FY1994 Response to Budget Inquiryk
C
UNTY o MON ROE
KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040
(305)294-4641
District Four
Marathon Government Annex
Suite 110
490 63rd Street, Ocean
Marathon, FL 33050
Telephone: (305) 289-6000
FAX: (305) 289-6013
June 10, 1993
Honorable Danny Kolhage
County Clerk
500 Whitehead Street
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Danny:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAYOR, Jack London, District 2
Mayor Pro Tern, A Earl Cheal, District 4
Wilhelmina Harvey, District 1
Shirley Freeman, District 3
Mary Kay Reich, District 5
Thank you for your timely budget submission. I appreciate
the clarity that you provided.
This year, I will not make an issue out of (page 11) paying
$250 each for a chair when I purchased a very good one for about
half of that amount.
On page 5, you provided an analysis of the past five years
along with the current request. The increase was 6.3%. A
quick, unverified calculation indicates the aggregate increase
over the base year of 1988-89 to be 7.07%.
My review of your revenue history from 1988-89 indicates an
increase of $1,365,833. I believe that equates to an increase
of 1.84% over the base year of 1988-89.
I find it of interest that for the same time period, your
budget increased 7.07% while revenues you collected increased
only 1.84%. However, at the same time, I note that the
aggregate increase in the number of case filings was 11,748.
Can a correlation be made between any of these figures to
support your request for the increases you have had over the
last five years?
Sincerely,
A. EARL CHEAL, DBA
Mayor Pro Tem
BRANCH OFFICE
3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050
TEL. (305) 289-6027
3Dannp 1. Rotbage .
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
MONROE COUNTY
500 WHITEHEAD STREET
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
TEL. (305) 292-3550
June 28, 1993
Hon. A. Earl Cheal
County Commissioner, District 4
Marathon Governmental Center
Marathon, Fl. 33050
Dear Commissioner Cheal:
BRANCH OFFICE
88820 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070
TEL. (305) 852-7145
In response to your inquiry dated June 10, 1993 concerning
my budget submission for Fiscal Year 1993-1994, I am pleased to
provide you with the following information.
I have enclosed as Attachment 1 a worksheet describing the
method used to calculate "average annual increase". This method
is utilized because it is consistent with the requirements of
Florida's TRIM Law, which requires the County to provide public
notice and certify to the Property Appraiser and its citizens,
the increase in its proposed property taxes and operating budgets
over the current year.
Your method of calculation, using a base year, includes a
compounding effect that accounts for the difference. However,
the point is that the County is required, by law, to advise the
public and report annual increases in its taxes and budgets with
the base year being the current year.
I specifically direct your attention to the table in the
lower right hand corner of the worksheet which lists the annual
increases beginning with FY 89-90. In FY's 89-90 and 90-91, the
large increases of 10.31% and 12.62% respectively, were the
result of extraordinary requirements placed upon my office by the
Courts. In FY 89-90, I received an Administrative Order that
required my office to assume the responsibility for the
preparation of judgments and sentences in criminal cases. This
function was previously performed by the judge's judicial
assistants.
Commissioner Cheal
June 28, 1993
Page 2
It was necessary for me to
(one each in the Key West,
and the attendant matching
duties.
add three new Deputy Clerk positions
Marathon and Plantation Key offices),
costs to perform those additional
In FY 90-91, the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Monroe County,
was certified by the Supreme Court to receive an additional
County Judge position. Judge Becker was ultimately elected to
that position. Nationally accepted standards, and our own
experience, indicates that three new clerical positions are
required to support each new judicial position. Accordingly, my
budget for that year included three new deputy clerk positions in
Marathon, together with matching costs and some capital equipment
funding.
The increases shown in FY's 91-92, 92-93, and proposed 93-94
more closely reflect normal operating conditions. The average
annual increase for those three years is actually 2.9%.
In response to your question in reference to revenue
increases, I can tell you that there is very little correlation
between the major revenue sources and my opera ts. As I
have described, the increases in FY's 89-90 an 90-91 re the
result of my responses to changes in the court er which
I had no control. The addition of a County Judge does have some
effect on revenues, such as fines and filing fees; however, the
effects are very subtle and involve mostly timing differences.
Obviously, cases get filed and misdemeanors and traffic offenses
occur regardless of the number of judges that are available to
hear them.
In fact, some of the relationships are actually inverse.
