FY19 ECSO Budget Request Has Been Received

I received the below letter in the mail yesterday afternoon.

The budget amount requested mirrors exactly what we expected to see based upon the settlement agreement we reached last week with the sheriff.  Glad to be moving forward!

Settlement

The Board of County Commissioners voted Thursday morning, April 26th, unanimously, to approve this settlement with the ECSO for the budget appeal filed by Sheriff Morgan last year.  The slides below go through the salient aspects of this four-year  deal.

I'm proud of the team that negotiated this deal, and I look forward to working cooperatively with the Sheriff's Office going forward to implement it.

Form over Substance

Cheer squads and Pom-Pom girls and boys root for their team right or wrong, winning or losing, no matter what.  Often they don't even know the score or what a first down is........The real question is this:  Do cheerleaders ignore reality and  put form over substance?

So there are still those out there that remain confused.  They are either confused or they are being deliberately naive, disingenuous and intentionally blind to what is an obvious fact.  Or maybe they are just being cheerleaders for their hero.  I don't know.

So let me spell it out for everyone right here.

On March 9th, the BCC and authorized representatives of the ECSO met in a mediation session.  The culmination of that marathon, 9-hour mediation was a written mediation settlement agreement.

The agreement specified the framework of the deal, which is important to note.  This is the SUBSTANCE of the agreement.  The salient, substantive parts of this signed, written agreement are as follows:

--ECSO will receive $1 Million additional in April for the budget for this year (FY2018),  
--ECSO will receive $2.6 Million more for FY 2019 (total to include All Benefits and ALL raises-totaling $60,339,867)
--ECSO will receive $2.6 Million more for FY 2020 (total to include All Benefits-and ALL raises totaling $62,939,867)
--ECSO will receive $2.9 Million more for FY 2021 (total to include  All Benefits And All raises-totaling $65,839,867)

Additional terms for ECSO:  50% of LETF will be spent to offset the SRO program-- when possible (which frees up additional Sheriff General Fund Dollars for salaries, raises, etc.)

Additional terms for BCC:


$125,000 of Commissioners Discretionary Funds (50%) yearly beginning in April 2018 shall be utilized to help fund this agreement during the term of the agreement.

Outside agencies in the General Fund shall not receive more than $734,374.00 yearly from the BCC during the term of this agreement.

The county's final version of the inter local agreement, based solely upon the mediation settlement agreement, has been delivered, and it is here for any and all to inspect.  None of the salient terms and agreed-upon dollar figures (THE SUBSTANCE) from the mediation settlement agreement have been changed--and the only language added was standard, boiler-plate legalese that is common to agreements such as this. This is the FORM of the document--and it has no impact on the SUBSTANCE of the agreement per se.  Capeche?

The reason I'm told the ECSO has balked is because they wanted to ADD language into the interlocal after the BCC affirmed the signed mediation settlement document on 3-15-2018.  This language that ECSO demanded be added to the interlocal was not simply FORM;  This language that ECSO demanded be added would have dramatically  changed the SUBSTANCE of the agreement--adding additional costs to the BCC over and above agreed-upon amounts as per the signed settlement agreement.

So to those who are inaccurately espousing that the BCC "added language"---don't be disingenuous.  Don't be a tool.  Look at the facts if you are capable of comprehending them and stop obfuscating the

A Historic Look at Budgets over Time--BCC compared to ECSO: Who Has Had it Worse?

There have been lots of discussions recently about budgets.  Budgets for the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and budgets for the Escambia Board of County Commissioners.

 The BCC and ECSO recently agreed to a 3 1/2 -year, $9.1 Million dollar settlement--and we are working to implement that agreement even though the ECSO has unilaterally balked at it after agreeing in writing to it back on March 9th.

But because there have been lots of discussions about budgets--I asked for some specific budget documents from staff-- I asked staff for data that will clearly illustrate why this $9.1 Million dollar settlement is generous, fair, and represents (if implemented) a 4.39% year over year increase for the ECSO year over year for four years.

Everyone I have talked to was relieved that the nightmare budget battle was finally coming to an end.  Better yet--this deal would extend for several years so everyone could plan and there would be no more fighting, bickering, posturing, and name-calling year after year.

But now that the ECSO are furiously trying to back out of the deal and walk away from their written agreement, some people are talking about the "fairness" of the budgets over time, over the last 11 years.  So lets talk about that.

