Why TAB – Why Now?

County taxes and spending have been a concern for a number of groups and individuals over the years. Many have taken action and tried to slow the growth of spending, pointing out that it was dishonest and irresponsible to take advantage of inflated real estate valuations and homestead caps to run up double digit increases year after year. On balance, these efforts went nowhere. Those who benefit from county spending, whether they are richly funded special interests with something to gain, or loosely organized “user communities” of taxpayer funded programs, have pretty much controlled the agenda. No one who attempted to speak for the taxpayer has gained much traction.

In the most recent past though, conditions have begun to change. In four years, four county commissioners have been arrested and punished. An ethics commission and an office of Inspector General has been established. The community has begun to take notice of what happens in county government, just as they have awakened to the serious challenges we face from the unchecked growth of the federal government.

We are at a tipping point – almost half of Americans don’t pay income tax, but receive benefits from the other half who do. Government employees at all levels receive much higher salaries and benefits than those doing similar work in the private sector, and they are almost totally immune to layoffs when the economy turns sour for the rest of us. This is a trend that will not end well.

There is something in the air – something afoot. People are taking an interest, going to meetings, getting involved in political campaigns. There is a feeling that we are on a precipice and that if we don’t move quickly we will be swept into the void, that the country, the communities in which we live, are about to be irrecoverably changed. And some of us are resisting.

The tea party movement, which is a generic term, encompassing many different groups, large and small, has raised the banner of fiscal responsibilty, smaller government, and free markets. At the local level, we believe that this energy can be directed at righting the ship – at raising the awareness that something is wrong, and convincing the elected leaders of the community that the time has come when we must look at things differently.

It is against this backdrop that TAB has formed to try yet again to get some traction on county spending that has grown much faster than the local economy. The real estate bubble raised valuations so high that the temptation to follow them with government spending was irresistable, though foolish in hindsight.

This is a starting point. We are well aware of the budget issues that exist with the School Board, the Children’s Services Council, the Health Care District, the myriad other taxing authorities that for years have had a free hand. They are all on the TAB radar. For now though, we must focus on the budget under the control of the County Commission.

It must be emphasized that we are concerned with SPENDING, not taxes, fees, transfers, grants, or other sources on the revenue side. It is excessive SPENDING that is the problem – SPENDING within our means – solve that and the revenue side will take care of itself.

Our approach has 4 components:

  • QUESTION – assumptions, staff, program recipients, other jurisdictions
  • PUBLISH – our findings, analysis, speculation, conclusions
  • ENGAGE – staffs, commission, constitutionals
  • SUPPORT – provide cover and support for leaders who share our goals

WE WANT TO BE AN INDEPENDENT RESOURCE FOR LEADERS WILLING TO CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO

WILL YOU JOIN US?

August 19, 2010 | Filed Under News | Leave a Comment 

TAB Proposal Summary – A Work in Progress

TAB is working towards a proposal for specific cuts to the 2011 budget as well as broader measures in future years. The county Property Appraiser is projecting a further decline in property values of 6% or so next year and a somewhat smaller decline after that. We are also being artificially propped up by large amounts of federal stimulus (ARRA) spending, which will end shortly. The time has come to reverse all the years of double digit spending increases and better match the size of local government to the needs and resources of the community.

This page is a current look at the specific cuts we propose – both from the “green” and “blue” pages prepared by staff, and from ideas picked up as we make the rounds of the county and constitutional offices.

This page is a work in progress and will be updated regularly until we have a proposal package following the 9/2 public meeting.

Blue/Green Cuts

Note see the post “An Analysis of the County Budget Proposal – Part 1” for details on the Green/Blue pages.