For instance, the major revenue declines experienced over the
period included in my summary were in the area of interest
income. There is a reduction of approximately $1.4 million
between the peak year of 1989-90 and our estimates for FY 1992-
93. The reasons for this are, of course, related to interest
rates and the national economy. However, we must spend more
staff time and resources to diversify our investment activities
in order to be more aggressive in periods of declining and
historically low interest rates.
Revenues from documentary stamp and intangible taxes can
also show large fluctuations that have no impact on workloads and
staffing requirements.
The fact that case filings increased by 11,748 during the
period covered in the reports is very significant.
Commissioner Earl Cheal
June 28, 1993
Page 3
Some of the filings have a direct and substantial impact on
revenues. With others, the effect is minimal.
The areas that have shown the most dramatic increase in
filings over the period are in county criminal cases
(misdemeanors and criminal traffic), and traffic citations. The
revenues associated with these filings are classified as "Fines
and Forfeitures" and are shown on page 1 of the Revenue History.
As you can see, those revenues increased from $1.7 million in FY
87-88 to our estimate of $2.4 million in FY 92-93.
When it comes to the relationship of filings to workload, I
need only say that filings are workload.
In December of 1989, I contracted with the firm of Carter
Goble and Associates to prepare a space and staffing master plan
for the Office of the Clerk of Courts. I will take this
opportunity to provide you with some of the results of that
master plan specifically related to filings and staffing
patterns. The Judiciary contracted with Carter Goble to conduct
a similar study for their use.
On the basis of a combination of several different models,
Carter Goble provided projections of both case filings and
staffing for the period from 1990 to 2010. Attachments 2 through
8 are copies of tables taken from the master plan that show
historical information, descriptions of the various models used,
and projections of case filings. Attachment 9 shows the same
information for personnel projections. On Attachment 10, I have
compared the projections for the year 1990, the actual filings
for 1990, the estimated filings for 1993, the projections for
1995, the staffing level for 1990, the current staffing level,
and projected staffing level for 1995 and presented some obvious
relationships between the data.
In summary, my estimate of filings for 1993 are 90% of the
projected filings for 1995. The Carter Goble master plan
personnel projections for 1995 is 110; however, the staffing
level for FY 93-94 is 95, which is exactly the same as the level
for 1990. It is clear that I have respected the Board's desire
to "hold the line" on budget increases and corresponding tax
increases. However, it is also clear that my office is rapidly
falling behind in the ratio of deputy clerks to filings.
Although Carter Goble's projections and staffing recommendations
are intended to be used for planning purposes, our ability to
process the court's work in a timely and effective way is
diminished when the appropriate ratio of clerical staff to
filings is not maintained.
Commissioner Earl Cheal
June 28, 1993
Page 4
Our use of technology such as the CJIS system, the use of PC
based receipting and payment posting, and computerized voice
response systems has helped to mitigate the need for additional
staff; however, sooner or later increased volumes will have to be
met with additional personnel.
My budget request for FY 93-94 includes appropriations
necessary to make salary adjustments in accordance with the
findings of the wage and classification study being conducted by
Cody and Associates of the Office of the Clerk of Courts. Cody
has done some market surveys and analysis of the County's
employees and employees of other officials. My request is made
on the basis of the very early results of that work. In light of
the circumstances that I have described in this memo relative to
workloads, I am sure that you will agree with me that it is very
important from the standpoint of employee morale and incentive
that I have the ability to adjust employee salaries to achieve
equity and competitiveness.
If I can provide you with any further information, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
y L. Ko hage
Clerk Circuit Court
and ex officio Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners
DLK:rj
CLERK'S BUDGET
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE
FY 89-90 FY 90-91
BUDGET BUDGET
FY 89-90
$2,672,562
FY 90-91
$3,009,873
FY 88 - 89
(2,42Z747)
FY 89 - 90
(2,67Z562)
DIFFERENCE
249,815
DIFFERENCE
337,311
DIVIDED BY FY 88-89
2,422,747
DIVIDED BY FY 89-90
2,672,562
ANNUAL INCREASE
10.31%
ANNUAL INCREASE
12.62%
FY 91- 92
FY 92- 93
BUDGET
BUDGET
FY 91-92
$3,058,227
FY 92-93
$3,159,057
FY 90 - 91
(3,009,873)
FY 91- 92
(3,05a227)
DIFFERENCE
48,354
DIFFERENCE
100,830
DIVIDED BY FY 90-91
3,009,873
DIVIDED BY FY 91-92
3,058,227
ANNUAL INCREASE
FY 93-94
BUDGET
1.61%
FY 93-94 $3,280,014
FY 92- 93 (3,159, 057)
DIFFERENCE 120,957
DIVIDED BY FY 92-93 3,159,057
ANNUAL INCREASE 3.83%
ANNUAL INCREASE 3.30%
ANNUAL INCREASE
FY 89-90
10.31 %
FY 90-91
12.62%
FY 91-92
1.61 %
FY 92-93
3.30%
FY 93-94
3.83%
TOTAL
31.67%
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE
31.67%/5 6.33%
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
T
N N
T O
O
N R
T
T N n
�4Ds
rl
N
in
.= V)
N
T <
QQ
lV
Cl
T
as
8i, Q
n Ki,
U
�o
Ke�'co
� N
T
TT g
400
V al
o
T
in
T � y
M
N
M M
M !l !!