Who has had it worse over the past 11 years in terms of year over year budget growth?    Take a look at this chart, below.

Start with the Sheriff's Budget (adjusted to remove detention and jail budgeted funds so an accurate comparison can be made) In 2007, the Sheriff's adjusted budget was $47,586,312.  If the budget deal is implemented (adding $1 Million additionally to the ECSO budget for 2017-2018) the total 2018 ECSO budget will be $57,739,867--an increase of $10,153,555 over the 2007 budget--or annualized to roughly a 1.6% increase yearly over this period of time.

Contrast this with the County's Adopted Budget over the same time period:  In 2007, it was $458,839,188.  Fast forward 11 years to 2017-2018 budget, and we are at $455,840,072--not even where we were 11 years ago!  Annualized, it represents .00653 below where we were in 2007 --a negative number even after 11 years!

Looking at the county's general fund--the outlook is only slightly better:  In 2007 the county's general

On WPNN This Morning Discussing the Latest on the Budget for ECSO

I was a guest this morning on WPNN's  "Quinlan and Nolan" morning radio show.

The discussion was centered on the latest developments with respect to the BCC and ECSO's signed mediation agreement.  The signed and bargained agreement is not being honored by the Sheriff, and as a result the BCC legal office has filed a written Motion to Enforce the agreement with the Governor's Administration Commission.

Interesting discussion--you can listen to it here

County Files Motion to Enforce Mediation Agreement Today

The Escambia Board of County Commissioners have filed a Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement with the Governor’s Administrative Commission today......

Read the full motion here   

On 1370 WCOA Discussing the Sheriff's Budget Mediation and OLF 8

I was a guest on 1370 WCOA this morning speaking about the recent budget mediation debacle and also about the latest contract to complete the work for acquiring OLF 8 in Beulah.

Good interview, great to be invited to speak on the issues!

Listen to the Podcast of the show here

Sheriff Is Refusing to Honor the Signed Mediation Agreement

The Sheriff has unilaterally stated he will not abide by the terms of a signed mediation agreement

Sheriff Morgan today on Facebook stated that he is unilaterally refusing to honor the mediation agreement reached on March 9th, ratified by the BCC on March 15th.

The agreement that was signed by authorized representatives of the BCC and ECSO stipulated that the contents of the agreement would be memorialized into an interlocal agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commission Chairman.

This is where, apparently, the train has come off the tracks.  The County attorney has sent over a bare-bones, straightforward interlocal agreement that strictly adheres to the mediation agreement.

The ECSO has rejected this straightforward interlocal and is attempting to go beyond what was bargained.  This is being done in an attempt to get more money that what was agreed-to in the mediation agreement--and their proposed language would result in the County being subject to additional monetary exposure over and above what was bargained in good faith on March 9th. 

This is unacceptable.

If there are only format issues, these can be overcome and I stand ready to work to get these resolved. I repeat,  If it is just happy to glad, format issues--I would say send your version ECSO and we will consider it--SO LONG AS IT STAYS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK AND COST BOUNDARIES OF THE SIGNED MEDIATION AGREEMENT.

Unfortunately, however, it is not a format issue, or a language issue....It appears as if this is nothing more than an attempt to expand further, financially, what was agreed upon on March 9th---after the fact and after the BCC affirmed the signed mediation agreement and the concomitant budget concessions that were implicitly defined in the March 9th document.

What a disappointment...I sincerely hope the Sheriff will reconsider this bad decision he has apparently made to unilaterally back out of the signed mediation deal.

Instead, Sheriff Morgan should abide by what was negotiated in good faith by the BCC and ECSO in the mediation session; he should sign the interlocal agreement that has been sent to his office memorializing the signed agreement that was reached on March 9th.

   

The BCC currently has no special meetings planned or scheduled to address this matter further.

Here is the Current Status of the Mediation Agreement between the BCC and ECSO

This entire weekend people have been calling me and asking me "What is the status of the agreement with the ECSO"

Channel three called on Saturday and Sunday.  I stated what I know, which is still all I know today outside of rumors, innuendo, and media speculation based upon snippets of an alleged memo from Eric Haines.  What I know on the timeline and status of this matter is as follows:

On Friday, March 9th, I participated in an all day mediation with other BCC reps and Chief Deputy Haines and Gerry Champaign from ECSO.