Rollback tax revenue $612,486,522
Green cuts ($22,531,056)
Blue-1 (TAB version) ($7,996,340)
Blue-2 (TAB version) ($22,579,819)
Sheriff’s Challenge ($3,000,000)
Resulting Revenue $556,379,307
Equivalent Millage 4.381

Other Ideas

  • Resist restoring Drug Farm, Eagle Academy, Park Police w/o equal PBSO cut
  • Move water and SWA collections to Tax Collector ($?)
  • Adopt Clerk suggestions for HR:
    • Implement county-wide paperless payroll ($200K)
    • Eliminate comp time for exempt staff ($600K)
    • Eliminate Golden Palm awards ($177K)
    • Eliminate or reduce Tuition Reimbursement ($350K)
    • Eliminate incentive leave awards ($50K)
    • Eliminate 4 day work week for exempt staff
  • Eliminate car allowance for BCC staff ($250K/year)
  • Stop PBSO take-home cruisers for out-of-county residence
  • Adopt zero-based budgeting process
  • Fire/Rescue choice – forgo 2011 raise or take furlough or staff reduction
  • Separate Fire and EMS / take bids to outsource
  • Eliminate COPS program in gated communities or where need is unjustified

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this page incorrectly attributed some cost saving ideas to the Clerk’s office. This has been corrected, and TAB regrets any misunderstanding.

August 18, 2010 | Filed Under News | Leave a Comment 

An Analysis of the County Budget Proposal – I

TAB has a goal for this budget year to see the millage unchanged at 4.344. Since the staff proposals (green/blue pages) have been “vetted” and impact analysis performed, we have analysed those line items with an eye towards what would be reasonable and acceptable. As the green page reductions are achieved mostly through elimination of unfilled positions, they would seem to be a clear target. The blue pages (after some line items that would have strong public support are restored) are also acceptable and we believe would have little observable effect by MOST of the public. Therefore, TAB recommends the adoption of spending cuts totalling $56M as defined below, and the related elimination of 268 positions (2% of the county workforce) that could be accomplished through attrition. This does not quite achieve the flat millage, but we are continuing to seek the remaining $5M.

Introduction

The county budget is often analysed from the perspective of the “rollback rate”. This is the millage that would generate the same ad-valorem revenue as the previous budget year, given the current year’s estimate of property valuations. It is useful only in that whatever becomes the actual millage for that year can be compared to the “rollback rate” to see at a glance if the tax burden is growing or shrinking. It says nothing about the spending levels at all though, as other sources of revenue (eg. fees) offset spending across departments, and the budget can be actually growing while the tax burden (ad valorem) is shrinking. By the way – that is actually what is occuring this year – the budget appears to be growing.

It is difficult to see this clearly, because much of the budget documents focus on the ad-valorem numbers, and department level rollups in the documents don’t always match the top line figures because of the real-time nature of the process. That said, the July 6, 2010 workshop document shows the following county rollup on page A-17: (Click HERE to view the document.)

Grand Total BCC Departments/Agencies, Judicial and Constitutional Officers
2010 2011 Change %
Revenues 1,061,922,162 1,170,404,859 108,482,697 10.2%
Appropriations 1,981,557,651 2,037,313,337 55,755,686 2.8%
Net Ad Valorem Requirement 919,635,489 866,908,478 (52,727,011) (5.7%)
Positions 11,389 11,284 (105) (0.9%)

TAB will attempt to look at spending in real terms, including such things as grants and particularly this year – the ARRA stimulus funds that the county received. (ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Our share of ARRA funds is in the vicinity of $110M and it has quite an effect on the budget (as you may expect). For this article though, we will analyse the budget using the information provided in the workshop documents and stick to the Ad Valorem measurements.

The Budget Proposal

As of the last budget meeting, at which time the maximum millage was set at 4.75 for county-wide taxes, the rollback rate was 4.8223, producing county-wide taxes of $612,486,522. Simple arithmetic tells us that this assumes a property valuation of about $127B. Therefore, a millage of 4.75 implies a reduction in ad-valorem equivalent from last year of $9.2M. To achieve the TAB goal of keeping the millage unchanged (4.334) would require a reduction of
$60.7M (coincidently – that is only $5M more than the budget was expected to GROW this year). So how would we get there?

