the amount the same, or increase the number of personnel.

It is also at this level the proposed budget should include cost of living adjustments for current personnel, any price increases in the costs of operating expenses, and the replacement of capital outlay items.  (The definition of a capital outlay item is any single item costing $1,000 or more and having a life expectancy of one year or more.)

As an example, under cost of living adjustments the BCC has offered the sheriff the same 2 ½% it provides for county employees effective October 1st of each fiscal year.  Cost of living adjustments are based on the rate of inflation and the buying power of the national breadbasket.  Over the past several years the rate of inflation has been less than 2 ½% annually.  Any cost of living adjustment over the rate of inflation is a windfall while any cost of living adjustment below the rate of inflation is a deficit.  Although appropriated yearly, traditionally governments calculate cost of living adjustments on a five to seven-year trend.  Thus, over the last five years cost of living adjustments have totaled 12 ½% while inflation has averaged less than 6% for the same time period.  On the other hand, there have been historical time frames when the cost of living totaled 12 ½% and inflation topped 15%. 

When determining any price increases necessary the BCC and Sheriff must again rely on the current year’s inflationary factor.  For routine items, such as food for inmates, tires for patrol cars, stationary for civil process, etc. this rule holds true. Exceptions to this rule can be substantial increase in automobile insurance, inmate medical expenses, gasoline prices, etc., that rise much quicker than the rate of inflation.  On the other hand, there are goods and services that have actually been reduced in costs due to deflation that should also be reflected in the proposed budget.

Finally, there is the replacement of equipment (capital outlay). Here is where new replacement vehicles, replacement computers, kitchen equipment in the jail, etc. are budgeted.  Here the inflationary factor is not used, only the actual known replacement cost of the particular piece of equipment.

Second - The amount necessary to meet increased workloads - It could be that the workload analysis done to determine the appropriate level of service (above) indicated more personnel are needed.  Prior to this being granted by the BCC a workload allocation a span of control summary is generally requested of the sheriff.  The work load allocation (staffing table) will tell if the sheriff has moved all personnel within the agency to the maximum benefit for the agency before requesting additional personnel, i.e. using all sworn personnel in sworn positions before requesting additional sworn personnel. The span of control tells how many supervisors, managers, directors, and administrators are acting in a supervisory capacity.  This will readily identify if there are the appropriate number of supervisory and management staff in the Office.   Although a sheriff may argue a certain number of various personnel are needed and the BCC another, there are industry standards in the field of criminal justice that tell the appropriate amount to which each can refer. Both the sheriff and BCC are on sound ground when the industry standards are used.

Should it be determined that additional personnel are needed, then the equipping of such personnel for any single item under $1,000 with the life expectancy of a year or more would be added to the operating expense item of expenditure.

The dollar amount needed for equipment for additional personnel, i.e. a new radio and vehicle for an additional patrol deputy, would be placed in the capital outlay itemized expenditure of the proposed budget.

Third - The amount necessary to improve current services - This level of additional services is used for substantive changes to existing services. Examples of this are pay raises, longevity adjustments, using technology to replace a manual system, etc.

Generally, governments adjust pay scales every five years by doing comparative studies of the job market. Thus, by the true definition of pay raise, one would expect every time a new job market comparison is completed and then funded.  On those years, the sheriff’s proposed budget would include salary raises by position classification based on the new study.

Longevity pay is the pay adjustment received upon completion of a full year within a step and grade of the currently approved pay scale. This is generally 2 ½%.  Unlike the cost of living adjustment of 2 ½% given on October 1st of each fiscal year, longevity pay is exactly what it is entitled, pay for longevity – longevity being defined as each full year of service. 

The purpose of technology is to reduce manual labor. In theory, technology replaces labor time, thus making less personnel time (man hours) necessary to do the same work function.  Whenever technological improvements are requested, the corresponding results in manpower, workload, and work allocation must also be prepared for discussion.

 Fourth – The amount necessary to add new services – This level is used when requesting funding for added services, not previously provided, such as a new unit or program.  Examples of this could include K-9 units, white collar crime units, community policy programs, etc. when such are not already being provided by the Office in the current budget.

The entire proposed budget is submitted to the BCC by June 1st of each year.  After June 1st, the sheriff cannot make modifications to the proposed budget.  Prior to that, the proposed budget must be compiled and refined.  Internally, suggestions and requests for future budget approvals must be forwarded to the CFO by March 1st, allowing for 90 days to prepare the proposed budget taking into account of the above required information.  Thus, budget request for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, must have been submitted 7 months earlier.  Any requests submitted after March 1st would not be considered until the following year’s submission.  For example, an individual having a new or additional budget request in August would not be considered until March of the following year.  The reasoning for this is pure statutory.

The BCC takes the following steps in approving the proposed budget:

· First – The law requires the sheriff to submit his proposed budget by June 1st FSS 30.49 (9)

· Second – After June 1st the BCC receives the property appraiser’s certification of taxable property value in the county. FSS 129.03

· Third – The BCC receives and prepares tentative budgets including the sheriff’s proposed budget, on or before July 15th. FSS 129.03 (3)(a)

· Fourth – The BCC must hold a public hearing to adopt the tentative budget, August 29 to September 13th. FSS 200.065 (2)(c)

· Fifth – The BCC must hold a separate public hearing to adopt the final budget, August 30 to September 28. FSS 200.065 (2)(d)

At these public hearings the BCC may take the action indicated earlier on the sheriff’s proposed budget.

After the BCC has finally approved the six items of expenditure of the sheriff’s proposed budget, this becomes the legal document upon which the sheriff must operate for the ensuing fiscal year.  There are certain areas in the sheriff’s discretion and certain areas out of the sheriff’s discretion in the allocation and spending of the budget.  First the cannots.

The sheriff cannot spend monies from one item of expenditure to another (i.e. operating expenses to salaries).  Thus, if the budget has extra monies in the item of operating expenses at the end of the fiscal year, the sheriff cannot allow this to be spent on overtime, which is contained in the salaries for deputies and assistants item of expenditure.  On the other hand, if the budget has extra salary money at the end of the fiscal year, these monies can be used to pay for over runs in agency member medical bills, as was the case last year with the self-insurance program.  The reason this is permitted is that salaries and medical insurance expenses are both contained with the same item of expenditure (i.e. salaries of deputies and assistants). In short, monies can be spent within each item of expenditure between line items, but cannot cross items of expenditure.  Even though expenditures can take place between line items within a single item of expenditure, the BCC is still entitled to examine such expenditures at next year’s budget workshop on that proposed budget.