Budget Talking Point (2)–We Don’t Want a “Cut Rate” Government

It is hard to want a “cut rate government”.

But it is hard to know what we have now, but it is far from “cut rate”.  We have an overpaid and over dimensioned government that can be reduced without serious impact on local services. Most of the critical services are already paid for.

Solid waste pick-up is paid for in the majority through fees.

The police services are paid for. Apparently the police union and employees consider themselves untouchable. Fire protection is paid for and is to be benefited by a new fire fee, it is thought. Indeed we seem to have a luxury fire department since they voluntarily took a salary reduction (assuming that they will have the fire fee to cover their salaries in the future).

Building and Zoning should be paid by the fees they charge; and they have much less to do right now and in the near future. The so-called Development Department has nothing to do because development is at a stand still.

The Finance Department would need to be reorganized and re-staffed at a minimum because they can’t seem to keep track of the City’s funds (hence the mysterious miscalculation of the $10 million reserves used to pay everyday expenses).

The Public Works Department is famously inefficient.

The Planning Department is famously useless.

Senior managers can immediately and easily have their salaries and benefits cut–it is assumed they don’t have that many job options at this time.

The infamous IT Department’s might still be outsourced at a significant saving or subject to a rigorous outside review of efficiency and effectiveness.

This is just a running list of impressions of what needs to be done and still not have a “cut rate government”.

Budget Talking Point (1)–It’s the Economy’s Fault

The City’s budget problems are not the fault of the bad economy (actually the worst recession since the Great Depression). They are the fault of the Commission and the City Manager who thought we would always have good times without regard for the certain coming bad times.

Even a return to “normal” times (no real estate bubble and gradual economic growth) would have triggered a crisis. The City’s budget watershed would have happened soon or later–it just so happens that the economic crash caught the City off guard. What counts is the balance between the taxpayers’ capacity-to-pay and the City’s capacity-to-spend. That balance would have been broken now or later.

Mayor’s Response to My Letter on the Budget Crisis

Without further comment, I reproduce a response from Mayor Don Slesnick to my letter to him and Commissioners. I thank him for the direct response and I think that it summarizes quite nicely his public views on the budget.

…We are taking the pension issue very seriously and have been the first Commission in thirty years to reign in some of the cost items and are planning to do more – but everything must be done (by state law) through collective bargaining with the unions. If you have some specific suggestions it might help. However, please know that we are planning to lay off about 8% of the work force and cut some salaries – and freeze all others. Today, in the FOP impasse hearing, we took further steps to “draw back “on the cost of the pension plan while still trying to maintain the morale and espirit de corps of the department. I do not think that anything we are proposing or considering is unacceptable – we need to keep our city as one of the special places of Florida with first class services and amenities that bring residents and businesses to us (one of the strongest real estate markets in the State – even during bad times). To become a “cut rate” city will not serve you well as the market turns upward. Having said that – I do not believe that we are intending to raise the millage as high as we advertised – we felt it was a smart business move (even if it drew comments like yours) to give ourselves some wiggle room as we delved deeper into the budget challenges and opportunities for the coming year…

One of the Oldest Budget Tricks. Is It Still Being Used?

cggazette.com tells the story about past administrations using funds for unstaffed positions for other purposes.

Under David Brown, practically all departments, especially those headed by his favorites, were brazenly undisciplined, fiscally and administratively. Annual budgets routinely, and perhaps purposely, had over 30 unfilled positions, money which formed a slush fund of sorts. That cash was used by Brown to cork up large fiscal leeks and to pay for such expenses as his junkets, his infamous wining and dining and, on one occasion, a birthday cake for himself.

Part of the so-called positions reductions come from the elimination of unfilled positions. This certainly does not represent a reduction in staff and benefits liabilities.