County staff prepared a series of proposals for budget cuts, known by their colors – the “green” and “blue” pages. The green pages are relatively easy to apply – most savings can be had without cutting occupied positions or adversely affecting services delivery. They account for $22.5M in cuts.

The “blue” pages are harder, and are split into “level 1” ($10.4M and the elimination of 91 occupied positions), and “level 2” ($25.7M and 241 positions). Blue page cuts will result in some reduction of county services, some visible and needed.

Again, if we take up our calculator, we see that the sum of all these cuts is $58.6M – pretty close to what we need to keep the millage flat. Since the Sheriff has already been asked for another $3M, just to achieve the 4.75 millage – if that were to happen we would be over the top and have reached our goal. All without needing to look at capital projects or the details of the PBSO internals, or by trading up into the aggregate millage by seeking reductions in Fire / Rescue. Wow – how about that?

So what’s wrong with this picture?

The sticking point is that the “blue” pages require an actual reduction in staff – not just the cutting of “unfilled positions”. Real people will lose their jobs and have to enter the job market at a bad time for the economy. Of course that challenge is faced every day by businesses who can’t just maintain their staffing by raising taxes. Also, cutting staff means delivering fewer services. Some would say that the $400M that was trimmed from the budget over the last few years was not really noticed by anyone. Would this be noticed? Let’s analyse the green and blue pages by line item and see what is being proposed, and judge for ourselves if these are indeed “critical functions” that are part of the core mission of county government, or just some things that are not essential.

So let’s go through the staff proposals by area, and consider the effect of the cuts.

The Green Pages

The $22.5M spending reductions listed in the “Green Pages” are almost completely achieved by eliminating unfilled positions. Where an impact is noted, it would be because some growth in service level was anticipated in the area, or an attempt was being made to reduce workload on current staff. By definition, if the the positions are unfilled, then it is not likely that a service impact will be felt at current service levels. TAB recommends adoption of ALL Green Page proposals.

Department/Program Description Savings Positions TAB Analysis
Financially Assisted Agencies Reduce 5%, Eliminate funding for Culture Council $1.6M 0 Not essential services.
Office of Community Revitalization Reduce street light maintenance $131,232 0 No impact
Community Services Adjustments with grant funded projects $1,231,950 4 Not essential or absorbed.
Cooperative Extension Service Eliminate unfilled positions $207,432 0 No impact – positions were unfilled
Criminal Justice Commission Reduce ad-valorem portion of staffing $514,261 4 Redundant or not essential services.
Economic Development Reduce scale of programs $309,105 0 Questionable value – what are the metrics?
Engineering Eliminate unfilled positions $2,853,280 0 No impact – positions were unfilled.
Environmental Resources Management Reduce program scale $1,692,707 0 Work slowdown – positions were unfilled
Facilities Development and Ops Eliminate unfilled positions, some procedure changes $1,073,778 2 Minor or no service level impact.
Financial Management and Budget Eliminate unfilled positions $99,936 0 No impact – positions were unfilled.
Human Resources Eliminate unfilled positions $166,548 0 No impact – positions were unfilled.
Information Systems Eliminate unfilled positions $2,772,681 0 No impact – positions were unfilled.
Judicial Various efficiencies $1,446,985 0 Little or no impact
Legislative Affairs Eliminate unfilled position $58,961 0 No impact – position was unfilled.
Palm Tran Change in fees and eligibility $3,075,000 0 Not essential service.
Parks and Recreation Eliminate unfilled positions $2,688,895 0 None – postitions were unfilled.
Planning, Zoning, Building Eliminate unfilled positions $907,472 0 No impact – positions were unfilled.
Public Affairs Eliminate unfilled positions $387,068 1 No impact – positions were unfilled or moved.
Public Safety Eliminate unfilled positions and juggle workload $1,174,404 2 Little impact – positions were unfilled or can be handled elsewhere.
Risk Management Eliminate unfilled positions $121,824 0 None – duties absorbed.
Small Business Assistance Reduce mission. $21,533 0 Not essential service.
GRAND TOTAL – GREEN PAGES $22,531,056 13