_ �lyy
r
el Ck
el Ck
t9 P�
ci f7 N
T
ci
(((QQQ111��� oTa
Yoh vpp
N
o
x
T
N
�
lV
T
IL
� M
Jq
oT
91
�
0
T
g
7i T M
2 � r is �
r ■
� ■
F
<, .,
1> 4
T
T
10
a
\� L
T
0
M
c�i
cJ
a
C4 c4i
C4
d�
OI 01
T nI
$
ci P%
o
ci
to
e
1t�:
N tV
i tqp
lJ N
uj
W � � �
W 1 .�; 1
ul
IL
T
T
,r o p<Th < .= o <�
�■ � r � r r r � r r � r � r r r r
A io :r 6 io F
i
Exhibit 3
Z
0
LU
-
O.0
a�
CD
�9
UJ
U 0
H
co
O
cc
(L
cr ..
U
h
p
N n 8
N N
n
�
n
CY
so
is
CO) N �
N
0 C
p
uq 8
cr�pp'
Q
f f0 .,Nj
_
Ci
U) N
Q
8
O
x CY
N
N
P,CY
ab
cc
S p
N �
V Q
�
t0
Q
h ^
tD
lV
400
:
:f
Gf uS
O
C
�
�
pp
W .
fA
g
Vol
to
�to
i M < N i N N N N N Z N Z �N N N N
N l9 'f F
Exhibit 4
i
8
CR
rr
..... .
a
.:.........::>::
40
N
N
r
LO
U.
Exhibit 5
_o o rri ago, °0
T T T
ii
Cl
cl 1t�1I o a
T
�3 $ `w 7 + o
T
`$•- � � a of n
a, w
oC4 $ wCC3 n
aa
cn
P S � '" a
z _
h 3 aL . N
C �q N N
T
aq
cr
8 IL
CL
F-^ O C [ O C ~.N-
O 1D N ^ P a O tC
ca O T T
.G O N n S • � .T- Ny
Z 88 T< T T
C�{ a
cmN aD (� a T N N
cc } jpQ� O b
U N co
Z CD N
pQ y� mm N
.../ T U Q t�j x a N �
aT tD fD ^ O 10
p a T T
U „N8 Clco
�p
O ^ M O T
C T
a0 P O (ta o
p O as N
Z iucc
"� m
g a ET Q S2 oolw
N o
. w c w A a
is
0
a eepp
O25
c O
U IL U U lL _
N co .r F
Exhibit 6
L
Exhibit 7
§K�
§
E
-
o "G
§ kw
\
-
#
2 9
b ■
�
%g
�
2
$
a /
+
3
.
$
\2
Exhibit 8
R
9
CD
r
I C�1
O
cn
m '
T
C^^
Z
O_____
U
w
Ov
Et *o
a. u.
w
� W
Z
O
C
W o
F-
D ;
U
O
LH
(.5
8
`�S
e
A n
a~p' C11
P
N
^ c�a
P n Sq R
FI FI
e
JR
1J
a
Exhibit 9
CLERK'S CASELOAD FILINGS AND PERSONNEL
1990
1993
1995
CARTER
CARTER
GOBLE
CLERK
GOBLE
PROJECTED
ACTUAL
PROJECTED
PROJECTED
CIRCUIT CRIMINAL
1,859
1,977
2,500
2,266
CIRCUIT CIVIL
2,175
2,139
2,500
2,519
PROBATE
467
437
450
547
JUVENILE
828
685
650
1,170
COUNTY CRIMINAL
6,632
7,997
9,500
7,634
COUNTY CIVIL
1,758
1,495
1,600
2,143
COUNTY TRAFFIC
34,316
34,412
38,000
45,074
TOTAL
48,035
49,142
55,200
61,353
PERSONNEL
95
95
95
110
55,200
61,353 = 90% OF 1995 PROJECTIONS
Exhibit 10