|
Kara Collins-Gomez Staff Director (850) 487-4257 collins-gomez.kara@oppaga.fl.gov |
| Print All Government Operations Recommendations | |
•Issue exemption certificates for certain officers of foreign-flagged vessels. Operators of foreign-flagged vessels that frequently enter Florida ports using the same captain and crew, such as cruise ships, that dock multiple times each month, assert that their vessels do not need to hire harbor pilots because their ship officers are capable of safely navigating the port. These operators also assert that the need to hire Florida pilots for routine trips unnecessarily increases their costs.
•Adopt local regulation of pilot services. The Legislature could grant individual ports control of harbor piloting for their area, relieving the state of this responsibility. Each port could establish its own regulatory system, which could include licensing pilots, using contractors, or hiring pilots as local government employees. Each port also would establish the number of pilots needed, regulate pilot licensing, and control pilotage rates.
•Abolish state regulation and rely on federal licensure. The Legislature could eliminate state regulation of harbor pilots and require that persons who pilot foreign-flagged ships in Florida ports possess a federal first-class harbor pilot endorsement. The state would no longer license or discipline pilots, but would rely on the Coast Guard for regulation.
•Develop a formula to determine maximum pilot fees. To establish a more uniform rate-setting method, the Legislature could direct the Pilotage Rate Review Board to establish a formula to determine maximum rates for piloting services that takes into account factors such as the length of a trip. In addition, the board could take steps to ensure that information it uses to support rate changes is verifiable.
•Establish a formula to determine the number of pilots per port. To effectively manage workload in Florida ports, the Legislature could direct the Board of Pilot Commissioners to establish a system similar to the Great Lakes system, which relies on a formula to establish the number of pilots needed in each port. This would entail using standardized workload measures, such as the amount of time a pilot is on duty on a vessel, to determine the number of pilots needed.
•Create alternative rate-setting procedures. The Legislature could directly set pilot rates or assign this responsibility to the Public Service Commission rather than the current Pilotage Rate Review Board. Rate setting or approval by elected officials or the Public Service Commission may have more credibility than the current system, which relies on appointed volunteers.
•Modify program eligibility requirements to expand participation. To encourage increased program participation, especially by small businesses, the Legislature could consider changing eligibility requirements for program incentives. For example, the Legislature could amend s. 212.08(5)(h), Florida Statutes, to lower the $5,000 threshold for sales tax refunds on business property. The Legislature also could amend ss. 212.096 and 220.181, Florida Statutes, to allow businesses to claim part-time employees for jobs tax credits. In addition, the Legislature could amend s. 212.08(5)(g), Florida Statutes, to increase the maximum sales tax refund for building material purchases, currently $5,000.
•Target program incentives to encourage job creation. To focus the program on job creation, the Legislature could eliminate all program incentives except jobs tax credits. This change would reduce program costs by eliminating incentives estimated at $10 million annually as well as the program administrative costs associated with those incentives.
•Implement a program moratorium to create short-term savings. The Legislature could suspend the program for one year, saving the state at least $18 million. This option would increase state revenue collections during a time when state resources are limited because of economic conditions. However, eliminating business participation in the program for one year could reduce business investment and employment growth in the enterprise zones.
•Abolish the program to create long-term savings. The Legislature could amend the statutes and abolish the program, saving at least $18 million. This change would increase state revenue collections, but could reduce business investment and employment growth in the enterprise zones.
•Allow the program to sunset as the Legislature intended. The Legislature could allow the program to sunset on December 31, 2015, which would delay the effects of abolishing the program. This option would increase state revenue collections, but could result in reducing business investment and employment growth in the enterprise zones. However, any effects would be delayed until 2016.
•Reduce wages of salaried state employees by a specific percentage. This option could be applied to all state employees, those earning over a specified amount (e.g., $45,000), and/or those in specified roles (e.g., senior management). Amount of savings would depend on level of reduction and number of employees affected. Based on wage data for Fiscal Year 2008-09, estimated savings of an across-the-board salary reduction would be $49 million at 1%, $99 million at 2%, and $148 million at 3%;
•Furlough state employees. Employees would be required to take unpaid days off, or agencies could be directed to achieve a percentage reduction in workdays. Employees could also be asked to take voluntary leave without pay. Amount of savings would depend on the number of employees affected and number of furlough days. Based on wage data for Fiscal Year 2008-09, the estimated savings for furloughs affecting all state employees would be $95 million at 5 days, $190 million at 10 days, and $285 million at 15 days.