The Blue Pages – Level 1

The level 1 blue pages contain $10M in spending reductions that require staff reduction of filled positions.
With the exception of the Parks & Recreation line item that would result in the closing of pools, parks and nature centers, most of the effect would be to spread work around or ask remaining staff to pick up the load – perhaps with longer delays for service, but in no way is public safety, gross customer satisfaction, or critical mission requirements compromised. In most cases, the reductions are not in what TAB would consider core county missions. TAB recommends adoption of all blue level 1 cuts (except those noted) for a reduction of $8M and 53 positions.

Department/Program Description Savings Positions TAB Analysis
Financially Assisted Agencies Reduce 5%, Eliminate funding for Culture Council $1.6M 0 Not essential servcies
Financially Assisted Agencies Reduce additional 5% over green pages $569,000 0 Not essential services
Community Services Reduce veteran’s service 25% $48,204 1 Redundant or not essential services
Facilities Development and Ops Eliminate 1 auto tech and reduce window washing $101,000 1 Slight increase in time to repair – ACCEPTABLE
Information Systems Reduce staff by 5 positions (<3% of department) $526,000 5 Spread workload – ACCEPTABLE
Office of Community Revitalization Sweep funds $1,150,551 2 No current impact – ACCEPTABLE
Office of Equal Opportunity 25% cut without violating mandates $60,000 1 Reduces scope – ACCEPTABLE
Palm Tran Raise Fees $2,650,000 0 Higher fees and lower subsidy – ACCEPTABLE
Parks and Recreation Reduce staff and close facilities, defer maintenance, reduce public relations $3,937,581 53 TAB believes the beachs, pools, and nature centers are widely utilized by the public and should be kept open. Some ancillary
and seasonal cuts are acceptable. TAB recommends restoring $2,426,000 and 38 positions from this line item.
Planning, Zoning, Building Reduce planning functions to mandated levels $218,560 3 Planning function only – ACCEPTABLE
Public Affairs Consolidate office services, reduce coverage of channel 20. $400,000 13 With major meetings still on channel 20, other cuts are ACCEPTABLE
Public Safety Reduce hours in animal control, reassign work, reduce staff $605,819 11 Reduction is 3% of Public safety area – ACCEPTABLE
Small Business Assistance Eliminate 1 specialist $155,625 1 14% staff cut to non-essential service – ACCEPTABLE
GRAND TOTAL – BLUE PAGES LEVEL 1 $10,422,340 91 With TAB Restores: $7,996,340 and 53 positions.

The Blue Pages – Level 2

The level 2 blue pages contain cuts that are more visible and significant than the level 1 cuts. That said, most of them are in areas that we do not consider “core county mission” and are acceptable spending reductions, except as noted. Cutting maintenance for traffic signal loops or curtailing mosquito control would seem to be silly, and closing the parks and pools is not acceptable to most residents. Therefore, TAB recommends adopting these cuts except where noted, for a total of $23M and 215 positions.