The end of that process culminated in a signed mediation agreement that day, on Friday, March 9th 2018.  That session ended with nobody asking the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Saturday 3-10-18 came and went, no questions, comments, concerns from ECSO, and no request for the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Sunday 3-11-18 came and went, no questions, comments, concerns from ECSO, and no request for the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Monday 3-12-18 came and went, no questions, comments, concerns from ECSO, and no request for the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Tuesday 3-13-2018 came and went, no questions, comments, concerns from ECSO, and no request for the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Wednesday 3-14-2018 came and went, no questions, comments, concerns from ECSO, and no request for the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Thursday 3-15-2018  The BCC votes to affirm the negotiated, signed mediation agreement via a very heated, contentious 3-2 vote.  A press release is written, media announces the breakthrough, no questions, comments, concerns from ECSO, No press release from ECSO, no videos, no nothing. and no request for the mediator to come back, no mention of any additional problems or concerns.

Friday 3-16-2018  BCC attorneys and staff draft an interlocal agreement based strictly upon the agreed upon and signed mediation settlement agreement and send it to Sheriff Morgan's attorney, where to the best of my knowledge it is given to the sheriff and sits on his desk awaiting his signature and action.  (Late Friday afternoon I requested and received confirmation that the Interlocal was sent to Gerry Champaign, General Counsel for ECSO)  Late Friday afternoon, I also was told there were some concerns being expressed by the ECSO--however I went into the weekend with no indication the ECSO would not honor the written, signed mediation agreement.  Nor was I EVER Told that the Sheriff had unilaterally decided to not honor this agreement.

Saturday--I was told by Ch. 3 reporter Jamarlo Phillips that a memo had been circulated within the ECSO stating "mediation has failed" to which I replied that information is not accurate.  "Mediation succeeded, see the written agreement" I told him.  I then continued "The signed mediation agreement is a fair compromise and so far as I know right now we are moving forward, and I believe any statement at this point on this issue needs to come first from the sheriff"

On Sunday--I was called by Jamarlo Phillips and again he stated that a memo had been circulated within the ECSO stating "mediation has failed"  He asked if I wanted to appear on camera and give a statement, to which I said no thank you.  I told him "any statement at this point on this issue needs to come first from the sheriff"

So here we are at 5:00 AM Monday Morning--and the media has run reports inaccurately stating mediation "failed." Mediation did not fail, it succeeded as designed, the interlocal agreement is now on the Sheriff's desk, awaiting his action.  That is the status as of right now, to the best of my knowledge.

Board of County Commissioners and ECSO agree on Mediation Agreement

This morning the Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to support a mediation agreement that was negotiated last Friday with representatives of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

There was a spirited debate, nobody was 100% happy with the agreement--but when the question was put to a vote, the Board voted 3-2 to move this agreement forward.  Lumon May and Steven Barry voted no on this agreement.

Next up, the attorneys for both agencies will reduce this agreement to a written interlocal agreement which will need to be signed by the sheriff and voted forward affirmatively by the BCC.

This is a big step forward.

See the agreement below:

BCC-ECSO Budget Impasse 2017-2018...Is There a Potential Breakthrough Coming Thursday?

UPDATE 3-15-2018--BCC Endorses Mediated Settlement with ECSO


There was an hours-long back and forth mediation held between representatives of the BCC and the ECSO this past Friday morning, afternoon, and early evening.

Obviously any specifics that came from that meeting are subject to a confidentiality agreement that all participants (myself included) signed.

But I will report this:  I am told my counterparts on the BCC have each been briefed about these discussions, and subsequent to these talks on Friday-another executive session (shade meeting) has been scheduled for this Thursday morning at 8:30 right before our morning's agenda review session.

My prediction is that we may have a big announcement this Thursday at some point--so stay tuned!

See the meeting notice announcing this closed session of the BCC below....

Governor's Office Sends Letter re: Sheriff's Appeal of BCC Budget Allocation

First correspondence from Tallahassee regarding the budget impasse has been received by the BCC

Friday afternoon the BCC, via County Attorney Alison Rogers, received our first written correspondence from Governor Rick Scott's office regarding ECSO's appeal of the BCC's budget allocation  for 2017-2018.

The important takeaways from the letter are that the BCC was correct in that we followed the  procedures in 30.49 Florida Statutes with respect to how we answered the initial appeal.

More importantly --we were correct with respect to how we did not send more information to the Governor in response to the ECSO's unsolicited response to our only response to ECSO's initial appeal. 