•Convert to a "paid time off" leave policy. This option would combine annual and sick leave into a single leave category of paid time off. This could produce savings if employees earn fewer total hours of leave than current sick and annual leave levels, which reduce terminal leave payments. The fiscal impact would depend on how employees manage their leave.
•Adopt a "use it or lose it" leave policy for annual and sick leave. Employees would be prohibited from carrying forward leave balances from year to year. Implementing this option would eliminate the state's accrued long-term liability for unpaid annual and sick leave, which totaled $674,774,894 for members of the State Personnel System at the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09.
•Reduce the amount of annual and sick leave employees can carry over from year to year. Implementing this option would reduce the state's accrued long-term liability for unpaid annual and sick leave, which totaled $674,774,894 for members of the State Personnel System at the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09.
•Implement a policy of annual cash payments in lieu of carrying forward annual and sick leave balances. Implementing this option would reduce separation costs when employees leave state employment and sell unused leave; in Fiscal Year 2008-09 these payments totaled $48,757,178.
•Standardize annual leave for all state employees. Eliminate current leave differentials based on longevity or pay plan. Implementing this option would reduce annual and terminal leave costs, if leave reduced to lowest common level. Fiscal impact would depend on how employees manage their leave.
•Reduce paid holidays. This could reduce the amount of special compensatory leave awarded to employees who work on state holidays as well as terminal leave costs. The fiscal impact would depend on how employees manage their leave.
•Reduce the amount of special compensatory leave that can be earned, accumulated, and compensated. Employees would be required to use special compensatory leave prior to annual leave. Implementing this option could reduce the state's accruing liability for unpaid special compensatory leave, which totaled $117.2 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09.
•Reduce the amount of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) special compensatory leave that can be accumulated and compensated. Require employees to use this leave prior to annual leave to reduce the number of hours of special compensatory leave compensated. Implementing this option would reduce the state's accruing liability for FLSA special compensatory leave, which totaled $1.1 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09.
•Implement a flexible benefits program. In lieu of funding specific benefits such as health and life insurance, the state would provide a specific monetary amount to each employee for benefits; employees would select among available insurance products (e.g., health, life, family, or individual coverage). Implementing this option would produce savings if the amount provided to employees is lower than the current funding for employee benefits.
•Require all employees to pay the same health insurance premiums. Discontinue paying the full cost of health insurance premiums for state employees. In Fiscal Year 2008-09, eliminating the fully-paid health insurance benefit for 34,249 employees would have saved $60,120,360.
•Increase employee health insurance premiums. Require employees to pay a larger share of monthly insurance premiums or increase the employee contribution rate for higher cost plans such as HMOs. Implementing this option would reduce the state's costs for employee health insurance premiums; fiscal impact would depend on the amount of cost shift to employees.
•Create a larger group health insurance participant pool. Expand the state health insurance group by allowing local governments to participate. This could help local governments contain costs by spreading the health care risk of their employees with the larger state workforce. According to Department of Management Services officials, there would be no cost advantage to the state because the current participant pool is large enough to sufficiently spread the risk and administrative costs.
•Develop health insurance products that focus on employee wellness. Modify current health insurance policies to emphasize employee wellness such as disease management or fitness club memberships. Implementing this option could reduce long-term health care costs for state employees and dependents, thereby potentially lowering health insurance premium costs for the state and employees.
•Reduce coverage provided by health insurance plans. Eliminate benefits, increase employee co-pays and deductibles, and/or introduce deductibles and co-insurance for some HMO services. This would produce savings if reduced coverage lowered health insurance premiums. The fiscal impact would depend on the changes made. For example, the Department of Management Services reports that the net savings to the state would be $93.8 million if all participants in the group health insurance program were enrolled in the current health investor, high deductible health plan. Alternatively, according to DMS, the state would save $78.9 million if HMO plans were revised to add an annual $250/$750 deductible and 90% coinsurance.
• Establish health insurance coverage levels based on number of dependents. Vary the structure for employee health insurance on family size (e.g., in addition to employee only and family coverage, add a middle tier for "employee plus one"). This could reduce health insurance premiums for the state and those employees with a single dependent who would not require more costly family coverage. The fiscal impact would depend on the tier structure selected, and the employee contribution to premiums.
•Create separate health insurance pools for active state employees. Establish separate programs for non-Medicare eligible retirees and Medicare retirees. Implementing this option could reduce state's health insurance costs for active employees; fiscal impact would be determined by an actuarial study.