Department/Program Description Savings Positions TAB Analysis
Financially Assisted Agencies Reduce another 5% $540,000 0 Not essential services – agencies that receive FAA funds have other sources and can adjust their service delivery appropriately.
Community Services Reduction of county overmatch on grant programs $4,398,000 14 These programs appear to get funding from grants and county contribution is not essential – ACCEPTABLE
County Commission Decrease Commission Support Staff 0 0 A 33% cut in commissioner staff with no claimed savings would seem to be not helpful.
Engineering Eliminate funding for signal loop maintenance $285,000 0 Would seem to be unwise. KEEP
Environmental Resources Management Cutbacks in Mosquito Control $200,000 2 Would seem to be unwise. KEEP
Facilities Development and Ops Eliminate various postions (3%) and outsource Electronic Security Services $1,018,648 35 Phase in outsourcing (50%) and keep receptionist. Restore $377990 and 16 positions.
Information Systems Eliminate 9 positions (~5% of IT) $1,192,000 9 5% can be absorbed in any IT organization by increasing exempt overtime.
Palm Tran Eliminate unfilled positions, change fees $2,863,225 2 Fixed route Sunday service positions were unfilled. Other service cuts would need to be evaluated in larger context but they seem ACCEPTABLE.
Parks and Recreation Further cuts that would result in closing of many visible facilities and programs and deferring maintenance. $11,572,331 126 As with the Parks and recreation cuts in level 1, TAB supports restoring the visible facilities that are open to all county residents. Of the 15 line items in this section, we would maintain funding for items 1 (rangers), 2 (nature centers), and 5 (pools), for a total of $2,217,073 and 24 positions.
Planning, Zoning, Building Reduce code enforcement budget by 25% $795,072 11 Staff cuts will result in delays but not ommission of enforcement functions – ACCEPTABLE
Public Safety Elimination of some ancillary services (youth affairs, victim services) and reduction in hours of animal control $2,522,400 40 Core functions remain operational and programs that are not “essential services” are curtailed – ACCEPTABLE
Small Business Assistance Further staff cuts to SBA resulting in about half current level. $275,000 2 Providing assistance to small business, while helpful to those using it, is not a essential to county government – ACCEPTABLE
GRAND TOTAL – BLUE PAGES LEVEL 2 $25,659,882 241 With TAB restores, $22,579,819 and 215 positions.

Summary

So, based on an analysis of the county staff proposed cuts, we believe that a serious reduction in county spending is possible, without drastically curtailing county services that the majority of the public has come to expect. Taking into account the cuts we would restore, TAB sees one possible scenario as follows:

Rollback tax revenue $612,486,522
Green cuts ($22,531,056)
Blue-1 (TAB version) ($7,996,340)
Blue-2 (TAB version) ($22,579,819)
Sheriff’s Challenge ($3,000,000)
Resulting Revenue $556,379,307
Equivalent Millage 4.381

So, we are close but not quite at flat millage. In part 2, we will examine where else we can find cuts.

August 15, 2010 | Filed Under Featured, News | 2 Comments 

Where does the $56M Budget Increase Go?

Did you know that the County budget is growing by $56M this year? Most of the attention has been on the ad-valorem amount (property taxes) decreasing, but the $107M in federal stimulus money is flooding the system (in the first quarter alone: CLICK HERE), causing the county to hire new staff and grow the overall appropriations by $56M. What happens to our budget when the stimulus ends??

First, here’s the budget at a glance:

Grand Total BCC Departments/Agencies, Judicial and Constitutional Officers
2010 2011 Change %
Revenues 1,061,922,162 1,170,404,859 108,482,697 10.2%
Appropriations 1,981,557,651 2,037,313,337 55,755,686 2.8%
Net Ad Valorem Requirement 919,635,489 866,908,478 (52,727,011) (5.7%)
Positions 11,389 11,284 (105) (0.9%)

Now look at where much of the growth is occurring: (source is 7/6/2010 workshop package)

2011 Increase % Explanation
Community Services +$2M +2.4% Head Start ARRA Expansion grant – Net +11 positions
Environmental Resource Mgt +$8M +16% ??
Housing and Comm. Development +$48M +61% $58M “Neighborhood stabilization grant” – net +8 positions
Palm Tran +$10M +8.5% increase in federal grants
Econonmic Development +$9M +42.8% Block grants
Fire Rescue +$14M +4% increase in compensation – salary and pension from union contract
Tourist Development +$3M +7.5% how spent?
Water Utilities +$7M +6.3% “uncontrollable operating costs” and new services
+$101M

It should be noted that some consider the federal stimulus funds as “free money” – that is, if we didn’t get it someone else would. There is truth to that given the current management of the federal government. On a local level, a prudent use of these dollars would be to smooth over the budget shortfall until economic conditions improve. Instead, (possibly because of the rules surrounding the grants), the funds are being used to grow the county budget, even adding staff in some areas that will have to be paid out of local dollars when the stimulus ends. Is that the right thing to do?