The letter from the Governor's office appears to confirm that this unsolicited second submission from ECSO to the Governor does not comport with the process--and both sides are advised to  "..refrain

Letter from SAO Exonerating BCC--Shade Meeting was Legal and Appropriate

ECSO and ECSO Lawyer Lose on Complaint: State Attorney says "BCC Meeting was Legal."

The SAO sided with the BCC today;  The Shade meeting the BCC held in October was legal and appropriate.  The Sheriff  and his lawyer--and anyone else who thought it was inappropriate--were and are wrong...

The Chief Law Enforcement entity in the area, the State Attorneys Office, the "Super Judge" if you will, the office that decides what will be prosecuted and what will not be prosecuted, has spoken:

The State Attorney's Office  has told the Sheriff and the Sheriff's lawyer that their complaint lodged against the BCC was unfounded and without merit.

As I correctly predicted back in October right after we held this shade meeting-- because I knew all along it was perfectly legal and appropriate to do so--the State Attorney has now officially said that the shade meeting held by the Board of County Commissioners in October in response to the ECSO budget appeal was appropriate, comported with state law, and that the BCC violated neither the open meeting law nor the open records law.

Our attorneys and staff, as well as the BCC, were correct on this and the Sheriff and his lawyer were wrong.

We (BCC) were also 100% within our rights to not give the transcript of this meeting to ECSO when they demanded it--because under the law they are not yet entitled to receive it.

From the PNJ

 "Greg Marcille, assistant state attorney, said the County Commission complied with all noticing requirements for the meeting and listed multiple Florida Attorney General opinions and court cases citing that governmental entities are allowed to hold attorney-client sessions. 'For these reasons, it does not appear that the Escambia County Board of Commissioners violated the Sunshine Law by holding an attorney-client session," Marcille wrote. "Additionally no violations of the Florida Public Records law were committed..'The State Attorney's Office said the transcript can be kept confidential 'until such time as the litigation is concluded.' "

Olive Branch Part III

the most recent discussions on potential revenue sources for ECSO were condescendingly called "limp-wristed, disingenuous entreaties" by our sheriff...

Tuesday morning at the committee of the whole, I brought forward some ideas that could help address our budget impasse with the sheriff.  I brought these idea(s) in good faith, in a spirit of cooperation and compromise.  Having deferred my item to the end of the meeting, the commissioners were fatigued and several had to leave to make other engagements.  I totally get that and I appreciated the discussions with the individual commissioners about each aspect of the Blue Penny plan --despite the late hour at the end of the workshop..

Within the discussions, though, I found several areas of plausible common ground between myself and my counterparts as it relates to a potential offer that might be presented to the sheriff.  (translation:  I think there may be 3-4 areas of the plan for which I could get three (3) votes)

So next month, at our January Committee of the Whole, I will bring a document that reduces these items where I perceive potential agreement into a draft agreement.  I don't want to sound like a broken record here--but there are areas where a compromise can be brokered among the commissioners; I have the information--from these discussions at the tail end of Tuesday's COW. I simply  need to write an agreement. Which I will do.

Such an agreement would serve as a starting place for a larger discussion on the sheriff's budget---because as everyone knows, the Governor and his cabinet are not in the business of solving our problems and we should be proactive in moving forward in our continuing effort to show good faith in the process.  The appeal process is meant to be, and designed to be, a method to compel mediation of these disputes between the parties.  This is why only 3 of these appeals have gone all the way to the Governor in the last 30 years.

Meanwhile, disappointingly but not surprisingly, the BCC discussions on brokering a compromise were mocked yesterday on the radio by the sheriff.  at minute 10:00 of the interview from WCOA yesterday, the sheriff characterizes proposals to increase his budget funding as "limp-wristed, dis-
ingenuous entreaties."  This is not surprising but it's shocking; sadly, though, this is simply more of the same:  ad hominem, condescending, personal attacks made by the sheriff against those of us

Olive Branch Part II

Working together in a spirit of cooperation is essential

At this morning's Committee of the Whole, I will again bring forth some potential ideas for helping with our budget impasse with the Escambia County Sheriff Office.

Last month I brought the Blue Penny Proposal--portions of which were not well received, portions of which received some support (or at least some questions and queries that lead me to believe they could be supported).