•Increase eligibility audits for state-subsidized benefits. Ensure the state is only paying for eligible participants by auditing dependent eligibility and removing ineligible dependents from health plans. Implementing this option could reduce state costs associated with benefits for ineligible persons. Based on program enrollment for December 2008, the Department of Management Services estimates potential health insurance premium cost savings of $6.1 million to $12.4 million per year.
•Consolidate employee retirement classes based on ability to work a normal 30-year career. Consolidate the current five retirement classes into fewer classes, which would reduce the higher pension credits currently earned by some employees. Consolidation would have saved an estimated $359 million in Fiscal Year 2008-09; savings would accrue to all Florida Retirement System (FRS) employers (only a portion-an estimated $111.9 million-would accrue to the state).
•Limit the Special Risk Class to law enforcement, firefighters, and corrections officers, the original employee groups covered by the class when the Florida Retirement System was established in 1970. This option recognizes the physical demands faced by these employees and provides for their earlier retirement. The potential savings from this option depends on how many employees would be transferred from the Special Risk to the Regular class. For example, for the entire Florida Retirement System, cost savings for Fiscal Year 2008-09 would have been approximately $83 million if 20% of the Special Risk Class members transferred to the Regular Class, approximately $20 million of which is for state employees.
•Reduce accrual rates for employee classes. Establish comparable pension benefits for Florida Retirement System members, regardless of class. For example, the Legislature could set a uniform accrual rate of 1.6% to 1.68%, the current accrual rate of the Regular Class. For the entire Florida Retirement System, this option would have reduced employer contributions by $327.5 million in Fiscal Year 2008-09; an estimated $91.6 million of which is for state employees. An actuarial study is necessary to more precisely estimate the fiscal impact related only to state employees.
•Statutorily define DROP's purpose. The Legislature's intent for establishing DROP has never been clearly articulated. Clarifying the legislative intent for DROP would provide a basis for evaluating the program's success and the need for further changes.
•Establish employer contribution rates, which include DROP, for each membership class. DROP is currently funded as a separate class. This funding mechanism increases the cost of paying for DROP benefits to Regular Class employers and reduces employer costs for all other membership classes. Thus, the major effect of this option is that it would eliminate the cost shift, with employers whose costs are currently being subsidized required to pay the full cost for their employees who participate in the program.
•Standardize DROP requirements. Most Florida Retirement System (FRS) members may participate in DROP for five years while instructional personnel may participate in the program for up to eight years. Most FRS members have mandatory enrollment dates while instructional personnel may defer enrollment to any date after meeting eligibility requirements. Standardizing DROP enrollment criteria and limiting the participation period to no more than five years may reduce employer costs. An actuarial study would be required to estimate the savings associated with this proposal.
•Eliminate DROP. In 2009, the FRS paid approximately $71.4 million more to fund DROP than it would have paid if the program did not exist. If the program were discontinued, FRS employers would have to pay the costs associated with current participants. However, once all current DROP participants exit the program, the FRS would realize annual savings.
•Centralize all fleet operations under one agency. The Legislature could consider consolidating management of all state agency vehicles into one statewide fleet program with uniform standards for procurement, assignment, utilization, maintenance, and disposal. Centralization would improve efficiency and could reduce costs by leveraging the state's buying power.
•Centralize some fleet functions under one agency. Rather than centralize all fleet operations at once, the Legislature could consider the approach that Georgia adopted, centralizing some operations for immediate cost savings.
•Require agencies to use current statewide fuel and fleet maintenance contracts. The Legislature could require agencies to use the statewide fuel and maintenance contracts unless agencies are able to justify not doing so. If all agencies were required to use the fuel card, the Department of Management Services reports it could save the state $478,500 based on $33 million spent on car and light truck commercial retail fuel costs in Fiscal Year 2009-10. Similarly, the state would likely achieve savings on repairs if all agencies used the maintenance contract. For example, if the state attained reductions of between 10% and 20% in maintenance costs, we estimate that the state could have saved between $950,000 and $1.9 million in Fiscal Year 2009-10.
•Outsource additional fleet services. The Legislature could consider outsourcing additional fleet services. For example, private vendors offer services such as vehicle leasing, short-term rental, fuel and maintenance management, and data management. Through leasing, the department may improve the reliability of its fleet and save some of the $5.3 million in reimbursement costs and $1 million in costs for subsidizing staff car insurance.
•Direct agencies to reduce travel expenses by a percentage of the prior fiscal year expenditures (e.g., 5% to 25%), which would amount to statewide savings of between $3 million and $15 million.