August 15, 2010 | Filed Under Featured, News | Leave a Comment 

Notice of Public Meeting

August 4, 2010 | Filed Under News | Leave a Comment 

County Commission Should Follow Delray’s Lead (NOT)

NOTE: This post was based on projections as reported by the Sun Sentinel on 7/31. On 8/3, Delray Beach decided to (probably) raise taxes after all and set the millage rate to 7.41 – a 3% increase. TAB formally withdraws its kudos from Delray Beach and will look elsewhere for examples of responsible government. CLICK HERE for the story.

Our Board of County Commissioners and Administrator Weisman, with their sliver of a 1.5% budget cut should look to the South for an example of how responsible stewards of the public trust behave.

The Delray Beach City Commission, facing a $7M budget shortfall, has decided to cut spending rather than raising the millage rate. Now granted, their $98M budget is pocket change to the BCC, but the size of their revenue shortfall is similar on a percentage basis.

“It’s going to be a tough process,” Commissioner Fetzer said. “The simplest thing for the commission is to increase the tax rate, but I just don’t think that’s going to work anymore.”

Seeking out ideas from employees and the financial review board, City Manager David Harden is being creative in seeking cuts. Here are some of the things they are pursuing:

  • Furloughs equivalent to a 4.6% salary reduction with no layoffs.
  • Cutting staff at fire stations
  • Eliminating the city’s contribution to the retirement trust.
  • using interest earned from construction bonds to pay the city’s debt service
  • Charging employees a $65 fee to participate in the take-home car program.

Where is the creativity at the county level???

For full details, see the story in the Sun Sentinel HERE

August 2, 2010 | Filed Under Examples, News | Leave a Comment 

TAB Plan, Projects, and Timeline

TAB was formed to find ways to reduce county spending. Notice that we are not trying to “reduce the millage rate”, or even “reduce taxes”. The complexity of county revenue sources and the various adjustments to property tax bills such as the homestead exemption and appraisal caps make tax comparison a game of “who wins, who loses”. Millage, likewise, is more a game of trends and estimates in property appraisal. To really get a handle on the affordability of the county spending it must be compared to an objective measure of economic activity, population, inflation, or some other external yardstick. That sort of measure could then be used to see how we stack up against other Florida counties, or government entities around the country.

Palm Beach is a “rich” county. Our per capita income is high for the state and for the country. This should imply that we could spend more per capita, and have a richer infrastructure and nicer amenities, parks, and facilities than the average, but it does not mean that county spending per capita can continue to increase without negative economic consequences to both consumers and businesses.

From a high level, the county budget has parts that are contracting in line with revenue and others that appear have grown without restraint – PBSO and Fire/Rescue for example. Both are complicated by absorption of municipal areas over the survey period, and capital projects for needed service enablement. Most of the growth though, appears to be in the area of employee compensation, driven by union contracts. This is a problem shared by governments at all levels and in all parts of the country. At its core, it is a failure of leadership by elected officials and it is not fair to blame the unions or the employees for requesting and winning a compensation package that is ultimately unaffordable. Just as failures of leadership from the executives of the Detroit auto companies led to federal bailouts, bad negotiating by county (and state and local) officials are leading us towards unpleasant consequences. Public employees deserve good pay and benefits, but it must be in line with the private sector where the wealth is created and which ultimately pays the bills. This is an area for long term focus by TAB.

A look at the chart prepared by Property Appraiser Gary Nikolits indicates that PBSO is the largest component of the county budget and has been growing much faster than the parts controlled by Administrator Weisman (which is shrinking, although modestly so). About $15M in cuts have been proposed by the Sheriff, mainly by cutting 3 entire programs. These are the Eagle Academy, the Drug Farm, and the Parks Police. We will look at these in another article and consider how they fit in the scheme of things. Beyond that it is difficult to analyse the PBSO budget as it is not published with the rest of the county. TAB has submitted a records request with PBSO for the “budget package” and have been assigned a tracking number, but as of yesterday, the Records Division could not say when it would be available.