My goal today, in the workshop setting, is to find out what parts, if any, of the Blue Penny Plan might garner support from my counterparts and staff members.  I also want to try to formalize some sort of an offer so that we can continue to move forward in the spirit of compromise.

It is understood by those who understand the process we are currently in that the objective is to achieve compromise, the objective is not to push the process to the wall and make the Governor solve our issue.  He has other pressing business with which to attend -- including hurricane recovery.

So to keep the process going forward, I need to flesh out the following items:

1.  Do we agree with setting a baseline budget for ECSO with increases commensurate to BCC yearly Total Budget year over year percentage increases?  Do we set a floor and a ceiling for such an arrangement?

2.  Do we agree with giving a dollar for dollar match, up to $350,000 yearly, for any County LET expenditures requested by ECSO for utilization in the SRO program?  (Could generate $700K yearly in freed-up general fund dollars for ECSO)

3.  Do we agree with giving a percentage of unexpended revenue back to ECSO at the end of the FY to help with ECSO payscale issues?

4.  Are we absolutely, 100% opposed to the 5th cent levy in order to offset public safety expenditures at our beaches?  If so, why?  (eg. hoteliers want LOST $ for things like convention centers, field houses, roundabouts and tunnels--why can we not broker a compromise on these issues utilizing the 5th cent and working toward the necessary legislative fix to enable this?)

These are items that need to be discussed to move forward with a spirit of cooperation.  The public at large in Escambia county are weary of this and expect us to work together to solve this deadlock.  We can move a step in that direction today if we have the will to do so.

What does 286.011(8) Fl Statutes Say? What Does it Mean?

ECSO demands raises, we gave raises.  ECSO wants more revenue, we offer a potential plan for more revenue and it is rejected and we are mocked.  We are attacked, our olive branches are being broken and given back, and now we are accused of violating the state open meeting law.  Incredible..

Our meeting on 10-23-2017 was legitimate, it was vetted six ways from Sunday by a team of lawyers, and still we are being accused of violating state statutes by the ECSO.  Here, below, is the relevant statute that was followed.   We followed the law, we vetted the meeting by calling the SAO before the meeting was held, so why are we now being attacked by the ECSO when they know the meeting comports with statute?

Read the relevant statute for yourself, below:


"(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity’s attorney to discuss pending litigation [emphasis added] to which the entity is presently a party before a court or administrative agency[emphasis added], provided that the following conditions are met:

(a) The entity’s attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation.

(b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures.

(c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court reporter. The reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons present at any time, and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The court reporter’s notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the entity’s clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting.

(d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of the session.

(e) The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation."

Doubling-Down on a Big Lie....But Why?

"When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it." Joseph Goebbels 1-12-1941

It came to my attention very recently that a member of the ECSO complained loudly to a person I know that "We went 6 years without raises"  Disturbingly, this person also singled me out for criticism.  "He [Jeff Bergosh] doesn't want us to get raises!"

Here are the multiple problems with these assertions, which are straight-up  LIEs.

#1.  This individual knows, or should have known, that despite being attacked all summer long with insults and ad hominem attacks by the ECSO---the BCC still came to the table and funded a 3% raise for all ECSO employees for this year.  This makes the 6th straight year the BCC has funded the ECSO with 3% raises.

#2.  Upon a look at this individual's W-2 earnings from the ECSO, the last three years income picture for this person looks like this:

2014

$40,420.66  (total compensation paid excluding side work which is accounted for via 1099 form that is provided by any private company that pays off-duty wages)

2015

$45,665.39  (total compensation paid excluding side work which is accounted for via 1099 form that is provided by any private company that pays off-duty wages)

2016

$49,884.67   (total compensation paid excluding side work which is accounted for via 1099 form that is provided by any private company that pays off-duty wages)

So, in looking at the total compensation paid to this individual, it is clear that year over year from 2014 to 2015 his total compensation increased by roughly 12.5%, and between 2015 and 2016 his compensation increased another 9% year over year.  (I don't know if that increase was due to overtime, a pay raise, a merit raise, and educational raise, and assignment pay increase, or shift differential pay increase, or uniform allowance increases,  or leave that was bought back--I have no way of knowing these things.  I also do not know how much more this individual earned working side jobs as an off-duty deputy making $25 dollars per hour.) But his total compensation is increasing.

And the second big lie is saying "We went 6 years without raises!"  What six years is my question?