•Amend s. 112.061, Florida Statutes, to include adopting the federal cap on reimbursement for lodging.
•Revise the law to specify that on the last day of travel, employees will only be reimbursed for meals at the state rate and actual incidental expenses.
•Direct the state to contract for enterprise-wide travel agent services with private vendors.
•Modify the transportation model for employees that annually travel more than 10,000 miles. Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternatives, such as leasing vehicles from private vendors or providing state-owned vehicles to the increasing number of employees who travel extensively.
•Direct agencies to take immediate steps to ensure that current procurement practices for conferencing services are cost effective.
•Centralize all state aviation programs into a single aviation authority. This option would transfer aircraft, assets, and employees to a new authority, which would significantly reduce duplication of aircraft, locations, and management.
•Consolidate all law enforcement aviation operations under a single agency. Consolidating all law enforcement aviation operations into a single unit would provide an opportunity to consolidate resources and administration of law enforcement aviation assets. Potential savings would vary, depending on how the assets would be combined and the number of aircraft eliminated. For example, if two of the most costly to operate and maintain older aircraft were eliminated, we estimate that the state would save approximately $197,000.
•Direct the Department of Management Services (DMS) to exercise its statutory authority to centralize aviation operations. DMS could base its approach on the federal General Services Administration, which acts as the coordinating office for aircraft management at the federal level with the assistance of an interagency aircraft policy working group. DMS could establish a similar interagency working group to improve coordination across agencies and learn what other aviation programs have done to reduce operating costs. If Florida could increase the efficiency of state aviation programs by 5%, it could potentially realize first year cost savings of $270,000.
•Establish a coordinating council for aviation managers. As an alternative to consolidating some or all aircraft operations, the Legislature could establish an interagency council under the oversight of one agency to coordinate aircraft management for the state. Potential lead agencies include the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Department of Law Enforcement, and the Department of Transportation.
•Direct agencies to consolidate the sites of contact centers with multiple locations. Under this option, a contact center with more than one location would merge operations and staff into fewer facilities.
•Direct state agencies to consolidate all the contact centers in their agencies and build an associated website to support or duplicate content provided on the telephone. Under this option, each agency would have a single point of contact with the public. The agency contact center could house staff in single or multiple locations as required.
•Direct state agencies to consolidate all state government contact center locations with similar functions. In addition, direct the agencies to develop an associated website to support or duplicate content provided on the telephone. For example, agencies could consolidate all contact centers that provide information and referral services. Under this option, the contact center could house staff in single or multiple locations as required.
•Direct state agencies to consolidate all state government contact centers into a single state contact center. Information technology associated with the contact center would be centralized as well. The Legislature could designate an entity with enterprise-wide authority to coordinate this effort. Under this option, the MyFlorida.com website would have to link to contact center websites or would require content upgrades. Depending on the size of the staff required, this contact center could operate in single or multiple locations.
•Direct an entity with enterprise wide authority, to coordinate the procurement or development of a hosted contact center service (a portal) and require state agency participation. Under this option, all technology for the contact centers would be centralized. This could be a stand-alone option so that existing state agency contact center locations and personnel levels remain the same or could be used in conjunction with any of the other options presented above.
Shorten the value adjustment board process.
•Implement a date certain by which counties must complete the value adjustment board process each year. This option would require a statutory change.
•Limit the number of for cause reschedules to two. This option would require an administrative rule change by the Department of Revenue.
•Eliminate the 25-day notice when a hearing is rescheduled. This option would require an administrative rule change by the Department of Revenue.
Address board costs and other fiscal implications through the following options that would require a statutory change.
•Modify the current filing fee structure to increase the fee cap to between $25 and $50.
•Allow partial certification of the tax rolls.
•Require property owners to pay a portion of their taxes when filing a petition, or no later than March 31. Such a "good faith payment" is consistent with current Florida law for property owners filing with the circuit court. In addition, other states (Georgia, Maine) require property owners to pay a portion of their taxes when they file an appeal.
Increase accountability in the board process through the following options that would require a statutory change.
•Implement a regional process under the oversight of the district courts of appeal, with the court clerk responsible for hiring the board attorney and special magistrates.
•Alternatively, assign the Division of Administrative Hearings oversight of the process.
Back to Main Recommendations Report page
Need this report in an alternative format?
111 West Madison Street, Room 312 | Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1475 | 850-488-0021 | Email: oppaga@oppaga.fl.gov