Short term, TAB wants to see the millage unchanged at 4.344 versus the proposed 4.75 maximum. This would require another $52M in cuts (which is about 8.4% of ad valorem revenue, or about 1.3% of the overall county budget of $4B). Fire/Rescue, which has its own millage rate, is proposing no change for 2011, but it does plan to spend down reserves, so we will be looking at their spending as well.

TAB Timeline

With the next County Commission meeting on the budget set for September 14, we have established a schedule that will produce some solid proposals against our short term goals by that time. The timeline includes a September 2 public meeting, tentatively to be held in the Lantana branch of the County Library system when we will roll out the proposal. Commissioners, staff, and Constitutional Officers will be invited to this meeting. To meet this objective we have divided the TAB team up into work groups to delve into the following areas:

  • Core County Mission (ie. “What business are we in?”)
  • Capital Projects and the Debt Process
  • PBSO Budget
  • Fire / Rescue
  • Government Structure

In the coming days, we will be organizing this website to display interim findings in these areas. We welcome comments and assistance. If you would like to work with us on these projects, or would like to propose additional areas of focus, please contact us at info@pbctab.org

July 28, 2010 | Filed Under Featured, News | Leave a Comment 

Related News

Local Media

Other Areas

July 22, 2010 | Filed Under Examples, News | Leave a Comment 

County Adminstrator Cancels Budget Workshop

July 22, 2010

During the BCC meeting on 7/20, Commissioners Vana and Aaronson requested a budget workshop to be held on 8/31, to include the constitutional officers (such as the Sheriff) in a discussion of cross-organization efficiency. The public was to be invited, specifically TAB.

Today, after a good-faith effort on the part of Administrator Wiseman to set up the meeting, it was announced that the workshop has been canceled. For various reasons, the constitutionals could not (or declined to) participate. Each had a different reason and/or comment:

  • Sheriff Bradshaw “.. cannot attend and he indicated that he did not think it was appropriate to send a substitute“.
  • Supervisor of Elections Bucher was willing to attend but because of the proximity to the primary election, may be busy if there are recounts.
  • Tax Collector Gannon, while willing to participate, suggested that the Commissioners visit her facility first and discuss if she could not assume some of the county’s programs and do them more efficiently. She also noted: “I do not want to meet in the Chambers. If we are to look at this from a team or partnership approach frankly I don’t think the Chambers is conducive to creating that atmosphere“.
  • Clerk and Comptroller Bock said that her office is already very efficient and thought the Commissioners should visit her facility before “before setting a date to discuss “potential organizational efficiencies”“.
  • Property Appraiser Nikolits, whose budget is less than 5% of PBSO, thought there was no point to the meeting unless the Sheriff agreed to participate. He went on to say: “Aside from the Sheriff, I have not heard any complaints about the budgets of the Constitutional Offices. If his budget is the issue, perhaps the BCC should deal with the problem.“

We at TAB see this reluctance to cooperate as a drawback to the current structure of county government. Regardless of whether this meeting is rescheduled, TAB is considering plans to hold its own workshop with members of the public and any county officers or staff that would like to participate in a citizen’s forum.

The text of the Administrators memo is below:

Administrator Wiseman

From: Robert Weisman
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:55 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Proposed Workshop with Constitutional Officers

We have now received responses from all of the Constitutional Officers that we invited to the proposed workshop on August 31. The responses ranged from timing conflicts that would prevent attendance to suggestions that the format/location be changed to requests that the Commissioners visit offices to view operations, etc.

In light of the preceding, and after discussion with Chairman Aaronson, I am canceling the workshop. We will re-consider timing and format for a future date. Commissioners may wish to individually take up the offers that have been made for visits.

July 22, 2010 | Filed Under News | 5 Comments 

« Previous Page