ECSO Personnel have been funded for raises in 14 of the last 18 years, and 7 out of the last 8 years,  according to this chart provided by.....ECSO.  I wonder why people continue to lie about this, what is the purpose of that....knowing it will be easily debunked

Answer: there are not six years that ECSO was not funded for a raise in the last 18 years.  That lie is debunked by Tab 13 of the ECSO's own appeal of the budget this year---indicating that over the last 18 years, ECSO has been funded for some sort of a raise every year except 4 years during the recession.  So the big lie that is being repeated (That ECSO went 6,7,or 8 years without raises) is nothing more than that.  A big lie.  But why lie about something that is very easily and completely debunked already?

I'm NOT Proposing a Tax Rate Increase on Escambia County Property Owners

....Because I have said over and over for eleven years running now that I will not vote to raise year over year property tax rates on Escambia County property owners. I never have, and I never will. I stand by that.  I also will not vote to impose new taxes that will only affect local residents.

So with this said--how in the world can we generate new revenue to offset tourism related public safety expenses in our beach and tourist areas so general fund revenues can be saved to increase Deputy Sheriff pay?

We can do what Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties are already doing.  Add a fifth cent to the Bed Tax.  I was astonished and dismayed to hear one of my peers flat-out reject this idea last night at the meeting, instead recommending a significant increase to the county-wide sheriff's MSTU (which would increase property tax rates on already over taxed Escambia County Property Owners).  This I would not support.  I would much rather put this burden on out-of-town visitors who come here.

Adding a fifth cent to the fees that out-of-town residents pay when they stay in Hotels, Motels, Condominiums, and R.V. Parks in Escambia County (Bed Tax) is a legitimate way to raise revenue---without impacting local taxpayers.  Right now the current levy of 4 cents generates right at $2.5 Million yearly per cent, for a total of $10 Million per year.  Adding the fifth cent would increase total collection to $12.5 Million per year--of which only $1.25 Million could be utilized to offset public safety expenditures if enabling legislation is passed in Tallahassee.  So the TDT fund would increase by over a million dollars yearly--even as a small portion of it was utilized, legitimately, to offset costs of the ECSO and County Public Safety for Tourism-related expenditures at our beaches.

So, as a part of a larger initiative to help address pay scale issues and to move us from an adversarial stance with ECSO to a more cooperative posture--I have put forth the Blue Penny Plan.  It is simple-here's how it works:  No increases to Escambia County Property Owners, Agree on a 5-7 year MOU/MOA between BCC and ECSO, Agree on a yearly base amount of funding (with built in yearly increases that match BCC revenue increases on a percentage of budget basis), agree to a BCC match of up to $350,000.00 for any LET funds the sheriff will utilize to offset his SRO costs each year (up to $350,000.00--which frees up $700,000.00 potentially in ECSO general fund dollars) and rebate 50% of ECSO unexpended funds returned to BCC at end of each FY (required by statute) during the term of the MOU/MOA.  This, combined, generates $1.35 Million per year to address pay scale issues, retention, and other financial needs of the ECSO--over an above the base level allocation and yearly adjustments yearly--- which can be used to fund additional pay raises as well.

This is why a small fraction of this fifth cent is a legitimate funding source to utilize in attempts to assist County Law Enforcement with their pay scale deficiencies.

This is how we can do it while not raising taxes on Escambia County property owners.

This is what I support.

Blue Penny Plan

I've put together a plan, just a discussion starter, for potentially addressing our current Budget issue with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

Tomorrow morning I will present this plan to my peers on the board and to staff and the public.

The plan will require cooperation, coordination, and a will to move forward together.

The plan will require a lift from our legislative delegation, which will require the BCC and the ECSO to cooperate toward making this happen.

I look forward to discussing this--but I'm not married to the language, I don't have a pride of authorship mentality about it, and there are and will be ample opportunities to adjust percentages and dollar amounts in this plan based upon discussions between staff, the BCC and the ECSO going forward.

------But if we work together we can put together a pay scale augmentation fund for ECSO--over and above a stabilized base budget with yearly adjustments,  of up to $7 Million over 5 years, $10 Million over 7 years.

Here's the thing:

I'd much rather work together with ECSO rather  than maintaining an adversarial relationship with them, so I offer this as a start to a better working relationship, an olive branch.

See the PowerPoint presentation I will bring to tomorrow morning's meeting  here